Primary Tumor Resection Before Systemic Therapy in Patients With Colon Cancer and Unresectable Metastases: Combined Results of the SYNCHRONOUS and CCRe-IV Trials.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy is established as primary treatment in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer and unresectable metastases. Data from nonrandomized clinical trials have fueled persistent uncertainty if primary tumor resection (PTR) before chemotherapy prolongs survival. We investigated the prognostic value of PTR in patients with newly diagnosed stage IV colon cancer who were not amenable to curative treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients enrolled in the multicenter, randomized SYNCHRONOUS and CCRe-IV trials were included in the analysis. Patients with colon cancer with synchronous unresectable metastases were randomly assigned at 100 sites in Austria, Germany, and Spain to undergo PTR or up-front chemotherapy (No PTR group). The chemotherapy regimen was left at discretion of the local team. Patients with tumor-related symptoms, inability to tolerate surgery and/or systemic chemotherapy, and history of another cancer were excluded. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), and the analyses were performed with intention-to-treat. RESULTS: A total of 393 patients were randomly assigned to undergo PTR (n = 187) or no PTR (n = 206) between November 2011 and March 2017. Chemotherapy was not administered to 6.4% in the No PTR group and 24.1% in the PTR group. The median follow-up time was 36.7 months (95% CI, 36.6 to 37.3). The median OS was 16.7 months (95% CI, 13.2 to 19.2) in the PTR group and 18.6 months (95% CI, 16.2 to 22.3) in the No PTR group (P = .191). Comparable OS between the study groups was further confirmed on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.944 [95% CI, 0.738 to 1.209], P = .65) and across all subgroups. Patients with serious adverse events were more common in the No PTR group (10.2% v 18.0%; P = .027). CONCLUSION: Among patients with colon cancer and synchronous unresectable metastases, PTR before systemic chemotherapy was not associated with prolonged OS.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Abdominal CT for Locally Advanced Colon Tumors: Can We Really Entrust Certain Decisions to the Reliability of CT?

Many different options of neoadjuvant treatments for advanced colon cancer are emerging. An accurate preoperative staging is crucial to select the most appropriate treatment option. A retrospective study was carried out on a national series of operated patients with T4 tumors. Considering the anatomo-pathological analysis of the surgical specimen as the gold standard, a diagnostic accuracy study was carried out on the variables T and N staging and the presence of peritoneal metastases (M1c). The parameters calculated were sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and positive and negative likelihood ratios, as well as the overall accuracy. A total of 50 centers participated in the study in which 1950 patients were analyzed. The sensitivity of CT for correct staging of T4 colon tumors was 57%. Regarding N staging, the overall accuracy was 63%, with a sensitivity of 64% and a specificity of 62%; however, the positive and negative likelihood ratios were 1.7 and 0.58, respectively. For the diagnosis of peritoneal metastases, the accuracy was 94.8%, with a sensitivity of 40% and specificity of 98%; in the case of peritoneal metastases, the positive and negative likelihood ratios were 24.4 and 0.61, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of CT in the setting of advanced colon cancer still has some shortcomings for accurate diagnosis of stage T4, correct classification of lymph nodes, and preoperative detection of peritoneal metastases.

Identification of a Twelve-microRNA Signature with Prognostic Value in Stage II Microsatellite Stable Colon Cancer.

We aimed to identify and validate a set of miRNAs that could serve as a prognostic signature useful to determine the recurrence risk for patients with COAD. Small RNAs from tumors of 100 stage II, untreated, MSS colon cancer patients were sequenced for the discovery step. For this purpose, we built an miRNA score using an elastic net Cox regression model based on the disease-free survival status. Patients were grouped into high or low recurrence risk categories based on the median value of the score. We then validated these results in an independent sample of stage II microsatellite stable tumor tissues, with a hazard ratio of 3.24, (CI95% = 1.05-10.0) and a 10-year area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.67. Functional analysis of the miRNAs present in the signature identified key pathways in cancer progression. In conclusion, the proposed signature of 12 miRNAs can contribute to improving the prediction of disease relapse in patients with stage II MSS colorectal cancer, and might be useful in deciding which patients may benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy.

