Functional outcomes and quality of life following open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The standard surgical treatment for rectal cancer is total mesorectal excision (TME), which may negatively affect patients' functional outcomes and quality of life (QoL). However, it is unclear how different TME techniques may impact patients' functional outcomes and QoL. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated functional outcomes of urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning as well as QoL after open, laparoscopic (L-TME), robot-assisted (R-TME), and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME). METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis, based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis statement, were conducted (PROSPERO: CRD42021240851). A literature review was performed (sources: PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases; end-of-search date: September 1, 2023), and a quality assessment was performed using the Methodological index for non-randomized studies. A random-effects model was used to pool the data for the meta-analyses. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included, reporting on 2495 patients (88 open, 1171 L-TME, 995 R-TME, and 241 TaTME). Quantitative analyses comparing L-TME vs. R-TME showed no significant differences regarding urinary and sexual functioning, except for urinary function at three months post-surgery, which favoured R-TME (SMD [CI] -0 .15 [- 0.24 to - 0.06], p = 0.02; n = 401). Qualitative analyses identified most studies did not find significant differences in urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning and QoL between different techniques. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis highlight a significant gap in the literature concerning the evaluation of functional outcomes and QoL after TME for rectal cancer treatment. This study emphasizes the need for high-quality, randomized-controlled, and prospective cohort studies evaluating these outcomes. Based on the limited available evidence, this systematic review and meta-analysis suggests no significant differences in patients' urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning and their QoL across various TME techniques.

Prospective multicentre observational cohort to assess quality of life, functional outcomes and cost-effectiveness following minimally invasive surgical techniques for rectal cancer in 'dedicated centres' in the Netherlands (VANTAGE trial): a protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Total mesorectal excision is the standard of care for rectal cancer, which can be performed using open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal technique. Large prospective (randomised controlled) trials comparing these techniques are lacking, do not take into account the learning curve and have short-term or long-term oncological results as their primary endpoint, without addressing quality of life, functional outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Comparative data with regard to these outcomes are necessary to identify the optimal minimally invasive technique and provide guidelines for clinical application. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This trial will be a prospective observational multicentre cohort trial, aiming to compare laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision in adult patients with rectal cancer performed by experienced surgeons in dedicated centres. Data collection will be performed in collaboration with the prospective Dutch ColoRectal Audit and the Prospective Dutch ColoRectal Cancer Cohort. Quality of life at 1 year postoperatively will be the primary outcome. Functional outcomes, cost-effectiveness, short-term outcomes and long-term oncological outcomes will be the secondary outcomes. In total, 1200 patients will be enrolled over a period of 2 years in 26 dedicated centres in the Netherlands. The study is registered at https://www.trialregister.nl/9734 (NL9734). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Data will be collected through collaborating parties, who already obtained approval by their medical ethical committee. Participants will be included in the trial after having signed informed consent. Results of this study will be disseminated to participating centres, patient organisations, (inter)national society meetings and peer-reviewed journals.

Diagnostic value of 18F-FDG PET-CT in detecting malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors among adult and pediatric neurofibromatosis type 1 patients.

PURPOSE: Detecting malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNSTs) remains difficult. 18F-FDG PET-CT has been shown helpful, but ideal threshold values of semi-quantitative markers remain unclear, partially because of variation among scanners. Using EU-certified scanners diagnostic accuracy of ideal and commonly used 18F-FDG PET-CT thresholds were investigated and differences between adult and pediatric lesions were evaluated. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed including patients from two hospitals with a clinical or radiological suspicion of MPNST between 2013 and 2019. Several markers were studied for ideal threshold values and differences among adults and children. A diagnostic algorithm was subsequently developed. RESULTS: Sixty patients were included (10 MPNSTs). Ideal threshold values were 5.8 for SUVmax (sensitivity 0.70, specificity 0.92), 5.0 for SUVpeak (sensitivity 0.70, specificity 0.97), 1.7 for TLmax (sensitivity 0.90, specificity 0.86), and 2.3 for TLmean (sensitivity 0.90, specificity 0.79). The standard TLmean threshold value of 2.0 yielded a sensitivity of 0.90 and specificity of 0.74, while the standard SUVmax threshold value of 3.5 yielded a sensitivity of 0.80 and specificity of 0.63. SUVmax and adjusted SUV for lean body mass (SUL) were lower in children, but tumor-to-liver ratios were similar in adult and pediatric lesions. Using TLmean > 2.0 or TLmean < 2.0 and SUVmax > 3.5, a sensitivity and specificity of 1.00 and 0.63 can be achieved. CONCLUSION: 18F-FDG PET-CT offers adequate accuracy to detect MPNSTs. SUV values in pediatric MPNSTs may be lower, but tumor-to-liver ratios are not. By combining TLmean and SUVmax values, a 100% sensitivity can be achieved with acceptable specificity.