Organ sparing to cure stage IV rectal cancer: A case report and review of literature.

BACKGROUND: Rectal sparing is an option for some rectal cancers with complete or good response after chemoradiotherapy (CRT); however, it has never been evaluated in patients with metastases. We assessed long-term outcomes of a rectal-sparing approach in a liver-first strategy for patients with rectal cancer with resectable liver metastases. CASE SUMMARY: We examined patients who underwent an organ-sparing approach for rectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases using a liver-first strategy during 2010-2015 (n = 8). Patients received primary chemotherapy and pelvic CRT. Liver surgery was performed during the interval between CRT completion and rectal tumor re-evaluation. Clinical and oncological characteristics and long-term outcomes were assessed.All patients underwent liver metastatic resection with curative intent. The R0 rate was 100%. Six and two patients underwent local excision and a watch-and-wait (WW) approach, respectively. All patients had T3N1 tumors at diagnosis and had good clinical response after CRT. The median survival time was 60 (range, 14-127) mo. Three patients were disease free for 5, 8, and 10 years after the procedure. Five patients developed metastatic recurrence in the liver (n = 5) and/or lungs (n = 2). Only one patient developed local recurrence concurrent with metastatic recurrence 24 mo after the WW approach. Two patients died during follow-up. CONCLUSION: The results suggest good local control in patients undergoing organ-sparing strategies for rectal cancer with synchronous liver metastasis. Prospective trials are required to validate these data and identify good candidates for these strategies.

Piecemeal Resection for Large Colorectal Adenomas Remains Essential in 2022: A Single-Center Experience in a Tertiary French Center.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colorectal lesions measuring greater than 20 mm are unsuitable for en bloc endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR): piecemeal EMR (PM-EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are needed. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) recommends ESD only for microinfiltrative lesions, although Japanese teams perform en bloc ESD for all lesions. We report the outcomes obtained in our endoscopy unit for these lesions and assess the hybrid "knife-assisted piecemeal EMR" (KAPM-EMR) technique. The main aim was to assess the short-term outcomes (C1). The secondary objectives were to evaluate the long-term results (C2), adverse event rate and management of recurrence. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from patients treated by PM-EMR, KAPM-EMR and ESD for a colorectal lesion measuring greater than 20 millimeters using prospective inclusion over four years. RESULTS: Data from 167 patients (median age: 70) with a median follow-up of 15.1 months were analyzed after excluding 95 patients. A total of 131 lesions were removed by PM-EMR, 24 by KAPM-EMR and 12 by ESD; 146/167 (87.4%) patients were considered in remission at C1. Recurrence was treated by endoscopy in 20/21 patients (95%); 86/89 (96.6%) were in remission at C2. A total of 16/167 patients developed adverse events, all of whom except one were endoscopically managed. KAPM-EMR was associated with a higher perforation risk (p=0.037). No differences in postoperative bleeding were found among the three groups (p=0.576). CONCLUSIONS: Piecemeal resection remains an effective and safe technique for large colorectal adenomas. KAPM-EMR may be useful but should be applied with caution due to the risk of perforation.

Intracorporeal Anastomosis and ERAS Program: The Winning Combination of Optimized Postoperative Outcomes After Laparoscopic Right Colectomy.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic technique and the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol have become the standard of care in patients undergoing right colon cancer surgery, reducing hospital stay and postoperative morbidity. However, the optimal anastomosis technique [intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA) or extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA)] remains debated. This study aimed to determine the optimal perioperative approach (ICA vs. ECA combined with the ERAS program vs. standard care) for patients undergoing laparoscopic right colectomy for cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single-center, retrospective study evaluated all consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for cancer between January 2012 and June 2021. Patient data were analyzed in 4 treatment groups according to the type of anastomosis and the care protocol. The primary endpoint was total postoperative hospital stay (THS). The secondary endpoints were recovery time and overall morbidity rate. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics of the 373 included patients were comparable between the 4 groups. THS was significantly shorter in the ICA/ERAS group than in the ECA/standard and ICA/standard groups ( P <0.01), but there was no significant difference between the ICA/ERAS and ECA/ERAS groups (5.7 vs. 6.4 d; P =0.17). Recovery time was significantly shorter in the ICA/ERAS group ( P <0.01). The overall morbidity rate, including anastomotic morbidity, was comparable among the 4 groups. Regression analysis showed that ICA and the ERAS program were both predictive factors to reduce the THS and recovery time. CONCLUSIONS: ICA combined with the ERAS program achieves the best outcomes and thus seems to be the optimal approach for the management of patients undergoing laparoscopic right colectomy for cancer.