Self-expandable metallic stent as bridge to surgery vs. emergency resection in obstructive right-sided colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Emergency resection is common for malignant right-sided obstructive colon cancer. As there is evidence showing a potential benefit of self-expandable metal stents as a bridge to surgery, a new debate has been initiated. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare self-expandable metal stents with emergency resection in right-sided obstructive colon cancer. DATA SOURCE: A systematic search was conducted accessing Medline/PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. STUDY SELECTION: Studies reporting either emergency surgery or stent placement in right-sided obstructive colon cancer were included. INTERVENTION: Stent or emergency resection in right-sided obstructive colon cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Morbidity rate, mortality rate, stoma rate, laparoscopic resection rate, anastomotic insufficiency rate, success rate of stent. RESULTS: A total of 6343 patients from 16 publications were analyzed. The stent success rate was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.87 to 0.95) with perforation of 0.03 (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.06). Emergency resection was performed laparoscopically at a rate of 0.15 (95% CI, 0.09 to 0.24). Primary anastomosis rate in emergency resection was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.91 to 0.97) with an anastomotic insufficiency rate of 0.07 (95% CI, 0.04 to 0.11). The mortality rate after emergency resection was 0.05 (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.09). Primary anastomosis and anastomotic insufficiency rate were similar between the two groups (RR: 1.02; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.1; p = 0.56 and RR: 0.53; 95% CI, 0.14 to 1.93; p = 0.33). The mortality rate in emergency resection was higher compared to stent (RR: 0.51, 95% CI 0.30 to 10.89, p = 0.016). LIMITATION: No randomized controlled trials are available. CONCLUSION: Stent is a safe and successful alternative to emergency resection and may increase the rate of minimally invasive surgery. Emergency resection, however, remains safe and did not result in higher rate of anastomotic insufficiency. Further high-quality comparative studies are warranted to assess long-term outcomes.

Treatment for acute uncomplicated diverticulitis without antibiotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Use of antibiotics in selected cases of acute uncomplicated diverticulitis (AUD) has recently been questioned. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to examine the safety and efficacy of treatment regimens without antibiotics compared with that of traditional treatments with antibiotics in selected patients with AUD. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. METHODS: A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines by searching through Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published before December 2022. The outcomes assessed were the rates of readmission, change in strategy, emergency surgery, worsening, and persistent diverticulitis. STUDY SELECTION: RCTs on treating AUD without antibiotics published in English before December 2022 were included. INTERVENTION: Treatments without antibiotics were compared with treatments with antibiotics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcomes assessed were the rates of readmission, change in strategy, emergency surgery, worsening, and persistent diverticulitis. RESULTS: The search yielded 1163 studies. Four RCTs with 1809 patients were included in the review. Among these patients, 50.1% were treated conservatively without antibiotics. The meta-analysis showed no significant differences between nonantibiotic and antibiotic treatment groups with respect to rates of readmission [odds ratio (OR)=1.39; 95% CI: 0.93-2.06; P =0.11; I2 =0%], change in strategy (OR=1.03; 95% CI: 0.52-2,02; P =0.94; I2 =44%), emergency surgery (OR=0.43; 95% CI: 0.12-1.53; P =0.19; I2 =0%), worsening (OR=0.91; 95% CI: 0.48-1.73; P =0.78; I2 =0%), and persistent diverticulitis (OR=1.54; 95% CI: 0.63-3.26; P =0.26; I2 =0%). LIMITATIONS: Heterogeneity and a limited number of RCTs. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment for AUD without antibiotic therapy is safe and effective in selected patients. Further RTCs should confirm the present findings.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life After Single-Anastomosis Duodeno-ileal Bypass with Sleeve Gastrectomy (SADI-S): a Cross-Sectional Study with 283 Patients from a Single Institution.

