A Cost Overview of Minimally Invasive Total Mesorectal Excision in Rectal Cancer Patients: A Population-based Cohort in Experienced Centres.

Background: Total mesorectal excision has been the gold standard for the operative management of rectal cancer. The most frequently used minimally invasive techniques for surgical resection of rectal cancer are laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal total mesorectal excision. As studies comparing the costs of the techniques are lacking, this study aims to provide a cost overview. Method: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent total mesorectal resection between 2015 and 2017 at 11 dedicated centers, which completed the learning curve of the specific technique. The primary outcome was total in-hospital costs of each technique up to 30 days after surgery including all major surgical cost drivers, while taking into account different team approaches in the transanal approach. Secondary outcomes were hospitalization and complication rates. Statistical analysis was performed using multivariable linear regression analysis. Results: In total, 949 patients were included, consisting of 446 laparoscopic (47%), 306 (32%) robot-assisted, and 197 (21%) transanal total mesorectal excisions. Total costs were significantly higher for transanal and robot-assisted techniques compared to the laparoscopic technique, with median (interquartile range) for laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal at €10,556 (8,642;13,829), €12,918 (11,196;16,223), and € 13,052 (11,330;16,358), respectively (P < 0.001). Also, the one-team transanal approach showed significant higher operation time and higher costs compared to the two-team approach. Length of stay and postoperative complications did not differ between groups. Conclusion: Transanal and robot-assisted approaches show higher costs during 30-day follow-up compared to laparoscopy with comparable short-term clinical outcomes. Two-team transanal approach is associated with lower total costs compared to the transanal one-team approach.

Towards Response ADAptive Radiotherapy for organ preservation for intermediate-risk rectal cancer (preRADAR): protocol of a phase I dose-escalation trial.

INTRODUCTION: Organ preservation is associated with superior functional outcome and quality of life (QoL) compared with total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. Only 10% of patients are eligible for organ preservation following short-course radiotherapy (SCRT, 25 Gy in five fractions) and a prolonged interval (4-8 weeks) to response evaluation. The organ preservation rate could potentially be increased by dose-escalated radiotherapy. Online adaptive magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) is anticipated to reduce radiation-induced toxicity and enable radiotherapy dose escalation. This trial aims to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of dose-escalated SCRT using online adaptive MRgRT. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The preRADAR is a multicentre phase I trial with a 6+3 dose-escalation design. Patients with intermediate-risk rectal cancer (cT3c-d(MRF-)N1M0 or cT1-3(MRF-)N1M0) interested in organ preservation are eligible. Patients are treated with a radiotherapy boost of 2×5 Gy (level 0), 3×5 Gy (level 1), 4×5 Gy (level 2) or 5×5 Gy (level 3) on the gross tumour volume in the week following standard SCRT using online adaptive MRgRT. The trial starts on dose level 1. The primary endpoint is the MTD based on the incidence of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) per dose level. DLT is a composite of maximum one in nine severe radiation-induced toxicities and maximum one in three severe postoperative complications, in patients treated with TME or local excision within 26 weeks following start of treatment. Secondary endpoints include the organ preservation rate, non-DLT, oncological outcomes, patient-reported QoL and functional outcomes up to 2 years following start of treatment. Imaging and laboratory biomarkers are explored for early response prediction. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial protocol has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the University Medical Centre Utrecht. The primary and secondary trial results will be published in international peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: WHO International Clinical Trials Registry (NL8997; https://trialsearch.who.int).

Risk factors of postoperative intensive care unit admission during the COVID-19 pandemic: A multicentre retrospective cohort study.