An optimised liver-first strategy for synchronous metastatic rectal cancer leads to higher protocol completion and lower surgical morbidity.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal management of rectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases remains debatable. Thus, we propose an optimised liver-first (OLF) strategy that combines concomitant pelvic irradiation with hepatic management. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and oncological quality of the OLF strategy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients underwent systemic neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by preoperative radiotherapy. Liver resection was performed in one step (between radiotherapy and rectal surgery) or in two steps (before and after radiotherapy). The data were collected prospectively and analysed retrospectively as intent to treat. RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2018, 24 patients underwent the OLF strategy. The rate of treatment completion was 87.5%. Three patients (12.5%) did not proceed to the planned second-stage liver and rectal surgery because of progressive disease. The postoperative mortality rate was 0%, and the overall morbidity rates after liver and rectal surgeries were 21% and 28.6%, respectively. Only two patients developed severe complications. Liver and rectal complete resection was performed in 100% and 84.6%, respectively. A rectal-sparing strategy was performed in 6 patients who underwent local excision (n = 4) or a watch and wait strategy (n = 2). Among patients who completed treatment, the median overall and disease-free survivals were 60 months (range 12-139 months) and 40 months (range 10-139 months), respectively. Eleven patients (47.6%) developed recurrence, among whom five underwent further treatment with curative intent. CONCLUSION: The OLF approach is feasible, relevant, and safe. Organ preservation was feasible for a quarter of patients and may be associated with reduced morbidity.

Supine bottom-up extralevator abdominoperineal excision for anorectal adenocarcinoma is not inferior to standard approach and may be thus safely performed.

BACKGROUND: Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (APE) for rectal carcinoma has been described in order to improve pathological and oncological results compared to standard APE. To obtain the same oncological advantages as extralevator APE, we have previously described a new procedure starting by a perineal approach: the supine bottom-up APE. Our objective is to compare oncological and surgical outcomes between the supine bottom-up APE and the standard APE. METHODS: All patients with low rectal adenocarcinoma requiring APE were retrospectively included and divided into 2 groups: supine bottom-up APE (Group A) and standard APE (Group B). RESULTS: From 2008 to 2016, 61 patients were divided into Groups A (n = 30) and B (n = 31). Postoperative outcomes and median length of stay were similar between groups. Patients from Group A had a significantly longer distal margin (30 [8-120] vs. 20 [1.5-60] mm, p = 0.04) and higher number of harvested lymph nodes (14.5 [0-33] vs. 11 [5-25], p = 0.03) than those from Group B. Circumferential resection margin involvement was similar between groups (28 vs. 22%, p = 0.6), whereas tumors from Group A were significantly larger and more frequently classified as T4 than those from Group B. Operative time was significantly shorter in Group A (437.5 [285-655] minutes) than in Group B (537.5 [361-721] minutes, p = 0.0009). At the end of follow-up, local recurrence occurred in 7 and 16% of patients from Groups A and B (p = 0.68). Three-year overall and disease-free survival rates were similar between groups (87 vs. 90%, p = 0.62 and 61 vs. 63%, p = 0.88, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that supine bottom-up APE doesn't impair surgical outcomes, pathological results, overall and disease-free survivals in comparison with standard APE. This new procedure may be thus safely performed and decrease the operative time. Further randomized multicentric studies are required to confirm these results.

Nomogram to predict disease recurrence in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer undergoing rectal surgery after neoadjuvant therapy: retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Prognostic models can be used for predicting survival outcomes and guiding patient management. TNM staging alone is insufficient for predicting recurrence after chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer. This study aimed to develop a nomogram to better predict cancer recurrence after CRT followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) and tailor postoperative management and follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2002 and 2019, data were retrospectively collected on patients with rectal adenocarcinoma. Data on sex, age, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level, tumour location, induction chemotherapy, adjuvant chemotherapy, tumour downsizing, perineural invasion, lymphovascular invasion, pathological stage, resection margins (R0 versus R1), and pelvic septic complications were analysed. The variables significantly associated with cancer recurrence were used to build a nomogram that was validated in both the training and validation cohorts. Model performance was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic curve and area under the curve (AUC) analyses. RESULTS: After applying exclusion criteria, 634 patients with rectal adenocarcinoma were included in this study. Eight factors (CEA level, adjuvant chemotherapy, tumour downsizing, perineural invasion, lymphovascular invasion, pathological stage, resection margins (R0 versus R1), and pelvic septic complications) were identified as nomogram variables. Our nomogram showed good performance with an AUC of 0.74 and 0.75 in the training and validation cohorts respectively. CONCLUSION: Our nomogram is a simple tool for predicting cancer recurrence in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT followed by TME. It provides an individual risk prediction of recurrence to tailor surveillance.

