Adjuvant Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Patients With Locally Advanced Colon Cancer (COLOPEC): 5-Year Results of a Randomized Multicenter Trial.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.Whether adjuvant hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) might prevent peritoneal metastases after curative surgery for high-risk colon cancer is an ongoing debate. This study aimed to determine 5-year oncologic outcomes of the randomized multicenter COLOPEC trial, which included patients with clinical or pathologic T4N0-2M0 or perforated colon cancer and randomly assigned (1:1) to either adjuvant systemic chemotherapy and HIPEC (n = 100) or adjuvant systemic chemotherapy alone (n = 102). HIPEC was performed using a one-time administration of oxaliplatin (460 mg/m2, 30 minutes, 42°C, concurrent fluorouracil/leucovorin intravenously), either simultaneously (9%) or within 5-8 weeks (91%) after primary tumor resection. Outcomes were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Long-term data were available of all 202 patients included in the COLOPEC trial, with a median follow-up of 59 months (IQR, 54.5-64.5). No significant difference was found in 5-year overall survival rate between patients assigned to adjuvant HIPEC followed by systemic chemotherapy or only adjuvant systemic chemotherapy (69.6% v 70.9%, log-rank; P = .692). Five-year peritoneal metastases rates were 63.9% and 63.2% (P = .907) and 5-year disease-free survival was 55.7% and 52.3% (log-rank; P = .875), respectively. No differences in quality-of-life outcomes were found. Our findings implicate that adjuvant HIPEC should still be performed in trial setting only.

Endoscopy and MRI for restaging early rectal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment.

AIM: Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) has great potential to downstage rectal cancer. Response assessment has been investigated in locally advanced rectal cancer but not in early stage rectal cancer. The aim is to characterize the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopy performed by surgical endoscopists compared to (diffusion-weighted, DWI) MRI only and a multimodal approach combining (DWI-)MRI and endoscopic information both analysed by an abdominal radiologist for response assessment in early rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients treated with neoadjuvant CRT for early distal rectal cancer (cT1-3 N0) followed by transanal endoscopic microsurgery were included. Three separate reassessment groups were analysed for response assessment using endoscopic evaluation alone versus (DWI-)MRI alone versus the combination of endoscopy with (DWI-)MRI with a focus on sensitivity and specificity and analysis using receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: Three cohorts (N = 36, N = 25 and N = 25, respectively) were analysed for response assessment. Of the endoscopy cohort, 16 of the 36 patients had a complete response. Area under the curve was 0.69 (0.66-0.74; pooled sensitivity 55.3%, pooled specificity 80.0%). Agreement for scoring separate endoscopic features was poor to moderate. Of the (DWI-)MRI cohort, 11 of the 25 patients had a complete response. Area under the curve for (DWI-)MRI alone was 0.55 (sensitivity 72.7%, specificity 42.9%). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve improved to 0.68 (sensitivity 90.9%, specificity 75.0%) when (DWI-)MRI was combined with endoscopic information, with 11 out of 25 patients with a complete response. The most accurate response assessment was made by combining endoscopy and (DWI-)MRI with a high negative predictive value (90.9%). CONCLUSION: Good and complete responders after chemoradiation of early stage rectal cancer can be best assessed using a multimodality approach combining endoscopy and (DWI-)MRI.

Acceptability, quality of life and cost overview of a remote follow-up plan for patients with colorectal cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer (CRC) follow-up has a major impact on outpatient services. The aim was to examine patient acceptability and costs of a new remote follow-up regimen for patients with CRC. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All patients with stage I-III CRC and having completed at least one-year of follow-up at Radboud University Medical Center located in Nijmegen, The Netherlands, were considered for remote follow-up. Enrolled patients received the EORTC-C30 (Quality of Life, QoL), Cancer Worry Scale (Fear of Cancer Recurrence, FCR), (e)Health literacy and patient satisfaction questionnaires. Follow-up use and costs were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 118 patients with stage I-III CRC have been followed according to the new remote follow-up regimen. Median length of follow-up at start of remote follow-up was 34 months (interquartile range of 24-41) and all patients were sufficiently health literate. Overall satisfaction towards remote follow-up at 6-and 12-months was rated 7.8 and 7.5 out of 10. Satisfaction with the online self-management information was rated 8 out of 10. Over a one-year period, QoL remained high and patients experienced low FCR. More than 70% of the patients self-organized their care, while the others sought contact by telephone, MyChart or hospital visits. Remote follow-up for the total cohort led to €22,408 cost-savings over one-year compared to standard hospital follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of remote follow-up for patients with stage I-III CRC is feasible, comes with high patient satisfaction and considerable cost-savings. Short-term results did not show differences in QoL or FCR during the course of remote follow-up.