Background: During the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, intensive care unit (ICU) capacity was scarce. Since surgical patients also require ICU admission, determining which factors lead to an increased risk of postoperative ICU admission is essential. This study aims to determine which factors led to an increased risk of unplanned postoperative ICU admission during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This multicentre retrospective cohort study investigated all patients who underwent surgery between 9 March 2020 and 30 June 2020. The primary endpoint was the number of surgical patients requiring postoperative ICU admission. The secondary endpoint was to determine factors leading to an increased risk of unplanned postoperative ICU admission, calculated by multivariate analysis with odds ratios (OR's) and 95% confidence (CI) intervals. Results: One hundred eighty-five (4.6%) of the 4051 included patients required unplanned postoperative ICU admission. COVID-19 positive patients were at an increased risk of being admitted to the ICU compared to COVID-19 negative (OR 3.14; 95% CI 1.06-9.33; p = 0.040) and untested patients (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.32-0.70; p = 0.001). Other predictors were male gender (OR 1.36; 95% CI 1.02-1.82; p = 0.046), body mass index (BMI) (OR 1.05; 95% CI 1.02-1.08; p = 0.001), surgical urgency and surgical discipline. Conclusion: A confirmed COVID-19 infection, male gender, elevated BMI, surgical urgency, and surgical discipline were independent factors for an increased risk of unplanned postoperative ICU admission. In the event of similar pandemics, postponing surgery in patients with an increased risk of postoperative ICU admission may be considered.

Impact of a diverting ileostomy in total mesorectal excision with primary anastomosis for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of diverting ileostomy in total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer with primary anastomosis is debated. The aim of this study is to gain insight in the clinical consequences of a diverting ileostomy, with respect to stoma rate at one year and stoma-related morbidity. METHODS: Patients undergoing TME with primary anastomosis for rectal cancer between 2015 and 2017 in eleven participating hospitals were included. Retrospectively, two groups were compared: patients with or without diverting ileostomy construction during primary surgery. Primary endpoint was stoma rate at one year. Secondary endpoints were severity and rate of anastomotic leakage, overall morbidity rate within thirty days and stoma (reversal) related morbidity. RESULTS: In 353 out of 595 patients (59.3%) a diverting ileostomy was constructed during primary surgery. Stoma rate at one year was 9.9% in the non-ileostomy group and 18.7% in the ileostomy group (p = 0.003). After correction for confounders, multivariate analysis showed that the construction of a diverting ileostomy during primary surgery was an independent risk factor for stoma at one year (OR 2.563 (95%CI 1.424-4.611), p = 0.002). Anastomotic leakage rate was 17.8% in the non-ileostomy group and 17.2% in the ileostomy group (p = 0.913). Overall 30-days morbidity rate was 37.6% in the non-ileostomy group and 56.1% in the ileostomy group (p < 0.001). Stoma reversal related morbidity rate was 17.9%. CONCLUSIONS: The stoma rate at one year was higher in patients with ileostomy construction during primary surgery. The incidence and severity of anastomotic leakage were not reduced by construction of an ileostomy. The morbidity related to the presence and reversal of a diverting ileostomy was substantial.

Comparison of three-year oncological results after restorative low anterior resection, non-restorative low anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Oncological outcome might be influenced by the type of resection in total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. The aim was to see if non-restorative LAR would have worse oncological outcome. A comparison was made between non-restorative low anterior resection (NRLAR), restorative low anterior resection (RLAR) and abdominoperineal resection (APR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort included data from patients undergoing TME for rectal cancer between 2015 and 2017 in eleven Dutch hospitals. A comparison was made for each different type of procedure (APR, NRLAR or RLAR). Primary outcome was 3-year overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 3-year local recurrence (LR) rate. RESULTS: Of 998 patients 363 underwent APR, 132 NRLAR and 503 RLAR. Three-year OS was worse after NRLAR (78.2%) compared to APR (86.3%) and RLAR (92.2%, p < 0.001). This was confirmed in a multivariable Cox regression analysis (HR 1.85 (1.07, 3.19), p = 0.03). The 3-year DFS was also worse after NRLAR (60.3%), compared to APR (70.5%) and RLAR (80.1%, p < 0.001), HR 2.05 (1.42, 2.97), p < 0.001. The LR rate was 14.6% after NRLAR, 5.2% after APR and 4.8% after RLAR (p = 0.005), HR 3.22 (1.61, 6.47), p < 0.001. CONCLUSION: NRLAR might be associated with worse 3-year OS, DFS and LR rate compared to RLAR and APR.

Patient- and physician-reported radiation-induced toxicity of short-course radiotherapy with a prolonged interval to surgery for rectal cancer.

