Node-sparing modified short-course Radiotherapy Combined with CAPOX and Tislelizumab for locally Advanced MSS of Middle and low rectal Cancer (mRCAT): an open-label, single-arm, prospective, multicentre clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by total mesorectal excision is a standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer. Mismatch repair-deficient locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) was highly sensitive to PD-1 blockade. However, most rectal cancers are microsatellite stable (MSS) or mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) subtypes for which PD-1 blockade is ineffective. Radiation can trigger the activation of CD8 + T cells, further enhancing the responses of MSS/pMMR rectal cancer to PD-1 blockade. Radioimmunotherapy offers a promising therapeutic modality for rectal cancer. Progenitor T exhausted cells are abundant in tumour-draining lymph nodes and play an important role in immunotherapy. Conventional irradiation fields include the mesorectum and regional lymph nodes, which might cause considerable damage to T lymphocytes and radiation-induced fibrosis, ultimately leading to a poor response to immunotherapy and rectal fibrosis. This study investigated whether node-sparing modified short-course irradiation combined with chemotherapy and PD-1 blockade could be effective in patients with MSS/ pMMR LARC. METHODS: This was a open-label, single-arm, multicentre, prospective phase II trial. 32 LARC patients with MSS/pMMR will receive node-sparing modified short-course radiotherapy (the irradiated planned target volume only included the primary tumour bed but not the tumour-draining lymph nodes, 25 Gy/5f, 5 Gy/f) followed by CAPOX and tislelizumab. CAPOX and tislelizumab will be started two days after the completion of radiotherapy: oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 intravenous infusion, day 1; capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 oral administration, days 1-14; and tislelizumab 200 mg, intravenous infusion, day 1. There will be four 21-day cycles. TME will be performed at weeks 14-15. We will collect blood, tumour, and lymphoid specimens; perform flow cytometry and in situ multiplexed immunofluorescence detection; and analyse the changes in various lymphocyte subsets. The primary endpoint is the rate of pathological complete response. The organ preservation rate, tumour regression grade, local recurrence rate, disease-free survival, overall survival, adverse effects, and quality of life will also be analysed. DISCUSSION: In our research, node-sparing modified radiotherapy combined with immunotherapy probably increased the responsiveness of immunotherapy for MSS/pMMR rectal cancer patients, reduced the occurrence of postoperative rectal fibrosis, and improved survival and quality of life. This is the first clinical trial to utilize a node-sparing radiation strategy combined with chemotherapy and PD-1 blockade in the neoadjuvant treatment of rectal cancer, which may result in a breakthrough in the treatment of MSS/pMMR rectal cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov . TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05972655. Date of registration: 31 July 2023.

Role of Adjuvant Chemotherapy After Curative Resection in Stage II and III Rectal Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with resected locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and an incomplete total mesorectal excision (TME) have worse oncologic outcomes. The associations between TME grade, adjuvant therapy receipt, and oncologic outcomes have not been well-studied. We aimed to determine the association between adjuvant chemotherapy and oncologic outcomes in patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) or short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) followed by proctectomy and to evaluate this association stratified by TME grade. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed a retrospective multi-institutional cohort of primary LARC patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2018 who received neoadjuvant CRT/SCRT followed by proctectomy. Complete TME was defined as complete mesorectal excision, and noncomplete TME was defined as near-complete or incomplete TME. We used adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression to test the association between adjuvant chemotherapy and mortality or locoregional recurrence (LRR) across groups. RESULTS: We identified 746 eligible patients. On final pathology, 101 (13.5%) had noncomplete and 645 (86.5%) had complete TME. Rates of adjuvant chemotherapy receipt were similar between noncomplete and complete TME groups (70.3% and 69.5%, respectively). Mean follow-up interval was 35 mo. Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with lower risk of mortality (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.19-0.39, P < 0.001); the same association existed when stratifying patients by TME grade. For patients with a complete TME, adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with lower LRR (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01-0.56, P = 0.01). The LRR model for the noncomplete TME group did not converge due to few captured recurrences. CONCLUSIONS: These data show an association between adjuvant chemotherapy and positive outcomes in LARC patients receiving neoadjuvant CRT/SCRT followed by proctectomy.