Perineal wound closure using gluteal turnover flap or primary closure after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: study protocol of a randomised controlled multicentre trial (BIOPEX-2 study).

BACKGROUND: Abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer is associated with high morbidity of the perineal wound, and controversy exists about the optimal closure technique. Primary perineal wound closure is still the standard of care in the Netherlands. Biological mesh closure did not improve wound healing in our previous randomised controlled trial (BIOPEX-study). It is suggested, based on meta-analysis of cohort studies, that filling of the perineal defect with well-vascularised tissue improves perineal wound healing. A gluteal turnover flap seems to be a promising method for this purpose, and with the advantage of not having a donor site scar. The aim of this study is to investigate whether a gluteal turnover flap improves the uncomplicated perineal wound healing after APR for rectal cancer. METHODS: Patients with primary or recurrent rectal cancer who are planned for APR will be considered eligible in this multicentre randomised controlled trial. Exclusion criteria are total exenteration, sacral resection above S4/S5, intersphincteric APR, biological mesh closure of the pelvic floor, collagen disorders, and severe systemic diseases. A total of 160 patients will be randomised between gluteal turnover flap (experimental arm) and primary closure (control arm). The total follow-up duration is 12 months, and outcome assessors and patients will be blinded for type of perineal wound closure. The primary outcome is the percentage of uncomplicated perineal wound healing on day 30, defined as a Southampton wound score of less than two. Secondary outcomes include time to perineal wound closure, incidence of perineal hernia, the number, duration and nature of the complications, re-interventions, quality of life and urogenital function. DISCUSSION: The uncomplicated perineal wound healing rate is expected to increase from 65 to 85% by using the gluteal turnover flap. With proven effectiveness, a quick implementation of this relatively simple surgical technique is expected to take place. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was retrospectively registered at Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04004650 on July 2, 2019.

Wide variation in tissue, systemic, and drain fluid exposure after oxaliplatin-based HIPEC: results of the GUTOX study.

PURPOSE: In this exploratory study, the effect of postprocedural flushing with crystalloids after oxaliplatin-based hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) on platinum concentrations in peritoneal tissue, blood, and drain fluid was studied. Interpatient variability in oxaliplatin pharmacokinetics and the relation between platinum concentration in peritoneal fluid and platinum exposure in tissue and blood was explored. METHODS: Ten patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal origin were treated with HIPEC including postprocedural flushing, followed by ten patients without flushing afterwards. Tissue, peritoneal fluid, blood, and drain fluid samples were collected for measurement of total and ultrafiltered platinum concentrations. RESULTS: Peritoneal tissue concentration and systemic ultrafiltered platinum exposure showed large inter individual variability, ranging from 65 to 1640 µg/g dry weight and 10.5 to 28.0 µg*h/ml, respectively. No effect of flushing was found on geometric mean platinum concentration in peritoneal tissue (348 vs. 356 µg/g dry weight), blood (14.8 vs. 18.1 µg*h/ml), or drain fluid (day 1: 7.6 vs. 7.7 µg/ml; day 2: 1.7 vs. 1.9 µg/ml). The platinum concentration in peritoneal fluid at the start of HIPEC differed twofold between patients and was positively correlated with systemic exposure (p = .04) and peak plasma concentration (p = .04). CONCLUSION: In this exploratory study, no effect was found for postprocedural flushing on platinum concentrations in peritoneal tissue, blood, or drain fluid. BSA-based HIPEC procedure leads to large interpatient variability in platinum exposure in all compartments. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on 7 December 2017 under registration number NCT03364907.