AIM: A prolonged interval (>4 weeks) between short-course radiotherapy (25 Gy in five fractions) (SCRT-delay) and total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer has been associated with a decreased postoperative complication rate and offers the possibility of organ preservation in the case of a complete tumour response. This prospective cohort study systematically evaluated patient-reported bowel dysfunction and physician-reported radiation-induced toxicity for 8 weeks following SCRT-delay. METHOD: Patients who were referred for SCRT-delay for intermediate risk, oligometastatic or locally advanced rectal cancer were included. Repeated measurements were done for patient-reported bowel dysfunction (measured by the low anterior resection syndrome [LARS] questionnaire and categorized as no, minor or major LARS) and physician-reported radiation-induced toxicity (according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0) before start of treatment (baseline), at completion of SCRT and 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 weeks thereafter. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were included; 31 (61%) were men and the median age was 67 years (range 44-91). Patient-reported bowel dysfunction and physician-reported radiation-induced toxicity peaked at weeks 1-2 after completion of SCRT and gradually declined thereafter. Major LARS was reported by 44 patients (92%) at some time during SCRT-delay. Grade 3 radiation-induced toxicity was reported in 17 patients (33%) and concerned predominantly diarrhoea. No Grade 4-5 radiation-induced toxicity occurred. CONCLUSION: During SCRT-delay, almost every patient experiences temporary mild-moderate radiation-induced toxicity and major LARS, but life-threatening toxicity is rare. SCRT-delay is a safe alternative to SCRT-direct surgery that should be proposed when counselling rectal cancer patients on neoadjuvant strategies.

Impact of Dose-Escalated Chemoradiation on Quality of Life in Patients With Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: 2-Year Follow-Up of the Randomized RECTAL-BOOST Trial.

PURPOSE: Dose-escalated chemoradiation (CRT) for locally advanced rectal cancer did not result in higher complete response rates but initiated more tumor regression in the randomized RECTAL-BOOST trial (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01951521). This study compared patient reported outcomes between patients who received dose-escalated CRT (5 × 3 gray boost + CRT) or standard CRT for 2 years after randomization. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who were participating in the RECTAL-BOOST trial filled out European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and CR29 questionnaires on quality of life (QoL) and symptoms at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after start of treatment. Between-group differences in functional QoL domains were estimated using a linear mixed-effects model and expressed as effect size (ES). Symptom scores were compared using Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Patients treated with dose-escalated CRT (boost group, n = 51) experienced a significantly stronger decline in global health at 3 and 6 months (ES -0.4 and ES -0.4), physical functioning at 6 months (ES -1.1), role functioning at 3 and 6 months (ES -0.8 and ES -0.6), and social functioning at 6 months (ES -0.6), compared with patients treated with standard CRT (control group, n = 64). The boost group reported significantly more fatigue at 3 and 6 months (83% vs 66% respectively 89% vs 76%), pain at 3 and 6 months (67% vs 36% respectively 80% vs 44%), and diarrhea at 3 months (45% vs 29%) compared with the control group. From 12 months onwards, QoL and symptoms were similar between groups, apart from more blood/mucus in stool in the boost group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, dose-escalated CRT resulted in a transient deterioration in global health, physical, role, and social functioning and more pain, fatigue and diarrhea at 3 and 6 months after start of treatment compared with standard CRT. From 12 months onwards, the effect of dose-escalated CRT on QoL largely resolved.

Robot-Assisted Total Mesorectal Excision Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision: A Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Analysis in Experienced Centers.

