An International Expert-Based Consensus on the Definition of a Clinical Near-Complete Response After Neoadjuvant (Chemo)radiotherapy for Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: A variety of definitions for a clinical near-complete response after neoadjuvant (chemo) radiotherapy for rectal cancer are currently used. This variety leads to inconsistency in clinical practice, long-term outcome, and trial enrollment. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to reach expert-based consensus on the definition of a clinical near-complete response after (chemo) radiotherapy. DESIGN: A modified Delphi process, including a systematic review, 3 surveys, and 2 meetings, was performed with an international expert panel consisting of 7 surgeons and 4 radiologists. The surveys consisted of individual features, statements, and feature combinations (endoscopy, T2-weighted MRI, and diffusion-weighted MRI). SETTING: The modified Delphi process was performed in an online setting; all 3 surveys were completed online by the expert panel, and both meetings were hosted online. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was to reach consensus (80% or more agreement). RESULTS: The expert panel reached consensus on a 3-tier categorization of the near-complete response category based on the likelihood of the response to evolve into a clinical complete response after a longer waiting interval. The panelists agreed that a near-complete response is a temporary entity only to be used in the first 6 months after (chemo)radiotherapy. Furthermore, consensus was reached that the lymph node status should be considered when deciding on a near-complete response and that biopsies are not always needed when a near-complete response is found. No consensus was reached on whether primary staging characteristics have to be taken into account when deciding on a near-complete response. LIMITATIONS: This 3-tier subcategorization is expert-based; therefore, there is no supporting evidence for this subcategorization. Also, it is unclear whether this subcategorization can be generalized into clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus was reached on the use of a 3-tier categorization of a near-complete response, which can be helpful in daily practice as guidance for treatment and to inform patients with a near-complete response on the likelihood of successful organ preservation. See Video Abstract. UN CONSENSO INTERNACIONAL BASADO EN EXPERTOS ACERCA DE LA DEFINICIN DE UNA RESPUESTA CLNICA CASI COMPLETA DESPUS DE QUIMIORADIOTERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE CONTRA EL CNCER DE RECTO: ANTECEDENTES:Actualmente, se utilizan una variedad de definiciones para una respuesta clínica casi completa después de quimioradioterapia neoadyuvante contra el cáncer de recto. Esta variedad resulta en inconsistencia en la práctica clínica, los resultados a largo plazo y la inscripción en ensayos.OBJETIVO:El objetivo de este estudio fue llegar a un consenso de expertos sobre la definición de una respuesta clínica casi completa después de quimioradioterapia.DISEÑO:Se realizó un proceso Delphi modificado que incluyó una revisión sistemática, 3 encuestas y 2 reuniones con un panel internacional de expertos compuesto por siete cirujanos y 4 radiólogos. Las encuestas consistieron en características individuales, declaraciones y combinaciones de características (endoscopía, T2W-MRI y DWI).AJUSTE:El proceso Delphi modificado se realizó en un entorno en línea; el panel de expertos completó las tres encuestas en línea y ambas reuniones se realizaron en línea.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El resultado principal fue llegar a un consenso (≥80% de acuerdo).RESULTADOS:El panel de expertos llegó a un consenso sobre una categorización de tres niveles de la categoría de respuesta casi completa basada en la probabilidad de que la respuesta evolucione hacia una respuesta clínica completa después de un intervalo de espera más largo. Los panelistas coincidieron en que una respuesta casi completa es una entidad temporal que sólo debe utilizarse en los primeros 6 meses después de la quimioradioterapia. Además, se llegó a un consenso en que se debe considerar el estado de los nódulos linfáticos al decidir sobre una respuesta casi completa y que no siempre se necesitan biopsias cuando se encuentra una respuesta casi completa. No se llegó a un consenso sobre si se deben tener en cuenta las características primarias de estadificación al decidir una respuesta casi completa.LIMITACIONES:Esta subcategorización de 3 niveles está basada en expertos; por lo tanto, no hay evidencia que respalde esta subcategorización. Además, no está claro si esta subcategorización puede generalizarse a la práctica clínica.CONCLUSIONES:Se alcanzó consenso sobre el uso de una categorización de 3 niveles de una respuesta casi completa que puede ser útil en la práctica diaria como guía para el tratamiento y para informar a los pacientes con una respuesta casi completa sobre la probabilidad de una preservación exitosa del órgano. (Traducción - Dr. Aurian Garcia Gonzalez).

