Características y resultados oncológicos del carcinoma epidermoide de ano: análisis comparativo entre los pacientes inmunocompetentes y los inmunodeprimidos / Characteristics and oncological results of epidermoid anal carcinoma: Comparison analysis between immunocompetent and immunosuppressed patients

Objetivos: La mayoría de los ensayos clínicos realizados sobre pacientes con cáncer escamoso anal (CEA) excluyen pacientes inmunodeprimidos. El objetivo del presente estudio es comparar las características y los resultados oncológicos entre pacientes con CEA inmunocomprometidos e inmunocompetentes. Métodos: Estudio multicéntrico comparativo retrospectivo que incluye 2 cohortes consecutivas de pacientes, inmunocomprometidos e inmunocompetentes, diagnosticados de carcinoma escamoso anal. Se han investigado las características de los pacientes, los tratamientos realizados, la respuesta clínica al tratamiento con quimiorradioterapia (QRT), la recidiva local o a distancia, la supervivencia global (SG) y la supervivencia libre de enfermedad (SLE). Resultados: De enero 2012 a diciembre 2017 hemos estudiado a 84 pacientes, 47 (55,6%) mujeres, afectos de CEA, de los cuales 22 (26%) han sido pacientes inmunocomprometidos y 62 (74%) inmunocompetentes. Los pacientes inmunocomprometidos fueron más jóvenes (53 vs. 61 años; p=0,001), con un menor tamaño tumoral (p=0,044), y presentaban un mayor consumo de tabaco (p=0,034) y de drogas de uso parenteral (p=0,001). No se objetivaron diferencias significativas en los tratamientos administrados (p=0,301), tampoco difirió la respuesta clínica a la QRT (83 vs. 100%). Tampoco se observaron diferencias significativas en la supervivencia global (60 vs. 64%; p=0,756) o en la supervivencia libre de enfermedad a 5 años (SLE) (65 vs. 68%; p=0,338). Conclusiones: En el presente estudio no se observaron diferencias significativas en relación con los resultados oncológicos a largo plazo entre pacientes inmunocompetentes e inmunocomprometidos diagnosticados de CEA, con un grado de cumplimiento del tratamiento similar. Esta evidencia podría deberse al estrecho seguimiento y buen control terapéutico de pacientes infectados por HIV. (AU)

Objective: Most evidence, including recent randomized controlled trials, analysing anal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) do not consider immunocompromise patient population. The aim of this study was to compare clinical and oncological outcomes among immunocompetent and immunocompromised patients with anal squamous cell carcinoma. Method: Multicentric retrospective comparative study including 2 cohorts of consecutive patients, immunocompetent and immunocompromised, diagnosed with anal SCC. This study evaluated clinical characteristics, clinical response to radical chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and long-term oncological results including both local and distant recurrence, overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Results: A total of 84 patients, 47 (55.6%) female, diagnosed with anal SCC from January 2012 to December 2017 were included, 22 (26%) and 62 (74%) patients in immunocompromised and immunocompetent groups respectively. Patients in immunocompromised group were significantly younger (53 vs. 61 years; P=0.001), with smaller tumoral size (P=0.044) and reported higher rates of substance abuse.including tobacco use (P=0.034) and parenteral drug consumption (P=0.001). No differences were found in administered therapies (P=301) neither in clinical response to chemoradiotherapy (83 vs. 100%). Moreover, similar 5-year OS (60 vs. 64%; P=0.756) and DFS (65 vs. 68%; P=0.338) were observed. Conclusion: The present study shows no significant differences in long-term oncological results among immunocompetent and immunocompromised patients diagnosed with anal SCC, with a similar oncologic treatment. This evidence might be explained due to the close monitoring and adequate therapeutic control of HIV positive patients. (AU)

Characteristics and oncological results of epidermoid anal carcinoma: Comparison analysis between immunocompetent and immunosuppressed patients.

OBJECTIVE: Most evidence, including recent randomized controlled trials, analysing anal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) do not consider immunocompromise patient population. The aim of this study was to compare clinical and oncological outcomes among immunocompetent and immunocompromised patients with anal squamous cell carcinoma. METHOD: Multicentric retrospective comparative study including 2 cohorts of consecutive patients, immunocompetent and immunocompromised, diagnosed with anal SCC. This study evaluated clinical characteristics, clinical response to radical chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and long-term oncological results including both local and distant recurrence, overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: A total of 84 patients, 47 (55.6%) female, diagnosed with anal SCC from January 2012 to December 2017 were included, 22 (26%) and 62 (74%) patients in immunocompromised and immunocompetent groups respectively. Patients in immunocompromised group were significantly younger (53 vs. 61 years; P = 0.001), with smaller tumoral size (P = 0.044) and reported higher rates of substance abuse including tobacco use (P = 0.034) and parenteral drug consumption (P = 0.001). No differences were found in administered therapies (P = 301) neither in clinical response to chemoradiotherapy (83 vs. 100%). Moreover, similar 5-year OS (60 vs. 64%; P = 0.756) and DFS (65 vs. 68%; P = 0.338) were observed. CONCLUSION: The present study shows no significant differences in long-term oncological results among immunocompetent and immunocompromised patients diagnosed with anal SCC, with a similar oncologic treatment. This evidence might be explained due to the close monitoring and adequate therapeutic control of HIV positive patients.