Association of Surgical Approaches and Outcomes in Total Mesorectal Excision and Margin Status for Rectal Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Despite being a key metric with a significant correlation with the outcomes of patients with rectal cancer, the optimal surgical approach for total mesorectal excision (TME) has not yet been identified. The aim of this study was to assess the association of the surgical approach on the quality of TME and surgical margins and to characterize the surgical and long-term oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing robotic, laparoscopic, and open TME for rectal cancer. METHODS: Patients with primary, nonmetastatic rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent either lower anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection via robotic (Rob), laparoscopic (Lap), or open approaches were selected from the US Rectal Cancer Consortium database (2007-2017). Quasi-Poisson regression analysis with backward selection was used to investigate the relationship between the surgical approach and outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Among the 664 patients included in the study, the distribution of surgical approaches was as follows: 351 (52.9%) underwent TME via the open approach, 159 (23.9%) via the robotic approach, and 154 (23.2%) via the laparoscopic approach. There were no significant differences in baseline demographics among the three cohorts. The laparoscopic cohort had fewer patients with low rectal cancer (<6 cm from the anal verge) than the robotic and open cohorts (Lap 28.6% versus Rob 59.1% versus Open 45.6%, P = 0.015). Patients who underwent Rob and Lap TME had lower intraoperative blood loss compared with the Open approach (Rob 200 mL [Q1, Q3: 100.0, 300.0] versus Lap 150 mL [Q1, Q3: 75.0, 250.0] versus Open 300 mL [Q1, Q3: 150.0, 600.0], P < 0.001). There was no difference in the operative time (Rob 243 min [Q1, Q3: 203.8, 300.2] versus Lap 241 min [Q1, Q3: 186, 336] versus Open 226 min [Q1, Q3: 178, 315.8], P = 0.309) between the three approaches. Postoperative length of stay was shorter with robotic and laparoscopic approach compared to open approach (Rob 5.0 d [Q1, Q3: 4, 8.2] versus Lap 5 d [Q1, Q3: 4, 8] versus Open 7.0 d [Q1, Q3: 5, 9], P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the quality of TME between the robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches (79.2%, 64.9%, and 64.7%, respectively; P = 0.46). The margin positivity rate, a composite of circumferential margin and distal margin, was higher with the robotic and open approaches than with the laparoscopic approach (Rob 8.2% versus Open 6.6% versus Lap 1.9%, P = 0.17), Rob versus Lap (odds ratio 0.21; 95% confidence interval 0.05, 0.83) and Rob versus Open (odds ratio 0.5; 95% confidence interval 0.22, 1.12). There was no difference in long-term survival, including overall survival and recurrence-free survival, between patients who underwent robotic, laparoscopic, or open TME (Figure 1). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing surgery with curative intent for rectal cancer, we did not observe a difference in the quality of TME between the robotic, laparoscopic, or open approaches. Robotic and open TME compared to laparoscopic TME were associated with higher margin positivity rates in our study. This was likely due to the higher percentage of low rectal cancers in the robotic and open cohorts. We also reported no significant differences in overall survival and recurrence-free survival between the aforementioned surgical techniques.

Outcomes of rectal cancer patients who refuse surgery after incomplete clinical response to neoadjuvant therapy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Total mesorectal excision (TME) remains the standard of care for patients with rectal cancer who have an incomplete response to total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT). A minority of patients will refuse curative intent resection. The aim of this study is to examine the outcomes for these patients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of stage 1-3 rectal adenocarcinoma patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy or TNT at a single institution. Patients either underwent TME, watch-and-wait protocol, or if they refused TME, were counseled and watched (RCW). Clinical outcomes and resource utilization were examined in each group. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-one patients (Male 59%) were included with a median surveillance of 43 months. Twenty-nine patients (17%) refused TME and had shortened overall survival (OS). Twelve patients who refused TME converted to a complete clinical response (cCR) on subsequent staging with a prolonged OS. 92% of these patients had a near cCR at initial staging endoscopy. Increased physician visits and testing was utilized in RCW and WW groups. CONCLUSION: A significant portion of patients convert to cCR and have prolonged OS. Lengthening the time to declare cCR may be considered in select patients, such as those with a near cCR at initial endoscopic staging.

Prince and princesses: The current status of robotic surgery in surgical oncology.

Robotic surgery has experienced a dramatic increase in utilization across general surgery over the last two decades, including in surgical oncology. Although urologists and gynecologists were the first to show that this technology could be utilized in cancer surgery, the robot is now a powerful tool in the treatment of gastrointestinal, hepato-pancreatico-biliary, colorectal, endocrine, and soft tissue malignancies. While long-term outcomes are still pending, short-term outcomes have showed promise for this technologic advancement of cancer surgery.