Guidance document: risk assessment of patients with cirrhosis prior to elective non-hepatic surgery.

As a result of the increasing incidence of cirrhosis in the UK, more patients with chronic liver disease are being considered for elective non-hepatic surgery. A historical reluctance to offer surgery to such patients stems from general perceptions of poor postoperative outcomes. While this is true for those with decompensated cirrhosis, selected patients with compensated early-stage cirrhosis can have good outcomes after careful risk assessment. Well-recognised risks include those of general anaesthesia, bleeding, infections, impaired wound healing, acute kidney injury and cardiovascular compromise. Intra-abdominal or cardiothoracic surgery are particularly high-risk interventions. Clinical assessment supplemented by blood tests, imaging, liver stiffness measurement, endoscopy and assessment of portal pressure (derived from the hepatic venous pressure gradient) can facilitate risk stratification. Traditional prognostic scoring systems including the Child-Turcotte-Pugh and Model for End-stage Liver Disease are helpful but may overestimate surgical risk. Specific prognostic scores like Mayo Risk Score, VOCAL-Penn and ADOPT-LC can add precision to risk assessment. Measures to mitigate risk include careful management of varices, nutritional optimisation and where possible addressing any ongoing aetiological drivers such as alcohol consumption. The role of portal decompression such as transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting can be considered in selected high-risk patients, but further prospective study of this approach is required. It is of paramount importance that patients are discussed in a multidisciplinary forum, and that patients are carefully counselled about potential risks and benefits.

Utilising an accelerated Delphi process to develop consensus on the requirement and components of a pre-procedural core robotic surgery curriculum.

Robot-assisted surgery (RAS) continues to grow globally. Despite this, in the UK and Ireland, it is estimated that over 70% of surgical trainees across all specialities have no access to robot-assisted surgical training (RAST). This study aimed to provide educational stakeholders guidance on a pre-procedural core robotic surgery curriculum (PPCRC) from the perspective of the end user; the surgical trainee. The study was conducted in four Phases: P1: a steering group was formed to review current literature and summarise the evidence, P2: Pan-Specialty Trainee Panel Virtual Classroom Discussion, P3: Accelerated Delphi Process and P4: Formulation of Recommendations. Forty-three surgeons in training representing all surgical specialties and training levels contributed to the three round Delphi process. Additions to the second- and third-round surveys were formulated based on the answers and comments from previous rounds. Consensus opinion was defined as ≥ 80% agreement. There was 100% response from all three rounds. The resulting formulated guidance showed good internal consistency, with a Cronbach alpha of > 0.8. There was 97.7% agreement that a standardised PPCRC would be advantageous to training and that, independent of speciality, there should be a common approach (95.5% agreement). Consensus was reached in multiple areas: 1. Experience and Exposure, 2. Access and context, 3. Curriculum Components, 4 Target Groups and Delivery, 5. Objective Metrics, Benchmarking and Assessment. Using the Delphi methodology, we achieved multispecialty consensus among trainees to develop and reach content validation for the requirements and components of a PPCRC. This guidance will benefit from further validation following implementation.

Cirrhosis and non-hepatic surgery in 2023 - a precision medicine approach.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with liver disease and portal hypertension frequently require surgery carrying high morbidity and mortality. Accurately estimating surgical risk remains challenging despite improved medical and surgical management. AREAS COVERED: This review aims to outline a comprehensive approach to preoperative assessment, appraise methods used to predict surgical risk, and provide an up-to-date overview of outcomes for patients with cirrhosis undergoing non-hepatic surgery. EXPERT OPINION: Robust preoperative, individually tailored, and precise risk assessment can reduce peri- and postoperative complications in patients with cirrhosis. Established prognostic scores aid stratification, providing an estimation of postoperative mortality, albeit with limitations. VOCAL-Penn Risk Score may provide greater precision than established liver severity scores. Amelioration of portal hypertension in advance of surgery may be considered, with prospective data demonstrating hepatic venous pressure gradient as a promising surrogate marker of postoperative outcomes. Morbidity and mortality vary between types of surgery with further studies required in patients with more advanced liver disease. Patient-specific considerations and practicing precision medicine may allow for improved postoperative outcomes.