Characteristics and oncological results of epidermoid anal carcinoma: Comparison analysis between immunocompetent and immunosuppressed patients. / Características y resultados oncológicos del carcinoma epidermoide de ano: análisis comparativo entre los pacientes inmunocompetentes y los inmunodeprimidos.

OBJECTIVE: Most evidence, including recent randomized controlled trials, analysing anal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) do not consider immunocompromise patient population. The aim of this study was to compare clinical and oncological outcomes among immunocompetent and immunocompromised patients with anal squamous cell carcinoma. METHOD: Multicentric retrospective comparative study including 2 cohorts of consecutive patients, immunocompetent and immunocompromised, diagnosed with anal SCC. This study evaluated clinical characteristics, clinical response to radical chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and long-term oncological results including both local and distant recurrence, overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: A total of 84 patients, 47 (55.6%) female, diagnosed with anal SCC from January 2012 to December 2017 were included, 22 (26%) and 62 (74%) patients in immunocompromised and immunocompetent groups respectively. Patients in immunocompromised group were significantly younger (53 vs. 61 years; P=0.001), with smaller tumoral size (P=0.044) and reported higher rates of substance abuse. including tobacco use (P=0.034) and parenteral drug consumption (P=0.001). No differences were found in administered therapies (P=301) neither in clinical response to chemoradiotherapy (83 vs. 100%). Moreover, similar 5-year OS (60 vs. 64%; P=0.756) and DFS (65 vs. 68%; P=0.338) were observed. CONCLUSION: The present study shows no significant differences in long-term oncological results among immunocompetent and immunocompromised patients diagnosed with anal SCC, with a similar oncologic treatment. This evidence might be explained due to the close monitoring and adequate therapeutic control of HIV positive patients.

The use of seton as a bridge to definitive ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract procedure for fistula-in-ano: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: There is still controversy over the usefulness of seton placement prior to the ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT) surgery in the management of anal fistula. Objective: To evaluate the impact of preoperative seton placement on the outcomes of LIFT surgery for the management of fistula-in-ano. Design: systematic review and meta-analysis. Data Sources: A search was performed on the MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar databases. Study Selection: Original studies without language restriction reporting the primary healing rates with and without seton placement as a bridge to definitive LIFT surgery were included. Intervention: The intervention assessed was the LIFT with and without prior seton placement. Main Outcome Measures: The main outcome was defined as the primary healing rate with and without the use of seton as a bridge to definitive LIFT surgery. Results: Ten studiesmet the criteria for systematic review, all retrospective,with a pooled study population of 772 patients. There were no significant differences in the percentages of recurrence between patients with and without seton placement (odds ratio [OR] 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-1.43: p=0.35). The I2 value was 9%, which shows the homogeneity of the results among the analyzed studies. The 10 included studies demonstrated a weighted average overall recurrence of 38% (interquartile range [IQR] 27-42.7%), recurrence with the use of setonwas 40%(IQR26.6-51.2%), and without its use, the recurrence rate was 51.3% (IQR 31.3-51.3%) Limitations: The levels of evidence found in the available literature were relatively fair, as indicated after qualitative evaluation using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Attitude Heading Reference System (AHRS) evidence levels. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis suggests that the placement of seton as a bridge treatment prior to LIFT surgery does not significantly improve long-term anal fistula healing outcomes. Ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract surgery can be performed safely and effectively with no previous seton placement. International prospective register of systematic reviews-PROSPERO registration number: CDR42020149173. (AU)

Early-rectal Cancer Treatment: A Decision-tree Making Based on Systematic Review and Meta-analysis / Cáncer de recto inicial: árbol de decisión clínica basado en una revisión sistemática y metaanálisis