INTRODUCTION: Single-anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S) is a safe and effective technique with good short- and mid-term weight control and associated medical problems remission for patients with a body mass index (BMI) > 45 kg/m2. The aim of this study was to analyze patient-reported symptoms, specifically symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms (GERD), depositional habit, and quality of life (QOL) following SADI-S, using telemedicine and validated tests. METHODS: A prospective unicentric cross-sectional study was conducted including all patients submitted to SADI-S in the University Hospital of Bellvitge from May 2014 to September 2019. A baseline control group was composed of 67 patients who were planning to undergo SADI-S in the following 4 months. Patients were divided into four groups: pre-SADIS, < 2 years, 2-3 years, and > 3 years after surgery. The information gathered via a telematic questionnaire was analyzed and compared with its presence in patients' clinical history derived from the last presential visit. RESULTS: The response rate to telematic tests was 86.9%. The mean BMI exhibited significant differences depending on the moment of evaluation: 50.8 kg/m2, 30.0 kg/m2, 31.1 kg/m2, and 32.7 kg/m2 at pre-SADIS, < 2, 2-3, and > 3 years follow-up, respectively (p < 0.001). The proportion of GERD symptoms increased over time (17.9%, 18.8%, 26.9%, and 30.2%, p = 0.320). After SADIS, the percentage of patients with loose stools was progressively higher (17.4% vs 25.4% vs 30.2%, p = 0.04). Patients with < 2-year follow-up presented an improvement in both physical component (PCS) and mental component (MCS) summaries compared to the baseline group (PCS = 51.3, and MCS = 49.4). The mean BMI of patients with PCS ≥ 50 was 31.9 kg/m2, compared with 41.7 kg/m2 in the PCS < 50 group (p < 0.001). In the MCS ≥ 50 group, there were more patients with a BMI < 35 kg/m2 than the MCS < 50 group (66.7% vs 48.7%, p = 0.004). Telematic follow-up offered a more systemic and detailed information: in the last presential visit only, 13.9% of patients had complete data regarding weight evolution, remission of associated medical problems, GERD symptoms, and depositional habit in comparison with the 82.9% of patients with telematic follow-up (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Weight control is the main factor related to long-term QOL after SADI-S. The incidence of GERD symptoms and diarrhea was up to 30% in patients with > 3-year follow-up. Monitoring postoperative patient-related symptoms with validated objective tests seems a feasible and useful resource for the long-term follow-up of patients submitted to SADI-S.

Prognostic Value of the Circumferential Resection Margin After Curative Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recently, positive circumferential resection margin has been found to be an indicator of advanced disease with a high risk of distant recurrence rather than local recurrence. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to analyze the prognostic impact of the circumferential resection margin on long-term oncological outcomes in patients with rectal cancer. DESIGN: This was a multicenter, propensity score-matched (2:1) analysis comparing the positive and negative circumferential resection margins. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at 5 high-volume centers in Spain. PATIENTS: Patients who underwent total mesorectal excision with curative intent for middle-low rectal cancer between 2006 and 2014 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcomes were local recurrence, distant recurrence, overall survival, and disease-free survival. RESULTS: The unmatched initial cohort consisted of 1599 patients, of whom 4.9% had a positive circumferential resection margin. After matching, 234 patients were included (156 with a negative circumferential margin and 78 with a positive circumferential margin). The median follow-up period was 52.5 (22.0-69.5) months. Local recurrence was significantly higher in patients with a positive circumferential margin (33.3% vs 11.5%; p < 0.001). Distant recurrence was similar in both groups (46.2% vs 42.3%; p = 0.651). There were no statistically significant differences in 5-year overall survival (48.6% vs 43.6%; p = 0.14). Disease-free survival was lower in patients with a positive circumferential margin (36.1% vs 52.3%; p = 0.026). LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective design. The different neoadjuvant treatment options were not included in the propensity score. CONCLUSIONS: The positive circumferential resection margin was associated with a higher local recurrence rate and worse disease-free survival in comparison with the negative circumferential resection margin. However, the positive circumferential resection margin was not a prognostic indicator of distant recurrence and overall survival. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B950 . VALOR PRONSTICO DEL MARGEN DE RESECCIN CIRCUNFERENCIAL DESPUS DE LA CIRUGA CURATIVA PARA EL CNCER DE RECTO UN ANLISIS MULTICNTRICO EMPAREJADO POR PUNTAJE DE PROPENSIN: ANTECEDENTES:En los últimos años, se ha encontrado que el margen de resección circunferencial positivo es un indicador de enfermedad avanzada con alto riesgo de recurrencia a distancia más que de recurrencia local.OBJETIVO:El objetivo fue analizar el impacto pronóstico del margen de resección circunferencial sobre la recidiva local, a distancia y las tasas de supervivencia en pacientes con cáncer de recto.DISEÑO:Este fue un análisis multicéntrico emparejado por puntaje de propensión 2: 1 que comparó el margen de resección circunferencial positivo y negativo.AJUSTES:El estudio se realizó en 5 centros Españoles de alto volumen.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes sometidos a escisión total de mesorrecto con intención curativa por cáncer de recto medio-bajo entre 2006-2014. Las características clínicas e histológicas se utilizaron para el emparejamiento.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los resultadoes principales fueron la recurrencia local, la recurrencia a distancia, la supervivencia global y libre de enfermedad.RESULTADOS:La cohorte inicial no emparejada consistió en 1599 pacientes; El 4,9% tuvo un margen de resección circunferencial positivo. Tras el emparejamiento se incluyeron 234 pacientes (156 con margen circunferencial negativo y 78 con margen circunferencial positivo). La mediana del período de seguimiento fue de 52,5 meses (22,0-69,5). La recurrencia local fue significativamente mayor en pacientes con margen circunferencial positivo, 33,3% vs 11,5% [HR 3,2; IC 95%: 1,83-5,43; p < 0,001]. La recidiva a distancia fue similar en ambos grupos (46,2 % frente a 42,3 %) [HR 1,09, IC 95 %: 0,78-1,90; p = 0,651]. No hubo diferencias significativas en la supervivencia global a 5 años (48,6 % frente a 43,6 %) [HR 1,09, IC 95 %: 0,92-1,78; p = 0,14]; La supervivencia libre de enfermedad fue menor en pacientes con margen circunferencial positivo, 36,1% vs 52,3% [HR 1,5; IC 95%: 1,05-2,06; p = 0,026].LIMITACIONES:Este estudio estuvo limitado por el diseño retrospectivo. Las diferentes opciones de tratamientos neoadyuvantes no se han incluido en la puntuación de propensión.CONCLUSIONES:El margen de resección circunferencial positivo se asocia con una mayor tasa de recurrencia local y peor supervivencia libre de enfermedad en comparación con el margen de resección circunferencial negativo. Sin embargo, el margen de resección circunferencial positivo no fue un indicador pronóstico de recidiva a distancia ni de supervivencia global. Consulte el Video del Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B950 . (Traducción- Dr. Yesenia Rojas-Khalil ).