The influence of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy combined with lateral lymph nodes dissection or not on the local recurrence of low to intermediate-stage II/III rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Currently, the treatment options for stage II/III rectal cancer with preoperative lateral lymph nodes (LLN) enlargement are highly controversial between East and West, and the indications for diagnosing suspiciously positive enlarged LLN are inconsistent both nationally and internationally. Oriental scholars (especially Japanese) consider the LLN as a regional disease, they consider that prophylactic lateral lymph nodes dissection (LLND), regardless of whether the LLN is enlarged or not, is considered necessary if the tumor is found beneath the peritoneal reflex and invades the muscle layer. Western scholars regard LLN as distant metastases, recommending neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) in conjunction with total rectal mesenteric resection (TME). In recent years, it has been found that neither of the two standard treatment regimens, East and West, significantly improved local control of tumors in patients with LLN enlargement. In contrast, nCRT combined with LLND significantly lowers the local recurrence (LR) rate. It has also been suggested that combination therapy regimens do not improve patient prognosis but increase treatment-related complications. Therefore, the suitable therapeutic option for rectal cancer with an enlarged LLN needs to be further explored. AIM: Exploring appropriate treatment options for low to intermediate-stage II/III rectal cancer with LLN enlargement, as well as risk variables that may affect the LR in these patients with LLN enlarged. METHODS AND PATIENTS: In this research, we retrospectively analyzed 110 patients with locally advanced mid-low (low boundary of tumor is no more than 10 cm from the anus) rectal cancer who were treated at Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital arranged from 2017.1 to 2020.6. These patients had received nCRT and TME, and their initial rectal nuclear magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed an enlarged LLN (short axis of LLN, SA ≥ 5 mm). Of these, 40 patients underwent LLND, thus, 110 patients were grouped into two groups: nCRT+TME (LLND-, n = 70) and nCRT+TME + LLND (LLND+, n = 40), and their 3 years prognoses were compared. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 49.0 months, the 3-year LR rate of the LLND- group was notably greater than the LLND+ group (22.8% vs. 7.5%, p = 0.04). However, there was no noteworthy difference in the 3-year progression-free survival (PFS, 70.5% vs. 77.5%, p > 0.05) rate or distant metastasis (DM) rate (20.0% vs. 17.5%, p > 0.05). Additionally, the LLND+ group experienced significantly more postoperative complications than the LLND- group (15.0% vs. 4.2%, p = 0.05). Subgroups analysis for the LLND- group revealed that patients with LLN short axis regression (ΔSA) > 35.9% after nCRT had significantly lower 3-year LR rate than patients with ΔSA ≤ 35.9% (9.1% vs. 35.1%, p = 0.01). Patients in the LLND- group with ΔSA > 35.9%, however, had comparable 3-year LR rate and DM rates to those in the LLND+ group. CONCLUSION: LLN is an independent indicator for prognosis among people with low to intermediate-stage II/III malignant rectal tumors. Patients with poor SA regression (ΔSA ≤ 35.9%) after nCRT have a greater risk of positive LLN and a more substantial LR, and nCRT combined with LLND reduced the LR rate significantly, but considerably prolonged operative time, surgical bleeding, and postoperative complications. Patients with better SA regression (ΔSA > 35.9%), however, have a lower possibility of LR and might not need LLN clearance, in these cases, nCRT+TME is advised.

Is survival after transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) worse than that after traditional total mesorectal excision? A retrospective propensity score-adjusted cohort study.