Adjuvant hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced colon cancer (COLOPEC): a multicentre, open-label, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Nearly a quarter of patients with locally advanced (T4 stage) or perforated colon cancer are at risk of developing peritoneal metastases, often without curative treatment options. We aimed to determine the efficacy of adjuvant hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in patients with locally advanced colon cancer. METHODS: This multicentre, open-label trial was done in nine hospitals that specialised in HIPEC in the Netherlands. Patients with clinical or pathological T4N0-2M0-stage tumours or perforated colon cancer were randomly assigned (1:1), with a web-based randomisation application, before resection of the primary tumour, to adjuvant HIPEC followed by routine adjuvant systemic chemotherapy (experimental group) or to adjuvant systemic chemotherapy alone (control group). Patients were stratified by tumour characteristic (T4 or perforation), age (<65 years or ≥65 years), and surgical approach of the primary tumour resection (laparoscopic or open). Key eligibility criteria included age between 18 and 75 years, adequate clinical condition for HIPEC, and intention to start adjuvant systemic chemotherapy. Patients with metastatic disease were ineligible. Adjuvant HIPEC consisted of fluorouracil (400 mg/m2) and leucovorin (20 mg/m2) delivered intravenously followed by intraperitoneal delivery of oxaliplatin (460 mg/m2) for 30 min at 42°C, delivered simultaneously or within 5-8 weeks after primary tumour resection. In all patients without evidence of recurrent disease at 18 months, a diagnostic laparoscopy was done. The primary endpoint was peritoneal metastasis free-survival at 18 months, measured in the intention-to-treat population, with the Kaplan-Meier method. Adverse events were assessed in all patients who received assigned treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231086. FINDINGS: Between April 1, 2015, and Feb 20, 2017, 204 patients were randomly assigned to treatment (102 in each group). In the HIPEC group, two patients withdrew consent after randomisation. In this group, 19 (19%) of 100 patients were diagnosed with peritoneal metastases: nine (47%) during surgical exploration preceding intentional adjuvant HIPEC, eight (42%) during routine follow-up, and two (11%) during diagnostic laparoscopy at 18-months. In the control group, 23 (23%) of 102 patients were diagnosed with peritoneal metastases, of whom seven (30%) were diagnosed by laparoscopy at 18-months and 16 during regular follow-up (therefore making them ineligible for diagnostic laparoscopy). In the intention-to-treat analysis (n=202), there was no difference in peritoneal-free survival at 18-months (80·9% [95% CI 73·3-88·5] for the experimental group vs 76·2% [68·0-84·4] for the control group, log-rank one-sided p=0·28). 12 (14%) of 87 patients who received adjuvant HIPEC developed postoperative complications and one (1%) encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis. INTERPRETATION: In patients with T4 or perforated colon cancer, treatment with adjuvant HIPEC with oxaliplatin did not improve peritoneal metastasis-free survival at 18 months. Routine use of adjuvant HIPEC is not advocated on the basis of this trial. FUNDING: Organization for Health Research and Development and the Dutch Cancer Society.

Second and third look laparoscopy in pT4 colon cancer patients for early detection of peritoneal metastases; the COLOPEC 2 randomized multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20-30% of patients with pT4 colon cancer develop metachronous peritoneal metastases (PM). Due to restricted accuracy of imaging modalities and absence of early symptoms, PM are often detected at a stage in which only a quarter of patients are eligible for curative intent treatment. Preliminary findings of the COLOPEC trial (NCT02231086) revealed that PM were already detected during surgical re-exploration within two months after primary resection in 9% of patients with pT4 colon cancer. Therefore, second look diagnostic laparoscopy (DLS) to detect PM at a subclinical stage may be considered an essential component of early follow-up in these patients, although this needs confirmation in a larger patient cohort. Furthermore, a third look DLS after a negative second look DLS might be beneficial for detection of PM occurring at a later stage. METHODS: The aim of this study is to determine the yield of second look DLS and added value of third look DLS after negative second look DLS in detecting occult PM in pT4N0-2 M0 colon cancer patients after completion of primary treatment. Patients will undergo an abdominal CT at 6 months postoperative, followed by a second look DLS within 1 month if no PM or other metastases not amenable for local treatment are detected. Patients without PM will subsequently be randomized between routine follow-up including 18 months abdominal CT, or an experimental arm with a third look DLS provided that PM or incurable metastases are absent at the 18 months abdominal CT. Primary endpoint is the proportion of PM detected after a negative second look DLS and will be determined at 20 months postoperative. DISCUSSION: Second look DLS is supposed to result in 10% occult PM, and third look DLS after negative second look DLS is expected to detect an additional 10% of PM compared to routine follow-up alone in patients with pT4 colon cancer. Detection of PM at an early stage will likely increase the proportion of patients eligible for curative intent treatment and subsequently improve survival, given the uniformly reported direct association between the extent of peritoneal disease and survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03413254 , January 2018.

Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery with or without Completion Total Mesorectal Excision for T2 and T3 Rectal Carcinoma.

AIM: Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is used for the resection of large rectal adenomas and well or moderately differentiated T1 carcinomas. Due to difficulty in preoperative staging, final pathology may reveal a carcinoma not suitable for TEM. Although completion total mesorectal excision is considered standard of care in T2 or more invasive carcinomas, this completion surgery is not always performed. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the outcome of patients after TEM-only, when completion surgery would be indicated. METHODS: In this retrospective multicenter, observational cohort study, outcome after TEM-only (n = 41) and completion surgery (n = 40) following TEM for a pT2-3 rectal adenocarcinoma was compared. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 29 months for the TEM-only group and 31 months for the completion surgery group. Local recurrence rate was 35 and 11% for the TEM-only and completion surgery groups respectively. Distant metastasis occurred in 16% of the patients in both groups. The 3-year overall survival was 63% in the TEM-only group and 91% in the completion surgery group respectively. Three-year disease-specific survival was 91 versus 93% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although local recurrence after TEM-only for pT2-3 rectal cancer is worse compared to the recurrence that occurs after completion surgery, disease-specific survival is comparable between both groups. The lower unadjusted overall survival in the TEM-only group indicates that TEM-only may be a valid alternative in older and frail patients, especially when high morbidity of completion surgery is taken into consideration. Nevertheless, completion surgery should always be advised when curation is intended.

Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy with oxaliplatin for peritoneal carcinomatosis: a clinical pharmacological perspective on a surgical procedure.

Cytoreductive surgery combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has become the standard of care in the treatment of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal origin. The use of oxaliplatin for HIPEC has gained popularity. Although the HIPEC procedure is adopted throughout the world, major differences exist between treatment protocols regarding the carrier solution, perfusate volume, use of an open or closed technique, duration of the perfusion and application of additional flushing. These differences can influence the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of oxaliplatin and might thereby have an impact on the efficacy and/or safety of the treatment. Clinicians should be aware of the clinical importance of oxaliplatin pharmacology when performing HIPEC surgery. This review adds new insights into the complex field of the pharmacology of HIPEC and highlights an important worldwide problem: the lack of standardization of the HIPEC procedure.

Treatment of Isolated Peritoneal Recurrences in Patients with Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases Previously Treated with Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) is preferably treated with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). Peritoneal recurrence of disease after treatment can occur without distant metastases, with a variety of treatment options. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the management of isolated peritoneal recurrence after primary CRS-HIPEC. METHODS: In two tertiary referral centers, all patients who underwent CRS-HIPEC for colorectal PC between 2004 and 2015 and who developed isolated peritoneal recurrences were retrospectively evaluated. Location, treatment of peritoneal recurrences, and curative or palliative treatment intent were reported, and univariable and multivariable Cox regression analysis and survival analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of 414 patients treated with CRS-HIPEC for colorectal PC, 106 patients (26%) developed isolated peritoneal recurrence. Forty-three patients (41%) were treated with curative intent and 63 (59%) were treated with palliative intent. Median overall survival (OS) in the patients treated with curative intent was 24.7 months (interquartile range [IQR] 12.1-61.7), compared with 7.6 months (IQR 2.5-15.9) in those treated with palliative intent (p < 0.001). In the patients treated with curative CRS (n = 17) and curative second CRS-HIPEC (n = 15), median OS was 51.7 months (IQR 14.4-NA) and 29.0 months (IQR 18.1-63.0), respectively (p = 0.620). The latter group had a significantly higher region count (median 1 vs. 3; p < 0.001). Postoperative complications and hospital stay did not significantly differ between first and second CRS-HIPEC. CONCLUSION: After CRS-HIPEC for colorectal cancer, approximately one of four patients will develop isolated peritoneal recurrences. A substantial amount of these patients can be safely treated with curative intent yielding long-term survival.

The Impact of Curriculum Design in the Acquisition of Knowledge of Oncology: Comparison Among Four Medical Schools.