Local excision (LE) has arisen as an alternative to total mesorectal excision for the treatment of early rectal cancer. Despite a decreased morbidity, there are still concerns about LE outcomes. This systematic-review and meta-analysis design is based on the "PICO" process, aiming to answer to three questions related to LE as primary treatment for early-rectal cancer, the optimal method for LE, and the potential role for completion treatment in high-risk histology tumors and outcomes of salvage surgery. The results revealed that reported overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) were 71%-91.7% and 80%-94% for LE, in contrast to 92.3%-94.3% and 94.4%-97% for radical surgery. Additional analysis of National Database studies revealed lower OS with LE (HR: 1.26; 95%CI, 1.09-1.45) and DSS (HR: 1.19; 95%CI, 1.01-1.41) after LE. Furthermore, patients receiving LE were significantly more prone develop local recurrence (RR: 3.44, 95%CI, 2.50-4.74). Analysis of available transanal surgical platforms was performed, finding no significant differences among them but reduced local recurrence compared to traditional transanal LE (OR:0.24;95%CI, 0.15-0.4). Finally, we found poor survival outcomes for patients undergoing salvage surgery, favoring completion treatment (chemoradiotherapy or surgery) when high-risk histology is present. In conclusion, LE could be considered adequate provided a full-thickness specimen can be achieved that the patient is informed about risk for potential requirement of completion treatment. Early-rectal cancer cases should be discussed in a multidisciplinary team, and patient's preferences must be considered in the decision-making process

La escisión local (EL) se ha planteado como una alternativa a la escisión mesorrectal total en el tratamiento del cáncer de recto inicial. A pesar de la reducción de la morbilidad, los resultados de la EL todavía son motivo de preocupación. Esta revisión sistemática y metaanálisis se basa en el proceso «PICO» con el objetivo de responder a tres preguntas relacionadas con la EL, a saber, como tratamiento principal del cáncer de recto inicial, el método óptimo de EL y su posible papel en el tratamiento completo de tumores histológicos de alto riesgo y complicaciones de la cirugía de rescate. Los resultados han puesto de manifiesto que la supervivencia general (SG) y la supervivencia específica por enfermedad (SEE) notificadas fueron del 71-91% y del 80-94% en el caso de la EL, en comparación con el 92,3-94,3% y el 94,4-97% en el caso de la cirugía radical, respectivamente. Un análisis complementario de los estudios de la Base de Datos Nacional reveló una SG (HR: 1,26; IC95%: 1,09-1,45) y una SEE inferiores (HR: 1,19; IC95%: 1,01-1,41) después de EL. Además, los pacientes que aceptaron la EL fueron mucho más propensos a presentar una recidiva local (RR: 3,44; IC95%: 2,50-4,74). Se llevó a cabo un análisis de los planteamientos quirúrgicos transanales disponibles. No se encontraron importantes diferencias entre ellos, pero las recidivas locales eran inferiores en comparación con las de la EL transanal tradicional (OR: 0,24; IC95%: 0,15-0,4). Por último, hubo malos resultados de supervivencia entre los pacientes a quienes se les realizó cirugía de rescate, lo que favorece el tratamiento completo (quimiorradioterapia o cirugía) cuando hay histología de alto riesgo. En conclusión, la EL podría considerarse adecuada siempre que se pueda lograr una muestra de espesor completo y el paciente esté informado del riesgo de una posible necesidad de tratamiento completo. Los casos de cáncer de recto inicial deben tratarse en un equipo multidisciplinario y las preferencias del paciente deben tenerse en cuenta en el proceso de toma de decisiones

Early-rectal Cancer Treatment: A Decision-tree Making Based on Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Local excision (LE) has arisen as an alternative to total mesorectal excision for the treatment of early rectal cancer. Despite a decreased morbidity, there are still concerns about LE outcomes. This systematic-review and meta-analysis design is based on the "PICO" process, aiming to answer to three questions related to LE as primary treatment for early-rectal cancer, the optimal method for LE, and the potential role for completion treatment in high-risk histology tumors and outcomes of salvage surgery. The results revealed that reported overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) were 71%-91.7% and 80%-94% for LE, in contrast to 92.3%-94.3% and 94.4%-97% for radical surgery. Additional analysis of National Database studies revealed lower OS with LE (HR: 1.26; 95%CI, 1.09-1.45) and DSS (HR: 1.19; 95%CI, 1.01-1.41) after LE. Furthermore, patients receiving LE were significantly more prone develop local recurrence (RR: 3.44, 95%CI, 2.50-4.74). Analysis of available transanal surgical platforms was performed, finding no significant differences among them but reduced local recurrence compared to traditional transanal LE (OR:0.24;95%CI, 0.15-0.4). Finally, we found poor survival outcomes for patients undergoing salvage surgery, favoring completion treatment (chemoradiotherapy or surgery) when high-risk histology is present. In conclusion, LE could be considered adequate provided a full-thickness specimen can be achieved that the patient is informed about risk for potential requirement of completion treatment. Early-rectal cancer cases should be discussed in a multidisciplinary team, and patient's preferences must be considered in the decision-making process.