The current status of robotic colorectal surgery training programmes.

Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) is steadily increasing in popularity with an annual growth in the number of colorectal procedures undertaken robotically. Further upscaling of RACS requires structured and standardised robotic training to safeguard high-quality clinical outcomes. The aims of this systematic review were to assess the structure and assessment metrics of currently established RACS training programmes. A systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines was performed. Searches were performed of the Ovid Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases between 2000 and 27th November 2021 to identify studies reporting on training curricula in RACS. Core components of training programmes and their relevant outcome assessment metrics were extracted. Thirteen studies were identified, with all training programmes designed for the da Vinci platform (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Common elements of multimodal programmes included theoretical knowledge (76.9%), case observation (53.8%), simulation (100%) and proctored training (76.9%). Robotic skills acquisition was assessed primarily during the simulation phase (n = 4, 30.1%) and proctoring phase (n = 10, 76.9%). Performance metrics, consisting of time or assessment scores for VR simulation were only mandated in four (30.1%) studies. Objective assessment following proctored training was variably reported and employed a range of assessment metrics, including direct feedback (n = 3, 23.1%) or video feedback (n = 8, 61.5%). Five (38.4%) training programmes used the Global Assessment Score (GAS) forms. There is a broad consensus on the core multimodal components across current RACS training programmes; however, validated objective assessment is limited and needs to be appropriately standardised to ensure reproducible progression criteria and competency-based metrics are produced to robustly assess progression and competence.

Endoscopy and MRI for restaging early rectal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment.

AIM: Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) has great potential to downstage rectal cancer. Response assessment has been investigated in locally advanced rectal cancer but not in early stage rectal cancer. The aim is to characterize the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopy performed by surgical endoscopists compared to (diffusion-weighted, DWI) MRI only and a multimodal approach combining (DWI-)MRI and endoscopic information both analysed by an abdominal radiologist for response assessment in early rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients treated with neoadjuvant CRT for early distal rectal cancer (cT1-3 N0) followed by transanal endoscopic microsurgery were included. Three separate reassessment groups were analysed for response assessment using endoscopic evaluation alone versus (DWI-)MRI alone versus the combination of endoscopy with (DWI-)MRI with a focus on sensitivity and specificity and analysis using receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: Three cohorts (N = 36, N = 25 and N = 25, respectively) were analysed for response assessment. Of the endoscopy cohort, 16 of the 36 patients had a complete response. Area under the curve was 0.69 (0.66-0.74; pooled sensitivity 55.3%, pooled specificity 80.0%). Agreement for scoring separate endoscopic features was poor to moderate. Of the (DWI-)MRI cohort, 11 of the 25 patients had a complete response. Area under the curve for (DWI-)MRI alone was 0.55 (sensitivity 72.7%, specificity 42.9%). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve improved to 0.68 (sensitivity 90.9%, specificity 75.0%) when (DWI-)MRI was combined with endoscopic information, with 11 out of 25 patients with a complete response. The most accurate response assessment was made by combining endoscopy and (DWI-)MRI with a high negative predictive value (90.9%). CONCLUSION: Good and complete responders after chemoradiation of early stage rectal cancer can be best assessed using a multimodality approach combining endoscopy and (DWI-)MRI.

Quality-of-life outcomes in older patients with early-stage rectal cancer receiving organ-preserving treatment with hypofractionated short-course radiotherapy followed by transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TREC): non-randomised registry of patients unsuitable for total mesorectal excision.