BACKGROUND: The superiority of robot-assisted over laparoscopic total mesorectal excision has not been proven. Most studies do not consider the learning curve while comparing the surgical technique. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare laparoscopic with robot-assisted total mesorectal excision performed by surgeons who completed the learning curve of the technique. DESIGN: This is a multicenter retrospective propensity score-matched analysis. SETTINGS: The study was performed in 2 large, dedicated robot-assisted hospitals and 5 large, dedicated laparoscopic hospitals. PATIENTS: Patients were included if they underwent a robot-assisted or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer with curative intent at a dedicated center for the minimally invasive technique between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017. INTERVENTIONS: We compared robot-assisted with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was conversion to laparotomy during surgery. Secondary outcomes were postoperative morbidity and positive circumferential resection margin. RESULTS: A total of 884 patients were included and, after matching, 315 patients per treatment group remained. Conversion was similar between laparoscopic and robot-assisted total mesorectal excision (4.4% vs 2.5% (p = 0.20)). Positive circumferential resection margin was equal (3.2% vs 4.4% (p = 0.41)). Overall morbidity was comparable as well, although a lower rate of wound infections was observed in the robot-assisted group (5.7% vs 1.9% (p = 0.01)). More primary anastomoses were constructed in the robot-assisted group (50.8% vs 68.3% (p < 0.001)). Finally, more open procedures were performed in dedicated laparoscopic centers, with an overrepresentation of cT4N+ tumors in this group. LIMITATIONS: This is a retrospective multicenter cohort; however, propensity score matching was applied to control for confounding by indication. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision are equally safe in terms of short-term outcomes. However, with the robot-assisted approach, more primary anastomoses were constructed, and a lower wound infection rate was observed. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B677.ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL ASISTIDA POR ROBOT VERSUS ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL LAPAROSCÓPICA: UNA PUNTUACIÓN DE PROPENSIÓN RETROSPECTIVA ANÁLISIS DE COHORTES EMPAREJADAS EN CENTROS EXPERIMENTADOS. ANTECEDENTES: No se ha demostrado la superioridad de la escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot sobre la laparoscópica. La mayoría de los estudios no tienen en cuenta la curva de aprendizaje al comparar la técnica quirúrgica. OBJETIVO: Este estudio tiene como objetivo comparar la escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica con la asistida por robot realizada por cirujanos que completaron la curva de aprendizaje de la técnica. DISEO: Este es un análisis multicéntrico retrospectivo emparejado por puntuación de propensión. AJUSTES: El estudio se realizó en dos grandes hospitales dedicados asistidos por robots y cinco grandes hospitales laparoscópicos dedicados. PACIENTES: Se incluyeron pacientes que se sometieron a escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot o laparoscópica para cáncer de recto con intención curativa, en un centro dedicado a la técnica mínimamente invasiva entre el 1 de enero de 2015 y el 31 de diciembre de 2017. INTERVENCIONES: Comparamos la escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot con la laparoscópica. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: El principal resultado fue la conversión a laparotomía durante la cirugía. Los resultados secundarios fueron la morbilidad posoperatoria y el margen circunferencial positivo. RESULTADOS: Se incluyó a un total de 884 pacientes y, después de emparejar, quedaron 315 pacientes por grupo de tratamiento. La conversión fue similar entre la escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica y asistida por robot (4,4% frente a 2,5% [p = 0,20]). El margen de resección circunferencial positivo fue igual (3,2% vs 4,4% [p = 0,41]). La morbilidad general también fue comparable, aunque se observó una menor tasa de infecciones de heridas en el grupo asistido por robot (5,7% frente a 1,9% [p = 0,01]). Se construyeron más anastomosis primarias en el grupo asistido por robot (50,8% frente a 68,3% [p < 0,001]). Finalmente, se realizaron procedimientos más abiertos en centros laparoscópicos dedicados, con una sobrerrepresentación de tumores cT4N + en este grupo. LIMITACIONES: Ésta es una cohorte multicéntrica retrospectiva; sin embargo, se aplicó el emparejamiento por puntuación de propensión para controlar los factores de confusión por indicación. CONCLUSIONES: La escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot y laparoscópica son igualmente seguras en términos de resultados a corto plazo. Sin embargo, con el abordaje asistido por robot, se construyeron más anastomosis primarias y se observó una menor tasa de infección de la herida. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B677. (Traducción-Dr. Gonzalo Hagerman).