PURPOSE: Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) was developed to provide better vision during resection of the mesorectum. Conflicting results have shown an increase in local recurrence and shorter survival after taTME. This study compared the outcomes of taTME and abdominal (open, laparoscopic, robotic) total mesorectal excision (abTME). METHODS: Patients who underwent taTME or abTME for stages I-III rectal cancer and who received an anastomosis were included. A retrospective analysis of a prospectively conducted database was performed. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and disease-free survival (DFS). Risk factors were adjusted by propensity score matching (PSM). The secondary endpoints were local recurrence rates and combined poor pathological outcomes. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2020, a total of 189 patients underwent taTME, and 119 underwent abTME; patients were followed up for a mean of 54.7 (SD 24.2) and 78.4 (SD 34.8) months, respectively (p < 0.001). The 5-year survival rates after taTME and abTME were not significantly different after PSM: OS: 78.2% vs. 88.6% (p = 0.073), CSS: 87.4% vs. 92.1% (p = 0.359), and DFS: 69.3% vs. 80.9% (p = 0.104), respectively. No difference in the local recurrence rate was observed (taTME, n = 10 (5.3%); abTME, n = 10 (8.4%); p = 0.280). Combined poor pathological outcomes were more frequent after abTME (n = 36, 34.3%) than after taTME (n = 35, 19.6%) (p = 0.006); this difference was nonsignificant according to multivariate analysis (p = 0.404). CONCLUSION: taTME seems to be a good treatment option for patients with rectal cancer and is unlikely to significantly affect local recurrence or survival. However, further investigations concerning the latter are warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT0496910).

Implementing a no-drain policy for extraperitoneal colorectal anastomosis in a real-life setting: analysis of outcomes and surgeons' adherence.

AIM: Recent evidence has questioned the usefulness of anastomotic drain (AD) after low anterior resection (LAR). However, the implementation and adoption of a no-drain policy are still poor. This study aims to assess the clinical outcomes of the implementation of a no-drain policy for rectal cancer surgery into a real-life setting and the adherence of the surgeons to such policy. METHOD: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent elective minimally invasive LAR between January 2015 and December 2019 at two tertiary referral centers. In 2017, both centers implemented a policy aimed at reducing the use of AD. Patients were retrospectively categorized into two groups: the drain policy (DP) group, comprising patients treated before 2017, and the no-drain policy (NDP) group, consisting of patients treated from 2017 onwards. The endpoints were the rate of anastomotic leak (AL) and of related interventions. RESULTS: Among the 272 patients included, 188 (69.1%) were in the NDP group, and 84 (30.9%) were in the DP group. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. AL rate was 11.2% in the NDP group compared to 10.7% in the DP group (p = 1.000), and the AL grade distribution (grade A, 19.1% (4/21) vs 28.6% (2/9); grade B, 28.6% (6/21) vs 11.1% (1/9); grade C, 52.4% (11/21) vs 66.7% (6/9), p = 0.759) did not significantly differ between the groups. All patients with symptomatic AL and AD underwent surgical treatment for the leak, while those with symptomatic AL in the NPD group were managed with surgery (66.7%), endoscopic (19.0%), or percutaneous (14.3%) interventions. Postoperative outcomes were similar between the groups. Three years after implementing the no-drain policy, AD was utilized in only 16.5% of cases, compared to 76.2% at the study's outset. CONCLUSION: The introduction of a no-drain policy received a good adoption rate and did not affect negatively the surgical outcomes.

Transanal total mesorectal excision: short- and long-term results of four certified colorectal cancer centers in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME), a novel approach for treating low rectal cancer, holds promise. However, concerns exist in certain countries about their oncologic safety due to less-than-optimal outcomes on global studies. This research seeks to evaluate the long-term oncologic outcomes focusing on local recurrence rate and overall survival after TaTME surgery in Germany. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study analyzed data from patients who underwent elective TaTME surgery between 2014 and 2021 in four certified colorectal cancer centers in Germany. Primary endpoints were 3-year local recurrence rate and local recurrence-free survival (LRFS). Secondary outcomes encompassed overall survival (OS), operative time, completeness of local tumor resection, lymph node resection, and postoperative complications. RESULTS: A total of 378 patients were analyzed (mean age 61.6 years; 272 males, 72%). After a median follow-up period of 2.5 years, 326 patients with UICC-stages I-III and tumor operability included in survival analyses. Local recurrence was observed in 8 individuals, leading to a 3-year cumulative local recurrence rate of 2.2% and a 3-year LRFS rate of 88.1%. The 3-year OS rate stood at 88.9%. Within 30 days after surgery, anastomotic leakage occurred in 19 cases (5%), whereas a presacral abscess was present in 12 patients (3.2%). CONCLUSION: TaTME proves effective in addressing the anatomical and technical challenges of low rectal surgery and is associated with pleasing short- and long-term results. However, its safe integration into surgical routine necessitates sufficient knowledge and a previously completed training program.