Transanal Hemorrhoidal Dearterialization With Mucopexy Versus Vessel-Sealing Device Hemorrhoidectomy for Grade III to IV Hemorrhoids: Long-term Outcomes From the THDLIGA Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Both transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization and vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy are safe for grade III to IV hemorrhoid treatment. Whether one of them is superior regarding long-term results remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To compare long-term results after transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization and vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy. DESIGN: Multicenter randomized controlled trial. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at 6 centers. PATIENTS: Patients ≥18 years of age with grade III to IV hemorrhoids were included in the study. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization (n = 39) or vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy (n = 41). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was hemorrhoid symptom recurrence assessed by a specific questionnaire 2 years postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included long-term complications, reoperations, fecal continence, and patient satisfaction and quality of life. RESULTS: Five of the 80 patients included in the study were lost to follow-up. Thirty-six patients randomly assigned to transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization and 39 patients randomly assigned to vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy were included in the long-term analysis. The differences between mean baseline and mean 2-year score in the 2 groups were similar (-11.0, SD 3.8 vs -12.5, SD 3.6; p = 0.080). Three patients in the transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization group underwent supplementary procedures for hemorrhoid symptoms, compared with none in the vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy group ( p = 0.106). Four patients in the vessel-sealing hemorrhoidectomy group and none in the transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization group experienced chronic opened wound ( p = 0.116). LIMITATIONS: Lack of stratification for hemorrhoid grade and power calculation based on the main outcome trial but not on the end point of this long-term study. CONCLUSIONS: Transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization with mucopexy is associated with hemorrhoid symptom recurrence similar to vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy at 2 years. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B933 . REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov ; ID: NCT02654249. DESARTERIALIZACIN HEMORROIDAL TRANSANAL CON MUCOPEXIA VERSUS HEMORROIDECTOMA CON DISPOSITIVO DE SELLADO DE VASOS PARA HEMORROIDES DE GRADO IIIIV RESULTADOS A LARGO PLAZO DEL ENSAYO CLNICO ALEATORIZADO THDLIGARCT: ANTECEDENTES:Tanto la desarterialización hemorroidal transanal como la hemorroidectomía con dispositivo de sellado de vasos son seguras y bien toleradas para el tratamiento de las hemorroides de grado III-IV. La primera se asocia con una necesidad más breve de analgesia posoperatoria que la hemorroidectomía con dispositivo de sellado de vasos. No está claro si uno de ellos es superior con respecto a los resultados a largo plazo.OBJETIVO:El objetivo fue comparar los resultados a largo plazo después de la desarterialización hemorroidal transanal y la hemorroidectomía con dispositivo de sellado de vasos.DISEÑO:Se realizó un ensayo clínico aleatorizado multicéntrico.AJUSTE:Este estudio se realizó en 6 centros.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron en el estudio pacientes de ≥18 años con hemorroides de grado III-IV.INTERVENCIONES:Los pacientes fueron asignados al azar a desarterialización hemorroidal transanal (n = 39) o hemorroidectomía con dispositivo de sellado de vasos (n = 41).PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El resultado primario fue la recurrencia de los síntomas de hemorroides evaluada mediante un cuestionario específico 2 años después de la operación. Los resultados secundarios incluyeron complicaciones a largo plazo, reoperaciones, continencia fecal, satisfacción del paciente y calidad de vida.RESULTADOS:Cinco de los 80 pacientes incluidos en el estudio se perdieron durante el seguimiento. En el análisis a largo plazo se incluyeron 36 pacientes aleatorizados a desarterialización hemorroidal transanal y 39 aleatorizados a hemorroidectomía con dispositivo de sellado de vasos. Las diferencias entre la puntuación inicial media y la puntuación media a los 2 años en los dos grupos fueron similares (-11,0, DE 3,8 frente a -12,5, DE 3,6; p = 0,080). Tres pacientes en el grupo de desarterialización hemorroidal transanal se sometieron a procedimientos complementarios por síntomas de hemorroides, en comparación con ninguno en el grupo de hemorroidectomía con dispositivo de sellado de vasos (p = 0,106). Cuatro pacientes en el grupo de hemorroidectomía con sellado de vasos y ninguno en el grupo de desarterialización hemorroidal transanal experimentaron herida abierta crónica (p = 0,116). No se encontraron diferencias en cuanto a continencia fecal (p = 0,657), satisfacción del paciente (p = 0,483) y calidad de vida.LIMITACIONES:No hay estratificación para el grado de hemorroides ni el cálculo del poder basado en el resultado principal del ensayo, pero no en el criterio de valoración de este estudio a largo plazo.CONCLUSIONES:La desarterialización hemorroidal transanal con mucopexia se asocia con una recurrencia de síntomas de hemorroides similar a la hemorroidectomía con dispositivo de sellado de vasos a los dos años. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B933 . (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon )REGISTRO DE PRUEBA:Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02654249).