Factors affecting 30-day postoperative complications after emergency surgery during the COVID-19 outbreak: A multicentre cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has influenced (surgical) care worldwide. Measures were taken to prioritize surgical care in order to maintain capacity for COVID-19 healthcare. However, the influence of these measures on emergency surgery is limited. Therefore, the aim of this study is to describe the trends in emergency surgery and determine the factors influencing the risk of postoperative complications during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This multicentre retrospective cohort study investigated all emergency patients operated on from March 9th to June 30th, 2020. The primary endpoint was identifying the number of emergency surgical procedures performed. Secondary endpoints were determining the number of postoperative complications and factors determining the risk of postoperative complications, which were calculated by multivariate analysis with odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence (CI) intervals. RESULTS: In total, 1399 patients who underwent an emergency surgical procedure were included. An increase in the number of emergency vascular and trauma surgical procedures occurred during the study period. In contrast, the number of emergency general and oncological surgical procedures performed remained stable. An increased age (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02; p = 0.024), American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.09-1.64; p = 0.005), and surgical discipline were independent predictors for an increased risk of postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: The performance of emergency vascular and trauma surgical procedures increased. The performance of emergency general and oncological surgical procedures remained stable. In addition, increased age, ASA, and surgical discipline were independent predictors for an increased risk of postoperative complications.

Single-cell derived tumor organoids display diversity in HLA class I peptide presentation.

Tumor heterogeneity is a major cause of therapeutic resistance. Immunotherapy may exploit alternative vulnerabilities of drug-resistant cells, where tumor-specific human leukocyte antigen (HLA) peptide ligands are promising leads to invoke targeted anti-tumor responses. Here, we investigate the variability in HLA class I peptide presentation between different clonal cells of the same colorectal cancer patient, using an organoid system. While clone-specific differences in HLA peptide presentation were observed, broad inter-clone variability was even more prevalent (15-25%). By coupling organoid proteomics and HLA peptide ligandomics, we also found that tumor-specific ligands from DNA damage control and tumor suppressor source proteins were prominently presented by tumor cells, coinciding likely with the silencing of such cytoprotective functions. Collectively, these data illustrate the heterogeneous HLA peptide presentation landscape even within one individual, and hint that a multi-peptide vaccination approach against highly conserved tumor suppressors may be a viable option in patients with low tumor-mutational burden.

Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Surgical Breast Cancer Care in the Netherlands: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has put a strain on regular healthcare worldwide. In the Netherlands, the national screening programs, including for breast cancer, were halted temporarily. This posed a challenge to breast cancer care, because ∼40% of cases are detected through national screening. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the surgical care of patients with breast cancer in the Netherlands. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present multicenter retrospective cohort study investigated the effects of COVID-19 on patients with breast cancer who had undergone surgery from March 9 to May 17, 2020. The primary endpoints were the number of surgical procedures performed during the study period, tumor characteristics, surgery type, and route of referral. The secondary endpoint was the incidence of postoperative complications during the study period. RESULTS: A total of 217 consecutive patients with breast cancer requiring surgery were included. We found an overall decrease in the number of patients with breast cancer who were undergoing surgery. The most significant decline was seen in surgery for T1-T2 and N0 tumors. A decline in the number of referrals from both the national screening program and general practitioners was observed. The incidence of postoperative complications remained stable during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: The temporary halt of the national screening program for breast cancer resulted in fewer surgical procedures during the study period and a pronounced decrease in surgery of the lower tumor stages.

Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) versus endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for resection of non-pedunculated rectal lesions (TRIASSIC study): study protocol of a European multicenter randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In the recent years two innovative approaches have become available for minimally invasive en bloc resections of large non-pedunculated rectal lesions (polyps and early cancers). One is Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS), the other is Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD). Both techniques are standard of care, but a direct randomised comparison is lacking. The choice between either of these procedures is dependent on local expertise or availability rather than evidence-based. The European Society for Endoscopy has recommended that a comparison between ESD and local surgical resection is needed to guide decision making for the optimal approach for the removal of large rectal lesions in Western countries. The aim of this study is to directly compare both procedures in a randomised setting with regard to effectiveness, safety and perceived patient burden. METHODS: Multicenter randomised trial in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients with non-pedunculated lesions > 2 cm, where the bulk of the lesion is below 15 cm from the anal verge, will be randomised between either a TAMIS or an ESD procedure. Lesions judged to be deeply invasive by an expert panel will be excluded. The primary endpoint is the cumulative local recurrence rate at follow-up rectoscopy at 12 months. Secondary endpoints are: 1) Radical (R0-) resection rate; 2) Perceived burden and quality of life; 3) Cost effectiveness at 12 months; 4) Surgical referral rate at 12 months; 5) Complication rate; 6) Local recurrence rate at 6 months. For this non-inferiority trial, the total sample size of 198 is based on an expected local recurrence rate of 3% in the ESD group, 6% in the TAMIS group and considering a difference of less than 6% to be non-inferior. DISCUSSION: This is the first European randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and safety of TAMIS and ESD for the en bloc resection of large non-pedunculated rectal lesions. This is important as the detection rate of these adenomas is expected to further increase with the introduction of colorectal screening programs throughout Europe. This study will therefore support an optimal use of healthcare resources in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, NL7083 , 06 July 2018.