Over the past 5 years, cancer has replaced coronary heart disease as the leading cause of death in the Netherlands. It is thus paramount that medical doctors acquire a knowledge of cancer, since most of them will face many patients with cancer. Studies, however, have indicated that there is a deficit in knowledge of oncology among medical students, which may be due not only to the content but also to the structure of the curriculum. In this study, we compared students' knowledge acquisition in four different undergraduate medical programs. Further, we investigated possible factors that might influence students' knowledge growth as related to oncology. The participants comprised 1440 medical students distributed over four universities in the Netherlands. To measure students' knowledge of oncology, we used their progress test results from 2007 to 2013. The progress test consists of 200 multiple-choice questions; this test is taken simultaneously four times a year by all students. All questions regarding oncology were selected. We first compared the growth of knowledge of oncology using mixed models. Then, we interviewed the oncology coordinator of each university to arrive at a better insight of each curriculum. Two schools showed similar patterns of knowledge growth, with a slight decrease in the growth rate for one of them in year 6. The third school had a faster initial growth with a faster decrease over time compared to other medical schools. The fourth school showed a steep decrease in knowledge growth during years 5 and 6. The interviews showed that the two higher-scoring schools had a more focused semester on oncology, whereas in the others, oncology was scattered throughout the curriculum. Furthermore, the absence of a pre-internship training program seemed to hinder knowledge growth in one school. Our findings suggest that curricula have an influence on students' knowledge acquisition. A focused semester on oncology and a pre-internship preparatory training program are likely to have a positive impact on students' progress in terms of knowledge of oncology.

The progress test of medicine: the Dutch experience.

Progress testing in the Netherlands has a long history. It was first introduced at one medical school which had a problem-based learning (PBL) curriculum from the start. Later, other schools with and without PBL curricula joined. At present, approximately 10,000 students sit a test every three months. The annual progress exam is not a single test. It consists of a series of 4 tests per annum which are summative in the end. The current situation with emphasis on the formative and summative aspects will be discussed. The reader will get insight into the way progress testing can be used as feedback for students and schools.

Treatment of Locally Recurrent Rectal Carcinoma in Previously (Chemo)Irradiated Patients: A Review.

BACKGROUND: Local recurrence after rectal cancer treatment occurs in ≈5% to 10% of patients. Neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy for primary rectal cancer renders treatment of recurrent disease more difficult. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to review contemporary multimodality therapies, including their outcome, for locally recurrent rectal carcinoma after (chemo)radiotherapy and complete surgical resection of primary rectal cancer. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed and EMBASE was performed. STUDY SELECTION: All English language articles presenting original patient data regarding treatment and the respective outcome of previously irradiated locally recurrent rectal cancer were included. INTERVENTIONS: All of the treatment modalities for locally recurrent rectal cancer were reviewed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome parameters were local control, metastasis-free survival, and overall survival. Secondary outcome parameters were perioperative morbidity and mortality, and prognostic factors for treatment outcome. RESULTS: Of 854 studies, 9 studies and 474 patients with locally recurrent rectal carcinoma were included. Various treatment regimens were used, most with curative intent. Reirradiation was composed of (neo-)adjuvant external beam radiotherapy (with or without concurrent chemotherapy), additional intraoperative radiotherapy, or intraoperative radiotherapy only. Surgical technique highly varied, depending on the extent of the lesion. Radiation toxicity, perioperative morbidity, and mortality were generally acceptable. Outcome was better after curative intent treatment, any surgical resection, and R0 resections in particular. Moreover, reirradiation is associated with increased complete resection rates, which in turn positively affected local control and overall survival. LIMITATIONS: Most studies were retrospectively designed, with highly variable therapies, patient populations, and duration of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: A complete resection is the most important prognostic factor and should be the goal of treatment in locally recurrent rectal carcinoma. Reirradiation seems safe and of additional value in reaching a complete resection. Considering the available evidence, at present reirradiation should be given on a case-specific basis, with all of the patients entering an international prospective database.