Lessons learnt from the implementation of a colorectal cancer screening programme for lynch syndrome in a tertiary public hospital.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome (LS) is the first cause of inherited colorectal cancer (CRC), being responsible for 2-4% of all diagnoses. Identification of affected individuals is important as they have an increased lifetime risk of multiple CRC and other neoplasms, however, LS is consistently underdiagnosed at the population level. We aimed to evaluate the yield of LS screening in CRC in a single-referral centre and to identify the barriers to its effective implementation. METHODS: LS screening programme included individuals with CRC < 70 years, multiple CRC, or endometrial cancer at any age. Mismatch repair (MMR) protein immunohistochemistry (IHC) analysis was performed in routine practice on the surgical specimen and, if MLH1 IHC was altered, MLH1 gene promoter methylation was analysed. Results were collected in the CRC multidisciplinary board database. LS suspected individuals (altered MMR IHC without MLH1 promoter methylation) were referred to the Cancer Genetic Counselling Unit (CGCU). If accepted, a genetic study was performed. Two checkpoints were included: review of the pathology data and verification of patient referral by a genetic counsellor. RESULTS: Between 2016 and 2019, 381 individuals were included. MMR IHC analysis was performed in 374/381 (98.2 %) CRC cases and MLH1 promoter methylation in 18/21 (85.7 %). Seventeen of the 20 LS suspected individuals were invited for referral at the CGCU. Two cases were not invited and the remaining patient died of cancer before completion of tumour screening. Fifteen individuals attended and a genetic analysis was performed in 15/20 (75 %) LS suspected individuals. Ten individuals were diagnosed with LS, in concordance with the IHC profile (2.7 % of the total cohort). This led to cascade testing in 58/75 (77.3 %) of the available adult relatives at risk, identifying 26 individuals with LS. CONCLUSIONS: Establishing a standardized institutional LS screening programme with checkpoints in the workflow is key to increasing the yield of LS identification.