BACKGROUND: Older patients with early-stage rectal cancer are under-represented in clinical trials and, therefore, little high-quality data are available to guide treatment in this patient population. The TREC trial was a randomised, open-label feasibility study conducted at 21 centres across the UK that compared organ preservation through short-course radiotherapy (SCRT; 25 Gy in five fractions) plus transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) with standard total mesorectal excision in adults with stage T1-2 rectal adenocarcinoma (maximum diameter ≤30 mm) and no lymph node involvement or metastasis. TREC incorporated a non-randomised registry offering organ preservation to patients who were considered unsuitable for total mesorectal excision by the local colorectal cancer multidisciplinary team. Organ preservation was achieved in 56 (92%) of 61 non-randomised registry patients with local recurrence-free survival of 91% (95% CI 84-99) at 3 years. Here, we report acute and long-term patient-reported outcomes from this non-randomised registry group. METHODS: Patients considered by the local colorectal cancer multidisciplinary team to be at high risk of complications from total mesorectal excision on the basis of frailty, comorbidities, and older age were included in a non-randomised registry to receive organ-preserving treatment. These patients were invited to complete questionnaires on patient-reported outcomes (the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life [EORTC-QLQ] questionnaire core module [QLQ-C30] and colorectal cancer module [QLQ-CR29], the Colorectal Functional Outcome [COREFO] questionnaire, and EuroQol-5 Dimensions-3 Level [EQ-5D-3L]) at baseline and at months 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 postoperatively. To aid interpretation, data from patients in the non-randomised registry were compared with data from those patients in the TREC trial who had been randomly assigned to organ-preserving therapy, and an additional reference cohort of aged-matched controls from the UK general population. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN14422743, and is closed. FINDINGS: Between July 21, 2011, and July 15, 2015, 88 patients were enrolled onto the TREC study to undergo organ preservation, of whom 27 (31%) were randomly allocated to organ-preserving therapy and 61 (69%) were added to the non-randomised registry for organ-preserving therapy. Non-randomised patients were older than randomised patients (median age 74 years [IQR 67-80] vs 65 years [61-71]). Organ-preserving treatment was well tolerated among patients in the non-randomised registry, with mild worsening of fatigue; quality of life; physical, social, and role functioning; and bowel function 3 months postoperatively compared with baseline values. By 6-12 months, most scores had returned to baseline values, and were indistinguishable from data from the reference cohort. Only mild symptoms of faecal incontinence and urgency, equivalent to less than one episode per week, persisted at 36 months among patients in both groups. INTERPRETATION: The SCRT and TEM organ-preservation approach was well tolerated in older and frailer patients, showed good rates of organ preservation, and was associated with low rates of acute and long-term toxicity, with minimal effects on quality of life and functional status. Our findings support the adoption of this approach for patients considered to be at high risk from radical surgery. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

A Phase II trial of Higher RadiOtherapy Dose In The Eradication of early rectal cancer (APHRODITE): protocol for a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The standard of care for patients with localised rectal cancer is radical surgery, often combined with preoperative neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy. While oncologically effective, this treatment strategy is associated with operative mortality risks, significant morbidity and stoma formation. An alternative approach is chemoradiotherapy to try to achieve a sustained clinical complete response (cCR). This non-surgical management can be attractive, particularly for patients at high risk of surgical complications. Modern radiotherapy techniques allow increased treatment conformality, enabling increased radiation dose to the tumour while reducing dose to normal tissue. The objective of this trial is to assess if radiotherapy dose escalation increases the cCR rate, with acceptable toxicity, for treatment of patients with early rectal cancer unsuitable for radical surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: APHRODITE (A Phase II trial of Higher RadiOtherapy Dose In The Eradication of early rectal cancer) is a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled phase II trial aiming to recruit 104 participants from 10 to 12 UK sites. Participants will be allocated with a 2:1 ratio of intervention:control. The intervention is escalated dose radiotherapy (62 Gy to primary tumour, 50.4 Gy to surrounding mesorectum in 28 fractions) using simultaneous integrated boost. The control arm will receive 50.4 Gy to the primary tumour and surrounding mesorectum. Both arms will use intensity-modulated radiotherapy and daily image guidance, combined with concurrent chemotherapy (capecitabine, 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin or omitted). The primary endpoint is the proportion of participants with cCR at 6 months after start of treatment. Secondary outcomes include early and late toxicities, time to stoma formation, overall survival and patient-reported outcomes (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaires QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29, low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) questionnaire). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial obtained ethical approval from North West Greater Manchester East Research Ethics Committee (reference number 19/NW/0565) and is funded by Yorkshire Cancer Research. The final trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and adhere to International Committee of Medical Journal Editors guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16158514.