Prediction of postoperative complications following transanal total mesorectal excision in middle and low rectal cancer: development and internal validation of a clinical prediction model.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study is to develop a nomogram for the personalized prediction of postoperative complication risks in patients with middle and low rectal cancer who are undergoing transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME). This tool aims to assist clinicians in early identification of high-risk patients and in addressing preoperative risk factors to enhance surgical safety. METHODS: In this case-control study, 207 patients diagnosed with middle and low rectal cancer and undergoing taTME between February 2018 and November 2023 at The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University were included. Independent risk factors for postoperative complications were analyzed using the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression and multifactorial logistic regression models. A predictive nomogram was constructed using R Studio. RESULTS: Among the 207 patients, 57 (27.5%) experienced postoperative complications. The LASSO and multifactorial logistic regression analyses identified operation time (OR = 1.010, P = 0.007), smoking history (OR = 9.693, P < 0.001), anastomotic technique (OR = 0.260, P = 0.004), and ASA score (OR = 9.077, P = 0.051) as significant predictors. These factors were integrated into the nomogram. The model's accuracy was validated through receiver operating characteristic curves, calibration curves, consistency indices, and decision curve analysis. CONCLUSION: The developed nomogram, incorporating operation time, smoking history, anastomotic technique, and ASA score, effectively forecasts postoperative complication risks in taTME procedures. It is a valuable tool for clinicians to identify patients at heightened risk and initiate timely interventions, ultimately improving patient outcomes.

MRI-defined T3, clear mesorectal fascia mid-low rectal cancer: is neoadjuvant treatment necessary?

AIM: Neoadjuvant treatments (nCRT) are becoming the standard treatment for patients with stage II or III mid-low rectal cancer. Recently, some studies have shown that surgery alone may be sufficient for patients with T3 rectal cancer. This raises the question of whether nCRT is necessary for all patients with T3 rectal cancer. Therefore, this study compared the clinical outcomes of patients with MRI-defined T3, clear MRF mid-low rectal cancer treated with surgery alone (TME group) or nCRT followed by surgery (nCRT + TME group). METHODS: A total of 1509 patients were enrolled in this study. After a 1:1 propensity score matching analysis, 480 patients were included in each group. The primary endpoint was 3-year disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary endpoints included the perioperative outcomes, histopathologic outcomes, and other follow-up outcomes. RESULTS: nCRT had advantages in rates of sphincter-preserving surgery and tumor downstaging, but it was accompanied by a higher rate of enterostomies. At 3 years after surgery, local recurrence occurred in 3.3% of patients in the TME group and in 3.5% of patients in the nCRT + TME group (P = 0.914), the DFS rates were 78.3% in the TME group and 75.3% in the nCRT + TME group (P = 0.188), and the overall survival rates were 90.3% in the TME group and 89.9% in the nCRT + TME group (P = 0.776). CONCLUSIONS: Surgery alone versus nCRT followed by surgery may provide similar long-term oncological outcomes for patients with MRI-defined T3, clear MRF, and mid-low rectal cancer. nCRT may cause overtreatment in some patients.

Long-term restoration of bowel continuity after rectal cancer resection and the influence of surgical technique: A nationwide cross-sectional study.

AIM: Literature on nationwide long-term permanent stoma rates after rectal cancer resection in the minimally invasive era is scarce. The aim of this population-based study was to provide more insight into the permanent stoma rate with interhospital variability (IHV) depending on surgical technique, with pelvic sepsis, unplanned reinterventions and readmissions as secondary outcomes. METHOD: Patients who underwent open or minimally invasive resection of rectal cancer (lower border below the sigmoid take-off) in 67 Dutch centres in 2016 were included in this cross-sectional cohort study. RESULTS: Among 2530 patients, 1470 underwent a restorative resection (58%), 356 a Hartmann's procedure (14%, IHV 0%-42%) and 704 an abdominoperineal resection (28%, IHV 3%-60%). Median follow-up was 51 months. The overall permanent stoma rate at last follow-up was 50% (IHV 13%-79%) and the unintentional permanent stoma rate, permanent stoma after a restorative procedure or an unplanned Hartmann's procedure, was 11% (IHV 0%-29%). A total of 2165 patients (86%) underwent a minimally invasive resection: 1760 conventional (81%), 170 transanal (8%) and 235 robot-assisted (11%). An anastomosis was created in 59%, 80% and 66%, with corresponding unintentional permanent stoma rates of 12%, 24% and 14% (p = 0.001), respectively. When corrected for age, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, cTNM, distance to the anorectal junction and neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy, the minimally invasive technique was not associated with an unintended permanent stoma (p = 0.071) after a restorative procedure. CONCLUSION: A remarkable IHV in the permanent stoma rate after rectal cancer resection was found. No beneficial influence of transanal or robot-assisted laparoscopy on the unintentional permanent stoma rate was found, although this might be caused by the surgical learning curve. A reduction in IHV and improving preoperative counselling for decision-making for restorative procedures are required.