Protective ileostomy creation after anterior resection of the rectum: Shared decision-making or still subjective?

AIM: The choice of whether to perform protective ileostomy (PI) after anterior resection (AR) is mainly guided by risk factors (RFs) responsible for the development of anastomotic leakage (AL). However, clear guidelines about PI creation are still lacking in the literature and this is often decided according to the surgeon's preferences, experiences or feelings. This qualitative study aims to investigate, by an open-ended question survey, the individual surgeon's decision-making process regarding PI creation after elective AR. METHOD: Fifty four colorectal surgeons took part in an electronic survey to answer the questions and describe what usually led their decision to perform PI. A content analysis was used to code the answers. To classify answers, five dichotomous categories (In favour/Against PI, Listed/Unlisted RFs, Typical/Atypical, Emotions/Non-emotions, Personal experience/No personal experience) have been developed. RESULTS: Overall, 76% of surgeons were in favour of PI creation and 88% considered listed RFs in the question of whether to perform PI. Atypical answers were reported in 10% of cases. Emotions and personal experience influenced surgeons' decision-making process in 22% and 49% of cases, respectively. The most frequently considered RFs were the distance of the anastomosis from the anal verge (96%), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (88%), a positive intraoperative leak test (65%), blood loss (37%) and immunosuppression therapy (35%). CONCLUSION: The indications to perform PI following rectal cancer surgery lack standardization and evidence-based guidelines are required to inform practice. Until then, expert opinion can be helpful to assist the decision-making process in patients who have undergone AR for adenocarcinoma.

Surviving rectal cancer at the cost of a colostomy: global survey of long-term health-related quality of life in 10 countries.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer management may require an ostomy formation; however, a stoma may negatively impact health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to compare generic and stoma-specific HRQoL in patients with a permanent colostomy after rectal cancer across different countries. METHOD: A cross-sectional cohorts of patients with a colostomy after rectal cancer in Denmark, Sweden, Spain, the Netherlands, China, Portugal, Australia, Lithuania, Egypt, and Israel were invited to complete questionnaires regarding demographic and socioeconomic factors along with the Colostomy Impact (CI) score, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and five anchor questions assessing colostomy impact on HRQoL. The background characteristics of the cohorts from each country were compared and generic HRQoL was measured with the EORTC QLQ-C30 presented for the total cohort. Results were compared with normative data of reference European populations. The predictors of reduced HRQoL were investigated by multivariable logistic regression, including demographic and socioeconomic factors and stoma-related problems. RESULTS: A total of 2557 patients were included. Response rates varied between 51-93 per cent. Mean time from stoma creation was 2.5-6.2 (range 1.1-39.2) years. A total of 25.8 per cent of patients reported that their colostomy impairs their HRQoL 'some'/'a lot'. This group had significantly unfavourable scores across all EORTC subscales compared with patients reporting 'no'/'a little' impaired HRQoL. Generic HRQoL differed significantly between countries, but resembled the HRQoL of reference populations. Multivariable logistic regression showed that stoma dysfunction, including high CI score (OR 3.32), financial burden from the stoma (OR 1.98), unemployment (OR 2.74), being single/widowed (OR 1.35) and young age (OR 1.01 per year) predicted reduced stoma-related HRQoL. CONCLUSION: Overall HRQoL is preserved in patients with a colostomy after rectal cancer, but a quarter of the patients interviewed reported impaired HRQoL. Differences among several countries were reported and socioeconomic factors correlated with reduced quality of life.

COLONOMICS - integrative omics data of one hundred paired normal-tumoral samples from colon cancer patients.