Adjuvant hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in patients with colon cancer at high risk of peritoneal carcinomatosis; the COLOPEC randomized multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: The peritoneum is the second most common site of recurrence in colorectal cancer. Early detection of peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) by imaging is difficult. Patients eventually presenting with clinically apparent PC have a poor prognosis. Median survival is only about five months if untreated and the benefit of palliative systemic chemotherapy is limited. Only a quarter of patients are eligible for curative treatment, consisting of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CR/HIPEC). However, the effectiveness depends highly on the extent of disease and the treatment is associated with a considerable complication rate. These clinical problems underline the need for effective adjuvant therapy in high-risk patients to minimize the risk of outgrowth of peritoneal micro metastases. Adjuvant hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) seems to be suitable for this purpose. Without the need for cytoreductive surgery, adjuvant HIPEC can be performed with a low complication rate and short hospital stay. METHODS/DESIGN: The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of adjuvant HIPEC in preventing the development of PC in patients with colon cancer at high risk of peritoneal recurrence. This study will be performed in the nine Dutch HIPEC centres, starting in April 2015. Eligible for inclusion are patients who underwent curative resection for T4 or intra-abdominally perforated cM0 stage colon cancer. After resection of the primary tumour, 176 patients will be randomized to adjuvant HIPEC followed by routine adjuvant systemic chemotherapy in the experimental arm, or to systemic chemotherapy only in the control arm. Adjuvant HIPEC will be performed simultaneously or shortly after the primary resection. Oxaliplatin will be used as chemotherapeutic agent, for 30 min at 42-43 °C. Just before HIPEC, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin will be administered intravenously. Primary endpoint is peritoneal disease-free survival at 18 months. Diagnostic laparoscopy will be performed routinely after 18 months postoperatively in both arms of the study in patients without evidence of disease based on routine follow-up using CT imaging and CEA. DISCUSSION: Adjuvant HIPEC is assumed to reduce the expected 25 % absolute risk of PC in patients with T4 or perforated colon cancer to a risk of 10 %. This reduction is likely to translate into a prolonged overall survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02231086 (Clinicaltrials.gov).

Enhanced recovery after surgery versus conventional perioperative care in rectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery programs have been developed to improve recovery, shorten hospital stays, and reduce morbidity. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the current study was to examine the effects of the enhanced recovery program on the outcome of rectal surgery. DESIGN: A cohort of patients who underwent open rectal surgery after an enhanced recovery program was compared with a historic case-matched control group receiving conventional perioperative care. Patients were matched for type of surgery, disease, comorbidity, and demographic characteristics. Data regarding fast-track targets, length of hospital stay, mortality, complications, relaparotomies, and readmissions were collected. RESULTS: Forty-one patients in the enhanced recovery group were compared with 82 case-matched patients receiving conventional care. The length of hospital stay (median: 8 days vs 12 days, P < .005) was reduced in the enhanced recovery after surgery group. There were no significant differences in epidural use, mortality, morbidity, and readmission rates between groups. LIMITATIONS: This study performed an intention-to-treat analysis for the multimodal enhanced recovery program in rectal surgery. Specific elements of the program were not analyzed separately. The study used nonrandomly assigned historic controls for comparison. CONCLUSION: Enhanced recovery after surgery programs help to reduce the length of hospital stay after rectal surgery.

Ultrasound-guided lumpectomy of nonpalpable breast cancer versus wire-guided resection: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The wire-guided excision of nonpalpable breast cancer often results in tumor resections with inadequate margins. This prospective, randomized trial was undertaken to investigate whether intraoperative ultrasound (US) guidance enables a better margin clearance than the wire-guided technique in the breast-conserving treatment of nonpalpable breast cancers. METHODS: Patients with a preoperative histological diagnosis of nonpalpable breast cancer that could be visualized both with US and mammography were included. Patients were randomized to undergo either a wire-guided or a US-guided excision. Adequate margins were defined as >or=1 mm. RESULTS: Of 49 included patients, 23 were assigned to undergo wire-guided excision and 26 to undergo US-guided excision. One patient crossed over to US-guided excision after inadvertent wire displacement. Mean tumor diameter, specimen weight, and operating time were similar in both groups. The excision was adequate in 24 (89%) of 27 US-guided excisions and 12 (55%) of 22 wire-guide excisions (P =.007). CONCLUSIONS: US-guided excision seems to be superior to wire-guided excision with respect to margin clearance of mammographically detected and US-visible nonpalpable breast cancers. Patients do not have to undergo the unpleasant wire placement before surgery.