Can we Save the rectum by watchful waiting or TransAnal surgery following (chemo)Radiotherapy versus Total mesorectal excision for early REctal Cancer (STAR-TREC)? Protocol for the international, multicentre, rolling phase II/III partially randomized patient preference trial evaluating long-course concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus short-course radiotherapy organ preservation approaches.

AIM: Organ-saving treatment for early-stage rectal cancer can reduce patient-reported side effects compared to standard total mesorectal excision (TME) and preserve quality of life. An optimal strategy for achieving organ preservation and longer-term oncological outcomes are unknown; thus there is a need for high quality trials. METHOD: Can we Save the rectum by watchful waiting or TransAnal surgery following (chemo)Radiotherapy versus Total mesorectal excision for early REctal Cancer (STAR-TREC) is an international three-arm multicentre, partially randomized controlled trial incorporating an external pilot. In phase III, patients with cT1-3b N0 tumours, ≤40 mm in diameter, who prefer organ preservation are randomized 1:1 between mesorectal long-course chemoradiation versus mesorectal short-course radiotherapy, with selective transanal microsurgery. Patients preferring radical surgery receive TME. STAR-TREC aims to recruit 380 patients to organ preservation and 120 to TME surgery. The primary outcome is the rate of organ preservation at 30 months. Secondary clinician-reported outcomes include acute treatment-related toxicity, rate of non-operative management, non-regrowth pelvic tumour control at 36 months, non-regrowth disease-free survival at 36 months and overall survival at 60 months, and patient-reported toxicity, health-related quality of life at baseline, 12 and 24 months. Exploratory biomarker research uses circulating tumour DNA to predict response and relapse. DISCUSSION: STAR-TREC will prospectively evaluate contrasting therapeutic strategies and implement new measures including a smaller mesorectal target volume, two-step response assessment and non-operative management for complete response. The trial will yield important information to guide routine management of patients with early-stage rectal cancer.

International consensus recommendations on key outcome measures for organ preservation after (chemo)radiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer.

Multimodal treatment strategies for patients with rectal cancer are increasingly including the possibility of organ preservation, through nonoperative management or local excision. Organ preservation strategies can enable patients with a complete response or near-complete clinical responses after radiotherapy with or without concomitant chemotherapy to safely avoid the morbidities associated with radical surgery, and thus to maintain anorectal function and quality of life. However, standardization of the key outcome measures of organ preservation strategies is currently lacking; this includes a lack of consensus of the optimal definitions and selection of primary end points according to the trial phase and design; the optimal time points for response assessment; response-based decision-making; follow-up schedules; use of specific anorectal function tests; and quality of life and patient-reported outcomes. Thus, a consensus statement on outcome measures is necessary to ensure consistency and facilitate more accurate comparisons of data from ongoing and future trials. Here, we have convened an international group of experts with extensive experience in the management of patients with rectal cancer, including organ preservation approaches, and used a Delphi process to establish the first international consensus recommendations for key outcome measures of organ preservation, in an attempt to standardize the reporting of data from both trials and routine practice in this emerging area.

Characteristics of Early-Onset vs Late-Onset Colorectal Cancer: A Review.

Importance: The incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer (younger than 50 years) is rising globally, the reasons for which are unclear. It appears to represent a unique disease process with different clinical, pathological, and molecular characteristics compared with late-onset colorectal cancer. Data on oncological outcomes are limited, and sensitivity to conventional neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy regimens appear to be unknown. The purpose of this review is to summarize the available literature on early-onset colorectal cancer. Observations: Within the next decade, it is estimated that 1 in 10 colon cancers and 1 in 4 rectal cancers will be diagnosed in adults younger than 50 years. Potential risk factors include a Westernized diet, obesity, antibiotic usage, and alterations in the gut microbiome. Although genetic predisposition plays a role, most cases are sporadic. The full spectrum of germline and somatic sequence variations implicated remains unknown. Younger patients typically present with descending colonic or rectal cancer, advanced disease stage, and unfavorable histopathological features. Despite being more likely to receive neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy, patients with early-onset disease demonstrate comparable oncological outcomes with their older counterparts. Conclusions and Relevance: The clinicopathological features, underlying molecular profiles, and drivers of early-onset colorectal cancer differ from those of late-onset disease. Standardized, age-specific preventive, screening, diagnostic, and therapeutic strategies are required to optimize outcomes.