Colonomics is a multi-omics dataset that includes 250 samples: 50 samples from healthy colon mucosa donors and 100 paired samples from colon cancer patients (tumor/adjacent). From these samples, Colonomics project includes data from genotyping, DNA methylation, gene expression, whole exome sequencing and micro-RNAs (miRNAs) expression. It also includes data from copy number variation (CNV) from tumoral samples. In addition, clinical data from all these samples is available. The aims of the project were to explore and integrate these datasets to describe colon cancer at molecular level and to compare normal and tumoral tissues. Also, to improve screening by finding biomarkers for the diagnosis and prognosis of colon cancer. This project has its own website including four browsers allowing users to explore Colonomics datasets. Since generated data could be reuse for the scientific community for exploratory or validation purposes, here we describe omics datasets included in the Colonomics project as well as results from multi-omics layers integration.

Benchmarks in colorectal surgery: multinational study to define quality thresholds in high and low anterior resection.

BACKGROUND: Benchmark comparisons in surgery allow identification of gaps in the quality of care provided. The aim of this study was to determine quality thresholds for high (HAR) and low (LAR) anterior resections in colorectal cancer surgery by applying the concept of benchmarking. METHODS: This 5-year multinational retrospective study included patients who underwent anterior resection for cancer in 19 high-volume centres on five continents. Benchmarks were defined for 11 relevant postoperative variables at discharge, 3 months, and 6 months (for LAR). Benchmarks were calculated for two separate cohorts: patients without (ideal) and those with (non-ideal) outcome-relevant co-morbidities. Benchmark cut-offs were defined as the 75th percentile of each centre's median value. RESULTS: A total of 3903 patients who underwent HAR and 3726 who had LAR for cancer were analysed. After 3 months' follow-up, the mortality benchmark in HAR for ideal and non-ideal patients was 0.0 versus 3.0 per cent, and in LAR it was 0.0 versus 2.2 per cent. Benchmark results for anastomotic leakage were 5.0 versus 6.9 per cent for HAR, and 13.6 versus 11.8 per cent for LAR. The overall morbidity benchmark in HAR was a Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®) score of 8.6 versus 14.7, and that for LAR was CCI® score 11.9 versus 18.3. CONCLUSION: Regular comparison of individual-surgeon or -unit outcome data against benchmark thresholds may identify gaps in care quality that can improve patient outcome.

Use of failure-to-rescue after emergency surgery as a dynamic indicator of hospital resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic. A multicenter retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Surgical failure-to-rescue (FTR, death rate following complications) is a reliable cross-sectional quality of care marker, but has not been evaluated dynamically. We aimed to study changes in FTR following emergency surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Matched cohort study including all COVID-19-non-infected adult patients undergoing emergency general surgery in 25 Spanish hospitals during COVID-19 pandemic peak (March-April 2020), non-peak (May-June 2020), and 2019 control periods. A propensity score-matched comparative analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model, in which period was regressed on observed baseline characteristics. Subsequently, a mixed effects logistic regression model was constructed for each variable of interest. Main variable was FTR. Secondary variables were post-operative complications, readmissions, reinterventions, and length of stay. RESULTS: 5003 patients were included (948, 1108, and 2947 in the pandemic peak, non-peak, and control periods), with comparable clinical characteristics, prognostic scores, complications, reintervention, rehospitalization rates, and length of stay across periods. FTR was greater during the pandemic peak than during non-peak and pre-pandemic periods (22.5% vs. 17.2% and 12.7%), being this difference confirmed in adjusted analysis (odds ratio [OR] 2.13, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.27-3.66). There was sensible inter-hospital variability in FTR changes during the pandemic peak (median FTR change +8.77%, IQR 0-29.17%) not observed during the pandemic non-peak period (median FTR change 0%, IQR -6.01-6.72%). Greater FTR increase was associated with higher COVID-19 incidence (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.31-4.16) and some hospital characteristics, including tertiary level (OR 3.07, 95% CI 1.27-8.00), medium-volume (OR 2.79, 95% CI 1.14-7.34), and high basal-adjusted complication risk (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.07-4.72). CONCLUSION: FTR following emergency surgery experienced a heterogeneous increase during different periods of the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting it to behave as an indicator of hospital resilience. FTR monitoring could facilitate identification of centres in special needs during ongoing health care challenges.