Case-Matched Comparison of Functional and Quality of Life Outcomes of Local Excision and Total Mesorectal Excision Following Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by radical surgery is the standard curative treatment for mid- to low-rectal cancer. However, the combination of these treatments may affect patients' GI and genitourinary functions and their quality of life. In the cases of good clinical response to neoadjuvant treatment, local excision is a rectal sparing strategy that would limit these side effects. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare the effects of local excision or conventional laparoscopic total mesorectal excision after chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer. DESIGN: The design is a retrospective study. SETTING: The setting used is a single tertiary center. PATIENTS: Patients with mid- to low-rectal cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy and accessible via conservative surgery at our hospital between January 2010 and December 2018 were included. Patients undergoing local excision were matched 1 to 1 with the patients undergoing total mesorectal excision by age, sex, body mass index, tumor height, and year of surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality of life and digestive and genitourinary functions were measured using validated questionnaires. The socioeconomic impact was also assessed. RESULTS: Forty-four patients undergoing local excision agreed to participate and were matched with 44 patients undergoing total mesorectal excision. Patients who underwent local excision reported a more favorable global health status ( p < 0.01), emotional function ( p = 0.035), social function ( p = 0.04), and body image ( p = 0.04). The low anterior resection syndrome score (rate of major syndrome, 23.8% vs 54.5%; p < 0.01) and the specific fecal incontinence subscale score ( p < 0.01) were more favorable in the local excision group. Sexual and urinary outcomes were comparable between the 2 groups. Local excision had a lower impact on the professional status (35.7% vs 76.5%; p = 0.03). LIMITATIONS: The study limitations include its retrospective design and small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: When indicated, local excision improves the bowel function and quality of life of patients undergoing surgery for rectal cancer after chemoradiotherapy compared with total mesorectal excision. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B997 . COMPARACIN DE CASOS EMPAREJADOS DE LOS RESULTADOS FUNCIONALES Y DE CALIDAD DE VIDA DE LA ESCISIN LOCAL Y LA ESCISIN TOTAL DE MESORECTO DESPUS DE QUIMIORRADIOTERAPIA EN CNCER DE RECTO: ANTECEDENTES:La quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante seguida de cirugía radical es el tratamiento curativo estándar para el cáncer de recto medio-bajo. Sin embargo, la combinación de estos tratamientos puede afectar las funciones gastrointestinales y genitourinarias de los pacientes y su calidad de vida. En casos de buena respuesta clínica al tratamiento neoadyuvante, la escisión local es una estrategia conservadora del recto que limitaría estos efectos secundarios.OBJETIVO:Este estudio comparó los efectos de la escisión local o escisión total de mesorecto laparoscópica convencional después de quimiorradioterapia en pacientes con cáncer de recto.DISEÑO:Estudio retrospectivo.ENTORNO CLINICO:Centro terciario único.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes con cáncer de recto medio-bajo tratados con quimiorradioterapia y accesibles mediante cirugía conservadora en nuestro hospital entre enero del 2010 y diciembre del 2018. Los pacientes sometidos a escisión local se emparejaron uno a uno con los sometidos a escisión total de mesorecto por edad, sexo, índice de masa corporal, altura del tumor y año de cirugía.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:La calidad de vida, las funciones digestivas y genitourinarias se midieron mediante cuestionarios validados. También se evaluó el impacto socioeconómico.RESULTADOS:Cuarenta y cuatro pacientes sometidos a escisión local aceptaron participar y fueron emparejados con 44 pacientes sometidos a escisión mesorrectal total. Los pacientes que se sometieron a escisión local informaron un estado de salud global más favorable ( p <0,01), función emocional ( p = 0,035), función social ( p = 0,04) e imagen corporal ( p = 0,04). La puntuación baja del síndrome de resección anterior (tasa de síndrome mayor: 23,8 % frente a 54,5 %; p <0,01) y la puntuación de la subescala de incontinencia fecal específica ( p <0,01) fueron más favorables en el grupo de escisión local. Los resultados sexuales y urinarios fueron comparables entre los dos grupos. La escisión local tuvo un menor impacto en el estatus profesional (35,7% vs 76,5%; p = 0,03).LIMITACIONES:Diseño retrospectivo, tamaño de muestra pequeño.CONCLUSIONES:Cuando está indicada, la escisión local mejora la función intestinal y la calidad de vida de los pacientes sometidos a cirugía por cáncer de recto después de quimiorradioterapia en comparación con escisión total de mesorecto. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B997 . (Traducción-Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon ).