Portal decompression with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt prior to nonhepatic surgery: a single-center case series.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cirrhosis increases perioperative and postoperative mortality in nonhepatic surgery. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPSS), by reducing portal pressure, may reduce intraoperative bleeding and postoperative decompensation. We report our experience of prophylactic TIPSS in nonhepatic surgery. METHODS: Patients who underwent prophylactic TIPSS before nonhepatic surgery were identified from database with retrospective data collection via an e-patient record system. Primary outcome was discharged without hepatic decompensation after a planned surgery. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients [age (median, range): 55, 33-76 years, Child's score: 6, 5-9] who underwent prophylactic TIPSS before nonhepatic surgery over a period of 9 years were included. All patients underwent successful TIPSS with a reduction in portal pressure gradient from 21.5 (11-35) to 16 (7-25) mmHg (P < 0.001). Immediate post-TIPSS complications were seen in 7 (33%) patients including hepatic encephalopathy in four. Eighteen patients (86%) underwent planned surgical intervention. Significant postoperative complications included hepatic encephalopathy (3), sepsis (2) and bleed (1). Two patients died postoperatively with multi-organ failure. The primary outcome was achieved in 12 (57%) patients. Post-TIPSS portal pressure gradient was significantly higher in patients with the adverse primary outcome. Over a follow-up period of 11 (1-78) months; 1-, 6- and 12-months' survival was 90, 80 and 76%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic TIPSS is associated with complications in up to one-third of patients, with 57% achieving the primary outcome. Careful patient selection in a multidisciplinary team setting is essential. Multicentre studies are necessary before the universal recommendation of prophylactic TIPSS.

Radical surgery versus organ preservation via short-course radiotherapy followed by transanal endoscopic microsurgery for early-stage rectal cancer (TREC): a randomised, open-label feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Radical surgery via total mesorectal excision might not be the optimal first-line treatment for early-stage rectal cancer. An organ-preserving strategy with selective total mesorectal excision could reduce the adverse effects of treatment without substantially compromising oncological outcomes. We investigated the feasibility of recruiting patients to a randomised trial comparing an organ-preserving strategy with total mesorectal excision. METHODS: TREC was a randomised, open-label feasibility study done at 21 tertiary referral centres in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older with rectal adenocarcinoma, staged T2 or lower, with a maximum diameter of 30 mm or less; patients with lymph node involvement or metastases were excluded. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) by use of a computer-based randomisation service to undergo organ preservation with short-course radiotherapy followed by transanal endoscopic microsurgery after 8-10 weeks, or total mesorectal excision. Where the transanal endoscopic microsurgery specimen showed histopathological features associated with an increased risk of local recurrence, patients were considered for planned early conversion to total mesorectal excision. A non-randomised prospective registry captured patients for whom randomisation was considered inappropriate, because of a strong clinical indication for one treatment group. The primary endpoint was cumulative randomisation at 12, 18, and 24 months. Secondary outcomes evaluated safety, efficacy, and health-related quality of life assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ C30 and CR29 in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN14422743. FINDINGS: Between Feb 22, 2012, and Dec 19, 2014, 55 patients were randomly assigned at 15 sites; 27 to organ preservation and 28 to radical surgery. Cumulatively, 18 patients had been randomly assigned at 12 months, 31 at 18 months, and 39 at 24 months. No patients died within 30 days of initial treatment, but one patient randomly assigned to organ preservation died within 6 months following conversion to total mesorectal excision with anastomotic leakage. Eight (30%) of 27 patients randomly assigned to organ preservation were converted to total mesorectal excision. Serious adverse events were reported in four (15%) of 27 patients randomly assigned to organ preservation versus 11 (39%) of 28 randomly assigned to total mesorectal excision (p=0·04, χ2 test). Serious adverse events associated with organ preservation were most commonly due to rectal bleeding or pain following transanal endoscopic microsurgery (reported in three cases). Radical total mesorectal excision was associated with medical and surgical complications including anastomotic leakage (two patients), kidney injury (two patients), cardiac arrest (one patient), and pneumonia (two patients). Histopathological features that would be considered to be associated with increased risk of tumour recurrence if observed after transanal endoscopic microsurgery alone were present in 16 (59%) of 27 patients randomly assigned to organ preservation, versus 24 (86%) of 28 randomly assigned to total mesorectal excision (p=0·03, χ2 test). Eight (30%) of 27 patients assigned to organ preservation achieved a complete response to radiotherapy. Patients who were randomly assigned to organ preservation showed improvements in patient-reported bowel toxicities and quality of life and function scores in multiple items compared to those who were randomly assigned to total mesorectal excision, which were sustained over 36 months' follow-up. The non-randomised registry comprised 61 patients who underwent organ preservation and seven who underwent radical surgery. Non-randomised patients who underwent organ preservation were older than randomised patients and more likely to have life-limiting comorbidities. Serious adverse events occurred in ten (16%) of 61 non-randomised patients who underwent organ preservation versus one (14%) of seven who underwent total mesorectal excision. 24 (39%) of 61 non-randomised patients who underwent organ preservation had high-risk histopathological features, while 25 (41%) of 61 achieved a complete response. Overall, organ preservation was achieved in 19 (70%) of 27 randomised patients and 56 (92%) of 61 non-randomised patients. INTERPRETATION: Short-course radiotherapy followed by transanal endoscopic microsurgery achieves high levels of organ preservation, with relatively low morbidity and indications of improved quality of life. These data support the use of organ preservation for patients considered unsuitable for primary total mesorectal excision due to the short-term risks associated with this surgery, and support further evaluation of short-course radiotherapy to achieve organ preservation in patients considered fit for total mesorectal excision. Larger randomised studies, such as the ongoing STAR-TREC study, are needed to more precisely determine oncological outcomes following different organ preservation treatment schedules. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Mesorectal radiotherapy for early stage rectal cancer: A novel target volume.

