Comprehensive cancer-oriented biobanking resource of human samples for studies of post-zygotic genetic variation involved in cancer predisposition.

The progress in translational cancer research relies on access to well-characterized samples from a representative number of patients and controls. The rationale behind our biobanking are explorations of post-zygotic pathogenic gene variants, especially in non-tumoral tissue, which might predispose to cancers. The targeted diagnoses are carcinomas of the breast (via mastectomy or breast conserving surgery), colon and rectum, prostate, and urinary bladder (via cystectomy or transurethral resection), exocrine pancreatic carcinoma as well as metastases of colorectal cancer to the liver. The choice was based on the high incidence of these cancers and/or frequent fatal outcome. We also collect age-matched normal controls. Our still ongoing collection originates from five clinical centers and after nearly 2-year cooperation reached 1711 patients and controls, yielding a total of 23226 independent samples, with an average of 74 donors and 1010 samples collected per month. The predominant diagnosis is breast carcinoma, with 933 donors, followed by colorectal carcinoma (383 donors), prostate carcinoma (221 donors), bladder carcinoma (81 donors), exocrine pancreatic carcinoma (15 donors) and metachronous colorectal cancer metastases to liver (14 donors). Forty percent of the total sample count originates from macroscopically healthy cancer-neighboring tissue, while contribution from tumors is 12%, which adds to the uniqueness of our collection for cancer predisposition studies. Moreover, we developed two program packages, enabling registration of patients, clinical data and samples at the participating hospitals as well as the central system of sample/data management at coordinating center. The approach used by us may serve as a model for dispersed biobanking from multiple satellite hospitals. Our biobanking resource ought to stimulate research into genetic mechanisms underlying the development of common cancers. It will allow all available "-omics" approaches on DNA-, RNA-, protein- and tissue levels to be applied. The collected samples can be made available to other research groups.

Efficacy of endoscopic surveillance in the detection of local recurrence after radical rectal cancer surgery is limited? A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Rectal cancer, one of most common neoplasms, is characterized by an overall survival rate exceeding 60%. Nonetheless, local recurrence (LR) following surgery for rectal cancer remains a formidable clinical problem. The aim of this study was to assess the value of postoperative endoscopic surveillance (PES) for the early detection of LR in rectal cancer after radical anterior resection with sigmoid-rectal anastomosis. METHODS: We performed an anterior resection in 228 patients with stages I­III rectal cancer who had undergone surgery from 2001 to 2008 in the Oncology Center in Bydgoszcz, Poland. Of these patients, 169 had perioperative radiotherapy or radiochemotherapy. All patients underwent PES with abdominal and pelvic imaging (abdominal ultrasound, computed tomography, magnetic resonance) and clinical examination. Sensitivities, specificities, positive likelihood ratios, negative likelihood ratios, and receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated to compare the value of colonoscopy versus imaging techniques for the diagnosis of LR. RESULTS: During the 5-year follow-up, recurrences occurred in 49 (21%) patients; of these, 15 (6%) had LR, which was most often located outside the intestinal lumen (n = 10, 4%). Anastomotic LR occurred in 5 (2%) patients. The mean time to anastomotic LR was 30 months after initial surgery, similar to that of other locations (29 months). Both imaging and endoscopy were shown to be efficient techniques for the diagnosis of LR in anastomotic sites. In the study group, endoscopy did not provide any additional benefit in patients who were receiving radiation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of PES for the detection of LR after curative treatment of rectal cancer is limited and not superior to imaging techniques. It remains a useful method, however, for the histopathological confirmation of suspected or confirmed recurrence.

Clinical Reality and Treatment for Local Recurrence of Rectal Cancer: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.

Background and Objectives: Despite advances in treatment, local recurrence remains a great concern in patients with rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence and risk factors of local recurrence of rectal cancer in our single center over a 7-year-period. Materials and Methods: Patients with stage I-III rectal cancer were treated with curative intent. The necessity for radiotherapy and chemotherapy was determined before surgery and/or postoperative histopathological results. Results: Of 365 rectal cancer patients, 76 (20.8%) developed recurrent disease. In total, 27 (7.4%) patients presented with a local tumor recurrence (isolated in 40.7% of cases). Radiotherapy was performed in 296 (81.1%) patients. The most often used schema was 5 × 5 Gy followed by immediate surgery (n = 214, 58.6%). Local recurrence occurred less frequently in patients treated with 5 × 5 Gy radiotherapy followed by surgery (n = 9, 4%). Surgical procedures of relapses were performed in 12 patients, six of whom were operated with radical intent. Only two (7.4%) patients lived more than 5 years after local recurrence treatment. The incidence of local recurrence was associated with primary tumor distal location and worse prognosis. The median overall survival of patients after local recurrence treatment was 19 months. Conclusions: Individualized rectal cancer patient selection and systematic treatment algorithms should be used clinical practice to minimize likelihood of relapse. 5 × 5 Gy radiotherapy followed by immediate surgery allows good local control in resectable cT2N+/cT3N0 patients. Radical resection of isolated local recurrence offers the best chances of cure.