Tumor response rates based on initial TNM stage and tumor size in locally advanced rectal cancer: a useful tool for shared decision-making.

BACKGROUND: It is accepted that tumor stage and size can influence response to neoadjuvant therapy in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Studies on organ preservation to date have included a wide variety of size and TNM stage tumors. The aim of this study was to report tumor response based on each relevant TNM stage and tumor size. METHODS: Patients treated with LARC from 2014 to 2021 with cT2-3NxM0 tumors who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with or without induction chemotherapy were included. Tumors were staged and tumor size calculated on pelvic MRI at the time of diagnosis (cTNM). Tumor size was based on the largest dimension taken on the longest axis of each tumor. Clinical response was defined on the basis of post-treatment pelvic MRI and pathological response following surgery, when performed. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics™, version 20. Data from 432 patients were analyzed as follows: cT2N0 (n = 51), cT2N+ (n = 36), cT3N0 (n = 76), cT3N+ (n = 270). RESULTS: The rate of complete or near-complete response (cCR or nCR) varied from 77% in cT2N0 ≤ 3 cm to 20% in cT3N+ > 4 cm. Organ preservation without recurrence at 2 years was achieved in 86% of patients with cT2N0, 50% in cT2N+, 39% in cT3N0, and 12% in cT3N+. CONCLUSION: There is significant variation in tumor response according to tumor stage and size. Tumor response appears inversely proportional to increasing TNM stage and tumor size. This data can support both refinement of selective patient recruitment to organ preservation programs and shared decision-making.

Treatment techniques for rectovaginal fistulas after low rectal resection for deep endometriosis.

Endometriosis is a benign gynecologic affection that may lead to major surgeries, such as colorectal resections. Rectovaginal fistulas (RVF) are among the possible complications. When they occur, it is necessary to adapt the repair surgery as best as possible to limit their functional consequences. This video shows three different techniques for correcting RVF after rectal resection for endometriosis, with a combination of perineal surgery and laparoscopy: a mucosal flap, a transanal transection and single stapled anastomosis (TTSS) and a pull through. Supplementary file1 (MP4 469658 KB).

Low-pressure versus standard pressure laparoscopic colorectal surgery (PAROS trial): a phase III randomized controlled trial.

TRIAL DESIGN: This is a phase III, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. METHODS: In this trial, patients with laparoscopic colectomy were assigned to either low pressure (LP: 7 mmHg) or standard pressure (SP: 12 mmHg) at a ratio of 1 : 1. The aim of this trial was to assess the impact of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic colectomy on postoperative recovery. The primary endpoint was the duration of hospital stay. The main secondary endpoints were postoperative pain, consumption of analgesics and postoperative morbidity. RESULTS: Some 138 patients were enrolled, of whom 11 were excluded and 127 were analysed: 62 with LP and 65 with SP. Duration of hospital stay (3 versus 4 days; P = 0.010), visual analog scale (0.5 versus 2.0; P = 0.008) and analgesic consumption (level II: 73 versus 88 per cent; P = 0.032; level III: 10 versus 23 per cent; P = 0.042) were lower with LP. Morbidity was not significantly different between the two groups (10 versus 17 per cent; P = 0.231). CONCLUSION: Using low-pressure pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic colonic resection improves postoperative recovery, shortening the duration of hospitalization and decreasing postoperative pain and analgesic consumption. This suggests that low pressure should become the standard of care for laparoscopic colectomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03813797.

The aim of this trial was to assess the impact of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic colectomy. The study proved that using low pressure in laparoscopic colonic resection improves postoperative recovery, decreasing length of hospitalization, postoperative pain and analgesic consumption.

Intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: the risk is functional rather than oncological. A 25-year experience from Bordeaux.