Impact of fast-track care program in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a cohort-comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Fast-track care programs after surgery improve recovery and decrease the length of hospital stay and postoperative morbidity in colonic cancer. However, the true impact of these programs on morbidity rates after rectal cancer surgery remains unclear. We aimed to assess the feasibility and impact of the fast-track program on postoperative outcomes after restorative laparoscopic rectal cancer resection and temporary loop ileostomy. METHODS: This single-center observational study assessed data of patients undergoing elective rectal cancer surgery during a defined period before (standard group) and after the introduction of a fast-track program (fast-track group) from a prospectively maintained database. The primary endpoint was postoperative 90-day morbidity. Secondary endpoints were 30-day morbidity, fast-track program compliance, length of hospital stay, and readmission rate. RESULTS: Overall, 336 patients (n = 176, standard group; n = 160, fast-track group) were assessed; there was no significant between-group difference in the patients' baseline characteristics (age, sex, body mass index, comorbidities, or neoadjuvant treatment). The protocol compliance rate was 91.4% in the fast-track group. The 90-day morbidity and mean total length of hospital stay were significantly lower in the fast-track group than in the standard group (34% vs 49%, respectively, p < 0.01 and 8.96 days vs 10.2 days, p < 0.01, respectively). There was no difference in readmission rates. Multivariate analysis revealed the fast-track program to be the only predictive factor of postoperative morbidity. CONCLUSION: Fast-track programs can be safely implemented following rectal cancer surgery to reduce the overall morbidity rate and length of hospital stay without adversely increasing the readmission rate.

Transhiatal esophagectomy as a treatment for locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction: postoperative and oncologic results of a single-center cohort THE for locally advanced GEJC.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To report the postoperative and oncological outcomes of transhiatal esophagectomy for locally advanced cancer of the gastroesophageal junction. METHODS: Medical records of 120 consecutive patients who underwent transhiatal esophagectomy for locally advanced cancer of the gastroesophageal junction with curative intent after neoadjuvant treatment between February 2006 and December 2018 at our center were reviewed. RESULTS: All patients received either chemotherapy (46.7%) or chemoradiation (53.3%). The 90-day mortality and overall morbidity rates were 0.8% and 56.7%, respectively. Respiratory complications were the most common (30.8%). Anastomotic leakage occurred in 19 patients (15.8%), who were treated by local wound care (n = 13) or surgical drainage (n = 6). Recurrent laryngeal nerve injury occurred in 12 patients (9.9%). The median length of hospital stay was 15.5 days. The rate of R0 resection was 95.8%, and the median number of nodes removed was 17.5. Over a median follow-up of 77 months, the rate of recurrence was 40.8%, and the overall survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 91%, 75%, and 65%, respectively. The median survival time was not reached. In multivariate analysis, disease stage was the only independent significant prognostic factor. CONCLUSIONS: Transhiatal esophagectomy is a safe and effective procedure with good long-term oncological outcomes for locally advanced tumors after neo-adjuvant treatment. It can be recommended for all patients with cancer of the gastroesophageal junction, regardless of the Siewert classification, tumor stage, and comorbidities.

Is it safe to perform an anastomosis for rectal cancer after prostate cancer? A multicentre study of 126 patients from the GRECCAR group.