Does complete pathological response increase perioperative morbidity risk in rectal cancer?

AIM: The optimal management of patients with clinical complete response after neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer is controversial. The aim of this study is to compare the morbidity between patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who have had a pathological complete response (pCR) or not after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) and total mesorectal excision (TME). The study hypothesis was that pCR may impact the surgical complication rate. METHOD: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of a prospectively maintained database in Australia and New Zealand, the Binational Colorectal Cancer Audit, that identified patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (<15 cm from anal verge) from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2019. Patients were included if they had locally advanced rectal cancer and had undergone NCRT and proceeded to surgical resection. RESULTS: There were 4584 patients who satisfied the inclusion criteria, 65% being male. The mean age was 63 years and 11% had a pCR (ypT0N0). TME with anastomosis was performed in 67.8% of patients, and the majority of the cohort received long-course radiotherapy (81.7%). Both major and minor complications were higher in the TME without anastomosis group (17.3% vs. 14.7% and 30.6% vs. 20.8%, respectively), and the 30-day mortality was 1.31%. In the TME with anastomosis group, pCR did not contribute to higher rates of surgical complications, but male gender (p < 0.0012), age (p < 0.0001), preoperative N stage (p = 0.0092) and American Society of Anesthesologists (ASA) score ≥3 (p < 0.0002) did. In addition, pCR had no significant effect (p = 0.44) but male gender (p = 0.0047) and interval to surgery (p = 0.015) contributed to higher rates of anastomotic leak. In the TME without anastomosis cohort, the only variable that contributed to higher rates of complications was ASA score ≥3 (p = 0.033). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing TME dissection for rectal cancer following NCRT showed no difference in complications whether they had achieved pCR or not.

Management of acute and chronic pelvic sepsis after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer-a 10-year experience of a national referral centre.

AIM: Uncontrolled pelvic sepsis following rectal cancer surgery may lead to dramatic consequences with significant impact on patients' quality of life. The aim of this retrospective observational study is to evaluate management of pelvic sepsis after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer at a national referral centre. METHOD: Referred patients with acute or chronic pelvic sepsis after sphincter preserving rectal cancer resection, with the year of referral between 2010 and 2014 (A) or between 2015 and 2020 (B), were included. The main outcome was control of pelvic sepsis at the end of follow-up, with healed anastomosis with restored faecal stream (RFS) as co-primary outcome. RESULTS: In total 136 patients were included: 49 in group A and 87 in group B. After a median follow-up of 82 months (interquartile range 35-100) in group A and 42 months (interquartile range 22-60) in group B, control of pelvic sepsis was achieved in all patients who received endoscopic vacuum assisted surgical closure (7/7 and 2/2), in 91% (19/21) and 89% (31/35) of patients who received redo anastomosis (P = 1.000) and in 100% (18/18) and 95% (41/43) of patients who received intersphincteric resection (P = 1.000), respectively. Restorative procedures resulted in a healed anastomosis with RFS in 61% (17/28) of patients in group A and 68% (25/37) of patients in group B (P = 0.567). CONCLUSION: High rates of success can be achieved with surgical salvage of pelvic sepsis in a dedicated tertiary referral centre, without significant differences over time. In well selected and motivated patients a healed anastomosis with RFS can be achieved in the majority.

Completion total mesorectal excision after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and local excision for rectal cancer.