AIM: There are few data evaluating the long-term outcomes of intersphincteric resection (ISR), especially the impact of inclusion of more juxtapositioned and intra-anal tumours on oncological and functional outcomes. We compared the oncological and functional results of patients treated by total mesorectal excision and ISR for low rectal cancer over a 25-year period. METHOD: This is a retrospective study from a single institution evaluating results of ISR over three periods: 1990-1998, 1999-2006 and 2007-2014. Patients treated by partial or total ISR, with or without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, for low rectal cancer (≤ 6 cm from the anal verge) were included. We compared postoperative morbidity, quality of surgery and oncological and functional outcomes in the time periods studied. RESULTS: Of 813 patients operated on for low rectal cancer, 303 had ISR. Tumour stage did not differ; however, the distance of the tumour from the anorectal junction decreased from 1 to 0 cm (P < 0.001) and the distal resection margin shortened from 25 to 10 mm (P < 0.001) from 1990 to 2014. The postoperative morbidity and quality of surgery did not change significantly over time. The 5-year local recurrence (4.3% vs 5.9% vs 3.5%; P = 0.741) and disease-free survival (72% vs 71% vs 75%; P = 0.918) did not differ between the three time periods. Functional results improved during the last period; however, overall 42% of patients experienced major bowel dysfunction. CONCLUSION: Pushing the envelope of sphincter-saving resection in ultra-low rectal cancer reaching or invading the anal sphincter did not compromise oncological and functional outcomes. The main limitation of the ISR procedure appears to be functional rather than oncological, suggesting that bowel rehabilitation programmes should be developed.

Delayed coloanal anastomosis: an alternative option for restorative rectal cancer surgery after high-dose pelvic radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

AIM: Restorative total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer after high-dose pelvic radiotherapy for prostate cancer has been reported to provide an unacceptable rate of pelvic sepsis. In a previous publication we proposed that delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) should be performed in this situation. The present study aimed to assess the feasibility and outcomes of this strategy. METHOD: Between 2000 and 2018, 1094 men were operated on for rectal cancer in our institution. All men with T2/T3 mid and low rectal cancer with preoperative radiotherapy and restorative TME were considered for this study (n = 416). Patients with external-beam high-dose radiotherapy (EBHRT) for prostate cancer (70-78 Gy) were identified and compared with patients with conventional long-course chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by TME. We compared our already published historical cohort (2000-2012), including arm A (CRT + TME; n = 236) and arm B (EBHRT + TME; n = 12), with our early cohort (2013-2018), including arm C (CRT + TME; n = 158) and arm D (EBHRT + TME-DCAA; n = 10). The end-points were morbidity, pelvic sepsis, reoperation rate and quality of the specimen. RESULTS: Overall morbidity was not significantly different between groups. Pelvic sepsis decreased from 50% (arm B) to 10% (arm D) with the use of DCAA (P = 0.074), and was similar between arms A, C and D. Quality of the specimen was not significantly different between the four groups. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that TME with DCAA in patients with previous EBHRT is feasible, with the same postoperative pelvic sepsis rate as conventional CRT.

Randomized trial comparing low-pressure versus standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic colectomy: PAROS trial.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy, by its minimally invasive nature, has revolutionized digestive and particularly colorectal surgery by decreasing post-operative pain, morbidity, and length of hospital stay. In this trial, we aim to assess whether low pressure in laparoscopic colonic surgery (7 mm Hg instead of 12 mm Hg) could further reduce pain, analgesic consumption, and morbidity, resulting in a shorter hospital stay. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The PAROS trial is a phase III, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. We aim to recruit 138 patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy. Participants will be randomly assigned to either a low-pressure group (7 mm Hg) or a standard-pressure group (12 mm Hg). The primary outcome will be a comparison of length of hospital stay between the two groups. Secondary outcomes will compare post-operative pain, consumption of analgesics, morbidity within 30 days, technical and oncological quality of the surgical procedure, time to passage of flatus and stool, and ambulation. All adverse events will be recorded. Analysis will be performed on an intention-to-treat basis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This research received the approval from the Committee for the Protection of Persons and was the subject of information to the ANSM. This search is saved in the ID-RCB database under registration number 2018-A03028-47. This research is retrospectively registered January 23, 2019, at http://clinicaltrials.gov/ed under the name "LaPAroscopic Low pRessure cOlorectal Surgery (PAROS)". This trial is ongoing.