AIM: To determine the safety of performing an anastomosis after rectal cancer (RC) resection in patients with a previously treated prostate cancer (PC). METHODS: Patients with a previously treated PC who underwent rectal resection from 2008 to 2018 were retrospectively included. Outcomes were compared between patients who underwent rectal resection with anastomosis (restorative surgery, RS+ group) and those with a definitive stoma (RS- group). In the RS+ group, anastomotic leak (AL) rates were assessed according to the type of reconstruction. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients underwent rectal surgery for mid-low RC after a previous PC treated by radiotherapy (RT) and/or radical prostatectomy. Overall, 80 patients (63%) underwent a RS and 46 patients (37%) underwent rectal surgery with a definitive stoma. There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of intraoperative data, except for the type of resection with more multivisceral resection in the RS- group (p < 0.01). In the RS+group, a diverting stoma was performed in 74% of cases. No difference between the two groups in terms of overall morbidity was found. In the RS+group (n = 80), 17 patients (21%) experienced AL. Of these, none was observed when delayed coloanal anastomosis was performed (p = 0.16). Long-term permanent stoma in the RS+ group was 16% (n = 13). CONCLUSION: Restorative surgery after resection for RC in patients with a previous history of RT and/or radical prostatectomy for PC is safe without additional morbidity. In selected patients for restorative surgery, performing delayed coloanal anastomosis may represent a promising option.

What Is the Optimal Elective Colectomy for Splenic Flexure Cancer: End of the Debate? A Multicenter Study From the GRECCAR Group With a Propensity Score Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal elective colectomy in patients with splenic flexure tumor is debated. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare splenic flexure colectomy, left hemicolectomy, and subtotal colectomy for perioperative, histological, and survival outcomes in this setting. DESIGN: This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Patients diagnosed with nonmetastatic splenic flexure tumor who underwent elective colectomy were included. PATIENTS: Between 2006 and 2014, 313 consecutive patients were operated on in 15 French Research Group of Rectal Cancer Surgery centers. INTERVENTIONS: Propensity score weighting was performed to compare short- and long-term outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was disease-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, quality of surgical resection, overall postoperative morbidity, surgical postoperative morbidity, and rate of anastomotic leakage. RESULTS: The most performed surgery was splenic flexure colectomy (59%), followed by subtotal colectomy (23%) and left hemicolectomy (18%). Subtotal colectomy was more often performed by laparotomy compared with splenic flexure colectomy and left hemicolectomy (93% vs 61% vs 56%, p < 0.0001), and was associated with a longer operative time (260 minutes (120-460) vs 180 minutes (68-440) vs 217 minutes (149-480), p < 0.0001). Postoperative morbidity was similar between the 3 groups, but the median length of hospital stay was significantly longer after subtotal colectomy (13 days (5-56) vs 10 (4-175) vs 9 (4-55), p = 0.0007). The median number of harvested lymph nodes was significantly higher after subtotal colectomy compared with splenic flexure colectomy and left hemicolectomy (24 (8-90) vs 15 (1-81) vs 16 (3-52), p < 0.0001). The rate of stage III disease and the number of patients treated by adjuvant chemotherapy were similar between the 3 groups. There was no difference in terms of disease-free survival and overall survival between the 3 procedures. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS: In the elective setting, splenic flexure colectomy is safe and oncologically adequate for patients with nonmetastatic splenic flexure tumor. However, given the oncological clearance after splenic flexure colectomy, it seems that the debate is not completely closed. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B703. CUL ES LA COLECTOMA ELECTIVA PTIMA PARA EL CNCER DE NGULO ESPLNICO FIN DEL DEBATE UN ESTUDIO MULTICNTRICO DEL GRUPO GRECCAR CON UN ANLISIS DE PUNTAJE DE PROPENSIN: ANTECEDENTES:La colectomía electiva óptima en pacientes con tumores del ángulo esplénico continua en debate.OBJETIVO:Comparar la colectomía de ángulo esplénico, hemicolectomía izquierda y colectomía subtotal para los resultados perioperatorios, histológicos y de supervivencia en este escenario.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo multicéntrico.ESCENARIO:Se incluyeron pacientes diagnosticados de tumores del ángulo esplénico no metastásicos que se sometieron a colectomía electiva.PACIENTES:Entre 2006 y 2014, 313 pacientes consecutivos fueron intervenidos en 15 centros GRECCAR.INTERVENCIONES:Se realizó una ponderación del puntaje de propensión para comparar los resultados a corto y largo plazo.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El criterio de valoración principal fue la supervivencia libre de enfermedad. Los criterios de valoración secundarios incluyeron la supervivencia general, la calidad de la resección quirúrgica, la morbilidad posoperatoria general, la morbilidad posoperatoria quirúrgica y la tasa de fuga anastomótica.RESULTADOS:La cirugía más realizada fue la colectomía del ángulo esplénico (59%), seguida de la colectomía subtotal (23%) y la hemicolectomía izquierda (18%). La colectomía subtotal se realizó con mayor frecuencia mediante laparotomía en comparación con la colectomía de ángulo esplénico y la hemicolectomía izquierda (93% frente a 61% frente a 56%, p <0.0001), y se asoció con un tiempo quirúrgico más prolongado (260 min [120-460] frente a 180 min [68-440] frente a 217 min [149-480], p <0.0001). La morbilidad posoperatoria fue similar entre los tres grupos, pero la duración media de la estancia hospitalaria fue significativamente más prolongada después de la colectomía subtotal (13 días [5-56] frente a 10 [4-175] frente a 9 [4-55], p = 0.0007). La mediana del número de ganglios linfáticos extraídos fue significativamente mayor después de la colectomía subtotal en comparación con la colectomía del ángulo esplénico y la hemicolectomía izquierda (24 [8-90] frente a 15 [1-81] frente a 16 [3-52], p <0.0001). La tasa de enfermedad en estadio III y el número de pacientes tratados con quimioterapia adyuvante fueron similares entre los 3 grupos. No hubo diferencias en términos de supervivencia libre de enfermedad y supervivencia general entre los 3 procedimientos.LIMITACIONES:El estudio estuvo limitado por su diseño retrospectivo.CONCLUSIONES:En un escenario electivo, la colectomía del ángulo esplénico es segura y oncológicamente adecuada para pacientes con tumores del ángulo esplénico no metastásicos. Sin embargo, dado el aclaramiento oncológico tras la colectomía del ángulo esplénico, parece que el debate no está completamente cerrado. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B703.