AIM: Local excision (LE) in selected cases after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (RCT) for locally advanced rectal cancer in clinically complete or major responders has been recently reported as an alternative to standard radical resection. Completion total mesorectal excision (cTME) is generally performed when high-risk pathological features are found in LE surgical specimens. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of residual tumour and lymph node metastases after cTME in patients previously treated by RCT + LE. The secondary aims were to quantify the rate of postoperative morbidity and mortality and to evaluate the long-term oncological outcome of this group of patients. METHODS: All patients treated from 2007 to 2020 by LE for locally advanced rectal cancer with a clinically complete or major response to RCT who had a subsequent cTME for high-risk pathological factors (ypT >1 and/or TRG >2 and/or positive margins) were included in this multicentre retrospective study. Pathological data, postoperative short-term morbidity (classified according to Clavien-Dindo) and mortality and oncological long-term outcome after cTME were recorded in a database. Statistical analysis was performed using Wizard for iOS version 1.9.31. RESULTS: A total of 47 patients were included in the study. The rate of R0 resection was 95.7%, and a sphincter-saving procedure was performed in 37 patients (78.7%), with a protective stoma rate of 78.4%. In 28 cases (59.6%), it was possible to perform a minimally invasive approach. A residual tumour (pT and/or pN) on cTME specimens was found in 21 cases (44.7%). The rate of lymph node metastases was 12.8%. The overall short-term (within 30 days) postoperative morbidity was 34%, but grade >2 postoperative complications occurred in only nine patients (19.1%), with a reoperation rate of 6.4%. No short-term postoperative deaths occurred. At a median follow-up of 57 months (range: 21-174), the long-term stoma-free rate was 70.2%, and the actuarial 5-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and local control (LC) were 86.7%, 88.9% and 95.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: When patients exhibit high-risk pathological factors after RCT + LE, cTME should be suggested due to the high risk of residual tumour or lymph node involvement (44.7%). The results after cTME in terms of the rate of R0 resection, sphincter-saving procedure, postoperative morbidity and mortality and long-term oncological outcome seem to be acceptable and do not represent a contraindication to use LE as a first-step treatment in patients with major or complete clinical response after RCT.

Utilizing sentiment analysis of X data to document the evolution of colorectal surgical innovations: The case of transanal total mesorectal excision.

AIM: The evolution of the utility of medical social media and its global reach has led to a much greater speed of dissemination of medical innovation, such as transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME). The acceptability and discussions surrounding such innovations can be followed online. Here, we sought to determine if online discussions over time could match known models of innovation evolution using the example of TaTME since its initial description in 2010. METHODS: Data on using the X hashtag #TaTME were analysed using the social media analytics tool Brandwatch. Trends in mentions, impressions and reach were highlighted over 13 years (1 May 2010 to 31 July 2023). Each mention's sentiment and emotional connotations were analysed using Brandwatch's natural language processing approach. RESULTS: We identified 18 525 mentions of #TaTME by healthcare professionals, reaching over 30.6 million X users. A Gartner's hype-cycle-like pattern was identified for mention volume and emotional connotation over time. The majority of mentions had a neutral (84%; n = 15 341) or positive connotation (15%, n = 2675). A peak of negatively connotated mentions was identified surrounding the temporary suspension of TaTME in 2019. CONCLUSION: This study presents a novel method of monitoring online discussions surrounding new surgical innovations by healthcare professionals based on sentiment analysis of public social media data. Mention volume and emotional connotation were the most accurate parameters closely resembling Gartner's hype cycle.

Colorectal eversion technique combined with modified single-stapled double-purse-string low colorectal anastomosis.

AIM: Total mesorectal excision with adequate free margins is the gold standard for rectal surgery. Applying a linear stapler in a narrow pelvis can be challenging and the proper distal margin difficult to assess. In selected cases the colorectal eversion technique combined with single-stapled double-purse-string anastomosis (SSDP) can be a practical solution. METHOD: Eleven patients, six men and five women, mean body mass index 27 ± 1.3 kg/m2, underwent total mesorectal excision with the colorectal eversion technique combined with modified SSDP between September 2022 and January 2023. RESULTS: The mean operative time was 190 min. The mean hospital stay was 4 days. There were no postoperative complications. The final histology showed complete mesorectal resection, circumferential resection margin negative, free distal resection margin, anastomotic doughnuts negative. At 7 ± 3 months follow-up there was no evidence of local recurrence or distant metastasis. CONCLUSION: The colorectal eversion technique combined with modified SSDP is a reproducible and safe technique in selected patients. Prospective randomized trials with large patient series are needed to confirm our preliminary results.