With the introduction of population-based bowel cancer screening, rectal cancer is diagnosed at earlier stages, yet standard treatment still requires the same extensive surgery that is used for more advanced stages. Organ preserving treatment is rapidly developing and is subject of investigation in numerous clinical trials. The STAR-TREC trial is an international, multi-centre randomised trial investigating organ preservation using (chemo)radiotherapy. Patients with small mrT1-3bN0V0M0 tumours are randomized between three arms: standard TME, organ preservation with SCRT or with CRT. In this trial, the clinical target volume has been tailored to the early staged disease of the included patients. This mesorectal irradiation volume includes the mesorectum and pre-sacral lymph nodes at the level of the tumour, two centimetres below and cranially up to the S2-3 interspace level. In contrast to conventional irradiation volumes, the lateral lymph nodes and the nodes along the superior rectal artery are excluded. As a result, the dose to the bowel, bladder, anal sphincter and the neurovascular plexus in the lower pelvis is substantially decreased, especially when combined with modern irradiation techniques, such as dynamic arc therapy. These lower doses are expected to lead to decreasing acute and late toxicity and beneficial functional outcomes. The implementation of this novel target volume will be accompanied by an extensive quality assurance program in the STAR-TREC trial. We describe the rationale behind the novel, mesorectal only radiotherapy treatment used in the STAR-TREC trial specifically tailored for early stage disease, with the goal of organ preservation.

The prevalence of frailty and its association with clinical outcomes in general surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objectives: to investigate the prevalence and impact of frailty for general surgical patients. Research design and methods: we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. Studies published between 1 January 1980 and 31 August 2017 were searched from seven databases. Incidence of clinical outcomes (mortality at Days 30 and 90; readmission at Day 30, surgical complications and length of stay) were estimated by frailty subgroup (not-frail, pre-frail and frail). Results: 2,281 participants from nine observational studies were included, 49.3% (1013/2055) were males. Mean age ranged from 61 to 77 years old. Eight studies provided outcome data and were quality assessed and of fair or good quality, and one study only provided an estimate of prevalence and was not quality assessed. The prevalence estimate ranged between 31.3 and 45.8% for pre-frailty, and 10.4 and 37.0% for frailty. After pooling, Day 30 mortality was 8% (95% CI: 4-12%; I2 = 0%) for frail compared to 1% for non-frail patients (95% CI: 0-2%; I2 = 75%). Due to heterogeneity the Day 90 mortality was not pooled. Readmission rates were lower in the non-frail groups but were not pooled. Complications for the frail patients were 24%, (95% CI: 20-31%; I2 = 92%), pre-frail subgroup 9% (95% CI: 5-14%; I2 = 82%) and non-frail 5% (95% CI: 3-7%; I2 = 70%). The mean length of stay in frail people was 9.6 days (95% CI: 6.2-12.9) and 6.4 days (4.9-7.9) non-frail. Conclusions: frailty is associated with adverse post-operative outcomes in general surgery.