Efficacy of Dose-Escalated Chemoradiation on Complete Tumor Response in Patients with Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer (RECTAL-BOOST): A Phase 2 Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Pathologic complete tumor response after chemoradiation in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is associated with a favorable prognosis and allows organ-sparing treatment strategies. In the RECTAL-BOOST trial, we aimed to investigate the effect of an external radiation boost to the tumor before chemoradiation on pathologic or sustained clinical complete tumor response in LARC. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This multicenter, nonblinded, phase 2 randomized controlled trial followed the trials-within-cohorts design, which is a pragmatic trial design allowing cohort participants to be randomized for an experimental intervention. Patients in the intervention group are offered the intervention (and can either accept or refuse this), whereas patients in the control group are not notified about the randomization. Participants of a colorectal cancer cohort referred for chemoradiation of LARC to either of 2 radiation therapy centers were eligible. Patients were randomized to no boost or an external radiation boost (5 × 3 Gy) without concurrent chemotherapy, directly followed by standard pelvic chemoradiation (25 × 2 Gy with concurrent capecitabine). The primary outcome was pathologic complete response (ie, ypT0N0) in patients with planned surgery at 12 weeks, or, as surrogate for pathologic complete response, a 2-year sustained clinical complete response for patients treated with an organ preservation strategy. Analyses were intention to treat. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01951521. RESULTS: Between September 2014 and July 2018, 128 patients were randomized. Fifty-one of the 64 (79.7%) patients in the intervention group accepted and received a boost. Compared with the control group, fewer patients in the intervention group had a cT4 stage and a low rectal tumor (31.3% vs 17.2% and 56.3% vs 45.3%, respectively), and more patients had a cN2 stage (59.4% vs 70.3%, respectively). Rate of pathologic or sustained clinical complete tumor response was similar between the groups: 23 of 64 (35.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 24.3-48.9) in the intervention group versus 24 of 64 (37.5%; 95% CI, 25.7-50.5) in the control group (odds ratio [OR] = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.46-1.92). Near-complete or complete tumor regression was more common in the intervention group (34 of 49; 69.4%) than in the control group (24 of 53; 45.3%; (OR = 2.74, 95% CI 1.21-6.18). Grade ≥3 acute toxicity was comparable: 6 of 64 (9.4%) in the intervention group versus 5 of 64 (7.8%) in the control group (OR = 1.22; 95% CI, 0.35-4.22). CONCLUSIONS: Dose escalation with an external radiation therapy boost to the tumor before neoadjuvant chemoradiation did not increase the pathologic or sustained clinical complete tumor response rate in LARC.

Treatment of Perianal Fistulas in Crohn's Disease, Seton Versus Anti-TNF Versus Surgical Closure Following Anti-TNF [PISA]: A Randomised Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Most patients with perianal Crohn's fistula receive medical treatment with anti-tumour necrosis factor [TNF], but the results of anti-TNF treatment have not been directly compared with chronic seton drainage or surgical closure. The aim of this study was to assess if chronic seton drainage for patients with perianal Crohn's disease fistulas would result in less re-interventions, compared with anti-TNF and compared with surgical closure. METHODS: This randomised trial was performed in 19 European centres. Patients with high perianal Crohn's fistulas with a single internal opening were randomly assigned to: i] chronic seton drainage for 1 year; ii] anti-TNF therapy for 1 year; and iii] surgical closure after 2 months under a short course anti-TNF. The primary outcome was the cumulative number of patients with fistula-related re-intervention[s] at 1.5 years. Patients declining randomisation due to a specific treatment preference were included in a parallel prospective PISA registry cohort. RESULTS: Between September 14, 2013 and November 20, 2017, 44 of the 126 planned patients were randomised. The study was stopped by the data safety monitoring board because of futility. Seton treatment was associated with the highest re-intervention rate [10/15, versus 6/15 anti-TNF and 3/14 surgical closure patients, p = 0.02]. No substantial differences in perianal disease activity and quality of life between the three treatment groups were observed. Interestingly, in the PISA prospective registry, inferiority of chronic seton treatment was not observed for any outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS: The results imply that chronic seton treatment should not be recommended as the sole treatment for perianal Crohn's fistulas.