Permanent stoma rate and long-term stoma complications in laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal total mesorectal excisions: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The surgical resection of rectal carcinoma is associated with a high risk of permanent stoma rate. Primary anastomosis rate is suggested to be higher in robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision, but permanent stoma rate is unknown. METHODS: Patients undergoing total mesorectal excision for MRI-defined rectal cancer between 2015 and 2017 in 11 centers highly experienced in laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal total mesorectal excision were included in this retrospective study. Permanent stoma rate, stoma-related complications, readmissions, and reoperations were registered. A multivariable regression analysis was performed for permanent stoma rate, stoma-related complications, and stoma-related reoperations. RESULTS: In total, 1198 patients were included. Permanent stoma rate after low anterior resection (with anastomosis or with an end colostomy) was 40.1% in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery, 21.3% in patients undergoing robot-assisted surgery, and 25.6% in patients undergoing transanal surgery (P < 0.001). Permanent stoma rate after low anterior resection with an anastomosis was 17.3%, 11.8%, and 15.1%, respectively. The robot-assisted and transanal techniques were independently associated with a reduction in permanent stoma rate in patients who underwent a low anterior resection (with anastomosis or with an end colostomy) (OR 0.39 [95% CI 0.25, 0.59] and OR 0.35 [95% CI 0.22, 0.55]), while this was not seen in patients who underwent a restorative low anterior resection. 45.4% of the patients who had a stoma experienced stoma-related complications, 4.0% were at least once readmitted, and 8.9% underwent at least one reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: The robot-assisted and transanal techniques are associated with a lower permanent stoma rate in patients who underwent a low anterior resection.

Oncologic outcomes following transanal total mesorectal excision: the United States experience.

AIM: The benefits and short-term outcomes of transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) for rectal cancer have been demonstrated previously, but questions remain regarding the oncologic outcomes following this challenging procedure. The purpose of this study was to analyze the oncologic outcomes following taTME at high-volume centers in the USA. METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective observational study of 8 tertiary care centers. All consecutive taTME cases for primary rectal cancer performed between 2011 and 2020 were included. Clinical, histopathologic, and oncologic data were analyzed. Primary endpoints were rate of local recurrence, distal recurrence, 3-year disease recurrence, and 3-year overall survival. Secondary endpoints included perioperative complications and TME specimen quality. RESULTS: A total of 391 patients were included in the study. The median age was 57 years (IQR: 49, 66), 68% of patients were male, and the median BMI was 27.4 (IQR: 24.1, 31.0). TME specimen was complete or near complete in 94.5% of cases and the rates of positive circumferential radial margin and distal resection margin were 2.0% and 0.3%, respectively. Median follow-up time was 30.7 months as calculated using reverse-KM estimator (CI 28.1-33.8) and there were 9 cases (2.5%) of local recurrence not accounting for competing risk. The 3-year estimated rate of disease recurrence was 19% (CI 15-25%) and the 3-year estimated overall survival was 90% (CI 87-94%). CONCLUSION: This large multicenter study confirms the oncologic safety and perioperative benefits of taTME for rectal cancer when performed by experienced surgeons at experienced referral centers.

Functional outcomes and quality of life following open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The standard surgical treatment for rectal cancer is total mesorectal excision (TME), which may negatively affect patients' functional outcomes and quality of life (QoL). However, it is unclear how different TME techniques may impact patients' functional outcomes and QoL. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated functional outcomes of urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning as well as QoL after open, laparoscopic (L-TME), robot-assisted (R-TME), and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME). METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis, based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis statement, were conducted (PROSPERO: CRD42021240851). A literature review was performed (sources: PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases; end-of-search date: September 1, 2023), and a quality assessment was performed using the Methodological index for non-randomized studies. A random-effects model was used to pool the data for the meta-analyses. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included, reporting on 2495 patients (88 open, 1171 L-TME, 995 R-TME, and 241 TaTME). Quantitative analyses comparing L-TME vs. R-TME showed no significant differences regarding urinary and sexual functioning, except for urinary function at three months post-surgery, which favoured R-TME (SMD [CI] -0 .15 [- 0.24 to - 0.06], p = 0.02; n = 401). Qualitative analyses identified most studies did not find significant differences in urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning and QoL between different techniques. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis highlight a significant gap in the literature concerning the evaluation of functional outcomes and QoL after TME for rectal cancer treatment. This study emphasizes the need for high-quality, randomized-controlled, and prospective cohort studies evaluating these outcomes. Based on the limited available evidence, this systematic review and meta-analysis suggests no significant differences in patients' urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning and their QoL across various TME techniques.