A systematic analysis highlighting deficiencies in reported outcomes for patients with stage IV colorectal cancer undergoing palliative resection of the primary tumour.

BACKGROUND: Management of the primary tumour in the presence of unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is controversial. The role of primary tumour resection (PTR) has been investigated by a number of retrospective cohort studies, with a number on going randomised controlled trials. The aim of this study was to identify the clinical and patient-reported outcomes currently reported in studies that evaluate the role of PTR in mCRC. METHODS: Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE (via OvidSP) (1966-June 2017), EMBASE (via OvidSP) and the Cochrane Library using terms related to colorectal cancer and primary tumour resection. All studies documenting outcomes following palliative PTR were included. Eligible articles were assessed using the Risk of Bias In Non-Randomised Studies of Intervention (ROBINS-I) tool. RESULTS: Of 11,209 studies screened, 59 non-randomised studies reporting outcomes on 331,157 patients were included. Patient characteristics regarding performance status and co-morbidity were recorded in 26 (44.1%) and 17 (28.8%) studies. The chemotherapy regime used was reported in 27 (45.8%) studies. The operative setting and the operative approach was reported in 42 (71%) and 14 (23.7%) studies. Post-operative mortality and morbidity were reported in 33 (55.9%) and 35 (59.3%) studies. Overall survival was reported in 49 (83.1%) studies, with 5 different definitions identified. Quality of life was only reported in 1 (1.7%) study. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates significant heterogeneity in the selection and definition of outcomes reported following PTR in mCRC. There is significant heterogeneity with a significant under-reporting of important outcomes such as treatment related adverse events and patient reported outcomes.

Can we Save the rectum by watchful waiting or TransAnal microsurgery following (chemo) Radiotherapy versus Total mesorectal excision for early REctal Cancer (STAR-TREC study)?: protocol for a multicentre, randomised feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the highly effective standard treatment for rectal cancer but is associated with significant morbidity and may be overtreatment for low-risk cancers. This study is designed to determine the feasibility of international recruitment in a study comparing organ-saving approaches versus standard TME surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: STAR-TREC trial is a multicentre international randomised, three-arm parallel, phase II feasibility study in patients with biopsy-proven adenocarcinoma of the rectum. The trial is coordinated from Birmingham, UK with national hubs in Radboudumc (the Netherlands) and Odense University Hospital Svendborg UMC (Denmark). Patients with rectal cancer, staged by CT and MRI as ≤cT3b (up to 5 mm of extramural spread) N0 M0 can be included. Patients will be randomised to either standard TME surgery (control), organ-saving treatment using long-course concurrent chemoradiation or organ-saving treatment using short-course radiotherapy. For patients treated with an organ-saving strategy, clinical response to (chemo)radiotherapy determines the next treatment step. An active surveillance regime will be performed in the case of a complete clinical regression. In the case of incomplete clinical regression, patients will proceed to local excision using an optimised platform such as transanal endoscopic microsurgery or other transanal techniques (eg, transanal endoscopic operation or transanal minimally invasive surgery). The primary endpoint of this phase II study is to demonstrate sufficient international recruitment in order to sustain a phase III study incorporating pelvic failure as the primary endpoint. Success in phase II is defined as randomisation of at least four cases per month internationally in year 1, rising to at least six cases per month internationally during year 2. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The medical ethical committees of all the participating countries have approved the study protocol. Results of the primary and secondary endpoints will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14240288, 20 October 2016. NCT02945566; Pre-results, October 2016.