Ileocecal Valve Sparing Resection for the Treatment of Benign Cecal Polyps Unsuitable for Polypectomy.

BACKGROUND: Not all benign-appearance polyps are amenable to endoscopic removal and colectomy is required in some cases. This study aims to compare the early outcomes of cecal wedge resection with ileocecal valve sparring versus standard right colectomy in patients with endoscopically unresectable cecal polyps referred for surgery. METHODS: From Apr 2010 to Aug 2019, all consecutive patients who underwent cecal wedge resection or right colectomy in ten European centers for a presumed endoscopically benign polyp unsuitable for endoscopic resection were retrospectively analyzed. The primary endpoint was morbidity. Secondary endpoints were operative time and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: One hundred and ten patients were included: 25 patients underwent cecal wedge resection and 85 a right colectomy. There were 56 men (51%) and 90% of the procedures were performed laparoscopically. 29 lesions were located at the appendix orifice (26.4%). Mortality was nil. There were no significant differences between both procedures for morbidity rate (20% versus 24.7%) or reoperation (4% versus 4.7%). Cecal wedge was related to shorter operative time (63 min versus 150 min, P = .008) and shorter hospital stay (5 days versus 6 days, P = .049). Only 1 patient had a salvage right colectomy after cecal wedge for a pTis adenoma. CONCLUSIONS: For benign-appearance cecal polyps unsuitable for endoscopic ablation, cecal wedge resection is safe and should be considered as an attractive alternative to right colectomy.

Is percutaneous destruction of a solitary liver colorectal metastasis as effective as a resection?

BACKGROUNDS/AIMS: Surgical resection remains the gold standard in the treatment of colorectal liver metastasis. However, when a patient presents with a deep solitary colorectal liver metastasis (S-CLM), the balance between the hepatic volume sacrificed and the S-CLM volume is sometimes clearly unappropriated. Thus, alternatives to surgery, such as operative and percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA), have been developed. This study aimed to identify the prognostic factors affecting survival of patients with S-CLM who undergo curative-intent liver resection or local destruction (RFA or MWA). METHODS: We retrospectively identified 211 patients with synchronous or metachronous S-CLM who underwent either surgical resection (n=182) or local destruction (RFA or MWA; n=29) according to the S-CLM size, location, and surrounding Glissonian structures. RESULTS: Patients who underwent RFA or MWA had S-CLM of a smaller size than those who underwent resection (mean 19.7 vs. 37.3 mm, p<.01). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 97.4%, 84.9%, and 74.9%, respectively. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 77.9%, 47%, and 38.9%, respectively. S-CLM located in the left liver (p=.04), S-CLM KRAS mutation (p<.01), and extra-hepatic recurrence (p<.01) were identified as independent poor risk factors for overall survival (OS); the OS and DFS were comparable in patients with surgical procedure or percutaneous MWA. CONCLUSIONS: In eligible S-CLM cases, percutaneous MWA seems to be as oncologically efficient as surgical resection and should be include in the decision-tree for treatment strategies.