A higher throughput and physiologically relevant two-compartmental human ex vivo intestinal tissue system for studying gastrointestinal processes.

A majority of the preclinical intestinal screening models do not properly reflect the complex physiology of the human intestinal tract, resulting in low translational value to the clinical situation. The often used cell lines such as Caco-2 or HT-29 are not well suited to investigate the different processes that predict oral bioavailability in real life, or processes involved in general gut health aspects. Therefore, highly realistic models resembling the human in vivo situation are needed; application of ex vivo intestinal tissue is an interesting and feasible alternative. After previously using porcine intestinal tissue as a predictive model for human intestinal absorption, we now have successfully applied human intestinal tissue into a newly developed InTESTine™ two-compartmental disposable device suitable for standard 6- or 24-well plate format. With this set-up we demonstrated (regional differences in) drug absorption, by using a subset of compounds with known varying Fa (fraction absorbed) values. A rank-order relationship of R2 = 0.85 could be established between the Fa and Papp of these commercially available drugs. Additionally, comparison between the InTESTine system and the established Ussing chamber technology showed a correlation of R2 = 0.94 (10 drugs) with respect to Papp values, indicating good comparison of both models. Besides absorption, intestinal wall metabolism of testosterone (CYP3A4) was determined by showing a linear formation (R2 = 0.99; up to 165 min) of the main metabolites androstenedione and 6Beta-hydroxytestosterone, indicating no loss of metabolic capacity of the intestinal tissue within the system. Enteroendocrine responses were assessed of the satiety hormones GLP-1 and PYY after stimulation with rebaudioside A and casein, resulting in significantly increased secretion to the luminal side as well as to the basolateral side. Incubation with the probiotic strain LGG showed to enhance the viability of the tissue by showing to decrease the LDH secretion compared to blank intestinal tissue. In conclusion, we show that human ex vivo intestinal tissue mounted in the higher throughput InTESTine 6- 24-transwell plate system is easy to handle and a suitable system to study diverse functional GI processes.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus percutaneous catheter drainage for acute cholecystitis in high risk patients (CHOCOLATE): multicentre randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether laparoscopic cholecystectomy is superior to percutaneous catheter drainage in high risk patients with acute calculous cholecystitis. DESIGN: Multicentre, randomised controlled, superiority trial. SETTING: 11 hospitals in the Netherlands, February 2011 to January 2016. PARTICIPANTS: 142 high risk patients with acute calculous cholecystitis were randomly allocated to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n=66) or to percutaneous catheter drainage (n=68). High risk was defined as an acute physiological assessment and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) score of 7 or more. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoints were death within one year and the occurrence of major complications, defined as infectious and cardiopulmonary complications within one month, need for reintervention (surgical, radiological, or endoscopic that had to be related to acute cholecystitis) within one year, or recurrent biliary disease within one year. RESULTS: The trial was concluded early after a planned interim analysis. The rate of death did not differ between the laparoscopic cholecystectomy and percutaneous catheter drainage group (3% v 9%, P=0.27), but major complications occurred in eight of 66 patients (12%) assigned to cholecystectomy and in 44 of 68 patients (65%) assigned to percutaneous drainage (risk ratio 0.19, 95% confidence interval 0.10 to 0.37; P<0.001). In the drainage group 45 patients (66%) required a reintervention compared with eight patients (12%) in the cholecystectomy group (P<0.001). Recurrent biliary disease occurred more often in the percutaneous drainage group (53% v 5%, P<0.001), and the median length of hospital stay was longer (9 days v 5 days, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared with percutaneous catheter drainage reduced the rate of major complications in high risk patients with acute cholecystitis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register NTR2666.

