Continuous treatment with lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in Asia: subanalysis of the FIRST trial.

The phase 3 FIRST (Frontline Investigation of REVLIMID + Dexamethasone Versus Standard Thalidomide) trial demonstrated that lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) until disease progression (Rd continuous) is an effective treatment option for transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Given genetic differences between Asian and Western populations, this subanalysis of the FIRST trial examined the safety and efficacy of Rd (given continuously or for 18 cycles [Rd18]) and MPT (melphalan, prednisone, thalidomide) in 114 Asian patients from Mainland China, South Korea and Taiwan. Efficacy and safety with Rd continuous in Asian patients were consistent with those in the overall study population. The overall response rates were 77·8% for Rd continuous, 57·5% for MPT and 65·8% for Rd18. The risk of progression or death was reduced by 39% with Rd continuous versus MPT and by 35% with Rd continuous versus Rd18. Rd continuous improved the 3-year survival rate compared with MPT (70·2% vs. 56·4%) and Rd18 (58·1%). Common grade 3/4 adverse events in the Rd continuous and MPT arms were neutropenia (25·0% vs. 43·6%), infection (19·4% vs. 28·2%) and anaemia (19·4% vs. 15·4%), respectively. Thromboembolic event rates were low, and no second primary malignancies were observed. Rd continuous is safe and effective in transplant-ineligible Asian patients with NDMM.

A comparison of the technical and oncologic validity between robot-assisted and conventional open abdominoperineal resection.

PURPOSE: This study was to ascertain whether a robot-assisted (RA) approach to APR might facilitate a cylindrical APR by enabling a deeper pelvic dissection during an abdominal approach, concurrently comparing the feasibility and short-term oncologic outcomes. METHODS: Forty-eight consecutive patients with lower rectal cancer who had undergone curative APR (21 RA vs. 27 open) were prospectively enrolled. The short-term operative outcomes and oncologic feasibility were evaluated and compared. A levator muscle excision was performed concomitantly with the abdominal procedure in the RA group and with the perineal procedure in the open group. RESULTS: No patients in the RA group experienced intraoperative perforation or required conversion to open APR. Overall, a cylindrical APR was performed in 72 % of patients, and subtotal excision of the levator muscle, i.e., either one or both sides of the puborectalis and pubococcygeus muscles, was more likely in the RA group (P = 0.019). A positive CRM was exclusively identified in four open APR patients. The mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was greater in the RA group (20 vs. 16, P = 0.035). There was no difference in perineal morbidity between the two groups (P = 0.445). CONCLUSIONS: The RA approach facilitates an efficient excision in the pelvic region than open APR during the abdominal procedure. The RA approach also demonstrated a trend toward improved oncologic outcomes with equivalent postoperative morbidities than with the open approach.

Open versus robot-assisted sphincter-saving operations in rectal cancer patients: techniques and comparison of outcomes between groups of 100 matched patients.

BACKGROUND: Although open resection using a sphincter-saving operation (SSO) remains the standard of care for rectal cancer, few studies have compared open and robot-assisted (RA) SSOs. This study aimed to compare the operative features, functional outcomes, and oncological validity of open and RA SSO for rectal cancer. METHODS: A total of 200 rectal cancer patients undergoing curative SSO were enrolled prospectively. The open and RA groups (n = 100, respectively) were matched for clinical stage and operation type. RESULTS: The mean operation time was significantly longer in the RA group than in the open group (188 vs. 103 min, P < 0.001), but it was significantly reduced in the latter half of the RA patients compared with that in the first half (164 vs. 214 min, P < 0.001). The mean distal resection margin was significantly longer in the RA than in the open group (2.7 vs. 1.9 cm; P = 0.001), but only one patient in either group had positive circumferential resection margin. Bowel peristalsis returned one day earlier in the RA than in the open group (P < 0.001). Postoperative complication rates and anorectal functional outcomes were comparable between the two groups. The operator's physical discomfort, assessed on a visual analog scale, was significantly lower in the RA than in the open group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: According to this short-term study, the RA SSO showed equivalent oncological safety, functional outcome, and morbidities to open SSO. Although the operation takes longer, the robotic system enables a technically versatile SSO with fine dissection in a limited surgical field.