Systematic Early Urinary Catheter Removal Integrated in the Full Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Protocol After Laparoscopic Mid to Lower Rectal Cancer Excision: A Feasibility Study.

PURPOSE: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programs advocate early urinary catheter removal after rectal cancer surgery; however, the optimal duration remains unclear. This study assessed the feasibility of the early urinary catheter removal protocol after rectal cancer surgery within an ERAS pathway and identified predictive factors for failure of this strategy. METHODS: Between March 2017 and October 2018, all unselected and consecutive patients who underwent rectal cancer resection and benefited from our ERAS program were included. Urinary complications (infection and retention) were prospectively recorded. Success was defined as catheter removal on postoperative day (POD) 3 without urinary complications. RESULTS: Of 135 patients (male, 63.7%; neoadjuvant chemoradiation, 57.0%; urology history, 17.8%), 120 had early urinary catheter removal with no complications (success rate, 88.9%), 8 did not have urinary catheter removal on POD 3 due to clinical judgment or prescription error, 5 experienced a urinary tract infection, and 2 had acute urinary retention. Obesity (odds ratio [OR], 0.16; P = 0.003), American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification > II (OR, 0.28; P = 0.048), antiaggregant platelet medication (OR, 0.12; P < 0.001), absence of anastomosis (OR, 0.1; P = 0.003), and prolonged operative time (OR, 0.21; P = 0.020) were predictive factors for failure. Conversely, optimal compliance with the ERAS program (OR, 7.68; P < 0.001), postoperative nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use (OR, 21.71; P < 0.001), and balanced intravenous fluid therapy (OR, 7.87; P = 0.001) were associated with increased strategy success. CONCLUSION: Withdrawal of the urinary catheter on POD 3 was successfully achieved after laparoscopic rectal resection and can be safely implemented in the ERAS program.

Preoperative EUS evaluation of the response to neoadjuvant therapy for gastric and esophagogastric junction cancer is correlated with survival: A single retrospective study of 97 patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The European Society for Medical Oncology suggests performing EUS staging for esophagogastric junction and gastric cancers to further assess the T and N stages. The use of EUS after neoadjuvant therapy (NT) is still under debate. We aimed to evaluate the contribution of EUS after NT to staging, therapeutic choices, and prognosis prediction. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In 97 patients with esophagogastric junction and gastric cancers who received NT (chemotherapy or radiochemotherapy) followed by carcinologic surgery, EUS was performed before (uT, uN) and after (yuT, yuN) NT. We compared the results of EUS staging after NT (yuT and yuN) and final histology (ypT and ypN). We analyzed the correlation between overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and the objective and subjective responses to NT evaluated by EUS (comparison of uT and yuT and uN and yuN with OS and DFS). RESULTS: EUS staging detected metastasis that went undetected by computed tomography in 16% of metastatic patients. The accuracy between EUS after NT and postoperative pathological findings was 44.4% (34.2%; 54.7%) for T stage and 49.3% (37.5%; 61.1%) for N stage. On multivariate analysis, OS had significantly correlated with the objective response to NT. In the case of a response to NT, the median OS was 64.77 months, and in the case of stable disease, the median OS was 22.9 months (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: EUS after NT can be used for staging. Despite its moderate accuracy, the evaluation of the response to NT by EUS seems to be correlated with patient prognosis.

Are colorectal cancer patients at risk for COVID-19 infection during the postoperative period? The Covid-GRECCAR study.

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer patients have been regarded as having a high risk of severe events if they are infected with SARS-CoV-2, particularly those under medical or surgical treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the posttreatment risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 in a population of patients operated on for colorectal cancer 3 months before the COVID-19 outbreak and who after hospitalization returned to an environment where the virus was circulating. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This French, multicenter cohort study included consecutive patients undergoing elective surgery for colorectal cancer between January 1 and March 31, 2020, at 19 GRECCAR hospitals. The outcome was the rate of COVID-19 infection in this group of patients who were followed until June 15, 2020. RESULTS: This study included 448 patients, 262 male (58.5%) and 186 female (41.5%), who underwent surgery for colon cancer (n = 290, 64.7%), rectal cancer (n = 155, 34.6%), or anal cancer (n = 3, 0.7%). The median age was 68 years (19-95). Comorbidities were present in nearly half of the patients, 52% were at least overweight, and the median BMI was 25 (12-42). At the end of the study, 448 were alive. Six patients (1.3%) developed COVID-19 infection; among them, 3 were hospitalized in the conventional ward, and none of them died. CONCLUSION: The results are reassuring, with only a 1.3% infection rate and no deaths related to COVID-19. We believe that we can operate on colorectal cancer patients without additional mortality from COVID-19, applying all measures aimed at reducing the risk of infection.