Intra-tumour diversification in colorectal cancer at the single-cell level.

Every cancer originates from a single cell. During expansion of the neoplastic cell population, individual cells acquire genetic and phenotypic differences from each other. Here, to investigate the nature and extent of intra-tumour diversification, we characterized organoids derived from multiple single cells from three colorectal cancers as well as from adjacent normal intestinal crypts. Colorectal cancer cells showed extensive mutational diversification and carried several times more somatic mutations than normal colorectal cells. Most mutations were acquired during the final dominant clonal expansion of the cancer and resulted from mutational processes that are absent from normal colorectal cells. Intra-tumour diversification of DNA methylation and transcriptome states also occurred; these alterations were cell-autonomous, stable, and followed the phylogenetic tree of each cancer. There were marked differences in responses to anticancer drugs between even closely related cells of the same tumour. The results indicate that colorectal cancer cells experience substantial increases in somatic mutation rate compared to normal colorectal cells, and that genetic diversification of each cancer is accompanied by pervasive, stable and inherited differences in the biological states of individual cancer cells.

Physical performance measures for predicting outcome in cancer patients: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Decision making regarding cancer treatment is challenging and there is a need for clinical parameters that can guide these decisions. As physical performance appears to be a reflection of health status, the aim of this systematic review is to assess whether physical performance tests (PPTs) are predictive of the clinical outcome and treatment tolerance in cancer patients. METHODS: A literature search was conducted on 2 April 2015 in the electronic databases Medline and Embase to identify studies focusing on the association between objectively measured PPTs and outcome. No limitations in language or publication dates were applied. RESULTS: The search retrieved 9680 articles, 16 publications were included involving 4187 patients with various cancer types and different treatments. Reported median or mean age varied from 58 to 78 years. Nine studies used the Timed Up & Go (TUG) test, five the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) and five studies focused on gait speed. Poorer TUG, SPPB and gait speed outcome were associated with decreased survival. TUG, SPPB and gait speed were also associated with treatment-related complications. Furthermore, two studies reported an association between poorer TUG and SPPB outcome with higher rates of functional decline. CONCLUSION: PPTs appear to show a significant correlation with survival and these tests could be used as a prognostic tool, particular for older adult patients. A less explicit correlation for treatment-related complications and functional decline was also found. To optimize decision making, future research should focus on developing and validating individualized treatment algorithms that incorporate PPTs in addition to cancer- and treatment-related variables.

Multimodal treatment of perianal fistulas in Crohn's disease: seton versus anti-TNF versus advancement plasty (PISA): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Currently there is no guideline for the treatment of patients with Crohn's disease and high perianal fistulas. Most patients receive anti-TNF medication, but no long-term results of this expensive medication have been described, nor has its efficiency been compared to surgical strategies. With this study, we hope to provide treatment consensus for daily clinical practice with reduction in costs. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a multicentre, randomized controlled trial. Patients with Crohn's disease who are over 18 years of age, with newly diagnosed or recurrent active high perianal fistulas, with one internal opening and no anti-TNF usage in the past three months will be considered. Patients with proctitis, recto-vaginal fistulas or anal stenosis will be excluded. Prior to randomisation, an MRI and ileocolonoscopy are required. All treatment will start with seton placement and a course of antibiotics. Patients will then be randomised to: (1) chronic seton drainage (with oral 6-mercaptopurine (6MP)) for one year, (2) anti-TNF medication (with 6MP) for one year (seton removal after six weeks) or (3) advancement plasty after eight weeks of seton drainage (under four months anti-TNF and 6MP for one year). The primary outcome parameter is the number of patients needing fistula-related re-intervention(s). Secondary outcomes are the number of patients with closed fistulas (based on an evaluated MRI score) after 18 months, disease activity, quality of life and costs. DISCUSSION: The PISA trial is a multicentre, randomised controlled trial of patients with Crohn's disease and high perianal fistulas. With the comparison of three generally accepted treatment strategies, we will be able to comment on the efficiency of the various treatment strategies, with respect to several long-term outcome parameters. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Nederlands Trial Register identifier: NTR4137 (registered on 23 August 2013).