Is Piecemeal Endoscopic Resection Acceptable for Early Colorectal Cancers in Certain Situations? A Single-Center French Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The use of endoscopic treatment for early colorectal cancer (ECC) is increasing. The European guidelines suggest performing piecemeal endoscopic resection (pmR) for benign lesions and en bloc resection for ECC, especially for patients with favorable lymph node involvement risk evaluations. However, en bloc resections for lesions larger than two centimeters require invasive endoscopic techniques. Our retrospective single-center study aimed to determine the clinical impact of performing pmR for ECC rather than traditional en bloc resection. METHODS: A single-center study was performed between January 2012 and September 2017. All ECC patients were included. The main objective was to evaluate the number of patients who potentially underwent unnecessary surgery due to piecemeal resection. The secondary endpoints were as follows: disease-free survival (DFS), defined as the time from pmR to endoscopic failure (local recurrence not treatable by endoscopy), complication rate, number of patients who did not undergo surgery by default, and factors predictive of outcomes and complications. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-six ECC endoscopically treated patients were included. In total, 85 patients were excluded (71 who underwent en bloc resection, 14 with pending follow-up). Data from 61 patients (33 women and 28 men) were analyzed. Two patients underwent potentially unnecessary surgery [3.28% (0.9%- 11.2%)]. The DFS rate was 87% (75%-93%) at 6 months and 85% [72%-92%] at 12 months. The median follow- up time was 16.5 months (12.4-20.9). Three patients (4.9%) had complications. One patient did not undergo surgery by default. A Paris classification of 0-2c (HR=9.3 (2.4-35.9), p<0.001) and Vienna classification of 5 [HR=16.3 (3.3-80.4), p<0.001] were factors associated with poor DFS. CONCLUSION: Performing pmR in place of en bloc resection for ECC had a limited impact on patients. If the pathology (especially deep margins) is analyzable, careful monitoring could be acceptable in ECC patients who undergo pmR.

Advanced colonic cancer with clinically suspected bladder invasion: Outcomes and prognosis from a multicentric study of 117 patients from the FRENCH research group.

BACKGROUND: Bladder invasion by colon cancer is rare; however, its management is still controversial. Our objective was to report outcomes and identify risk factors for local recurrence in colon cancer with clinically suspected bladder invasion. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study in 23 centers in France. All patients who underwent colon surgery with bladder resection (2010-2017) were included. Metastatic and recurrent colon cancers were excluded. RESULTS: One hundred and seventeen patients (men = 73) were included. Partial cystectomy occurred in 108 patients (92.3%), with a total cystectomy occurring in 9 patients (7.7%). Neoadjuvant treatment was given to 31 patients (26.5%). Major morbidity was 20.5%. R0 resection rates were 87.2%. Histologically confirmed bladder invasion was present in 47%. Thirty-four patients were pN+, while 60 patients (51.3%) received adjuvant chemotherapy. Mean follow-up was 33.8 months. Three-year overall survival and disease-free survival were 82.9% and 59.5%. Rates of local recurrence and distant recurrence were 14.5% and 18.8%, respectively; the local recurrences (11/17; 65%) were in the bladder, while 4 of these patients had a bladder recurrence despite not having histologically confirmed bladder invasion at the index surgery. The rate of bladder recurrence after histologic bladder invasion was 13% (7/55), while the rate of bladder recurrence without primary bladder invasion was 7% (4/62) (P = .343). Neoadjuvant therapy, type of cystectomy, and adjuvant therapy did not influence local recurrence (P > .445 each). R1 bladder resections, when compared with a R0 bladder resections, were associated with an increased rate of local recurrence (63% vs 10%; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Clinically suspected bladder invasion increases local recurrence even in the absence of histologically confirmed bladder invasion. Only complete resections with R0 margins decrease local recurrence. Careful, detailed postoperative surveillance is required, even without pathologic bladder invasion.