Bowel preparation for elective colorectal resection: multi-treatment machine learning analysis on 6241 cases from a prospective Italian cohort.

BACKGROUND: Current evidence concerning bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery is still controversial. This study aimed to compare the incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL), surgical site infections (SSIs), and overall morbidity (any adverse event, OM) after elective colorectal surgery using four different types of bowel preparation. METHODS: A prospective database gathered among 78 Italian surgical centers in two prospective studies, including 6241 patients who underwent elective colorectal resection with anastomosis for malignant or benign disease, was re-analyzed through a multi-treatment machine-learning model considering no bowel preparation (NBP; No. = 3742; 60.0%) as the reference treatment arm, compared to oral antibiotics alone (oA; No. = 406; 6.5%), mechanical bowel preparation alone (MBP; No. = 1486; 23.8%), or in combination with oAB (MoABP; No. = 607; 9.7%). Twenty covariates related to biometric data, surgical procedures, perioperative management, and hospital/center data potentially affecting outcomes were included and balanced into the model. The primary endpoints were AL, SSIs, and OM. All the results were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Compared to NBP, MBP showed significantly higher AL risk (OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.23-2.71; p = .003) and OM risk (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.10-1.72; p = .005), no significant differences for all the endpoints were recorded in the oA group, whereas MoABP showed a significantly reduced SSI risk (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.25-0.79; p = .008). CONCLUSIONS: MoABP significantly reduced the SSI risk after elective colorectal surgery, therefore representing a valid alternative to NBP.

Rectal sparing approach after preoperative radio - and/or Chemo-therapy (ReSARCh): a prospective, multicentre, observational study.

BACKGROUND: Rectal-sparing approaches for patients with rectal cancer who achieved a complete or major response following neoadjuvant therapy constitute a paradigm of a potential shift in the management of patients with rectal cancer, however their role remains controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of rectal-sparing approaches to preserve the rectum without impairing the outcomes. METHODS: This prospective, multicentre, observational study investigated the outcomes of patients with clinical stage II-III mid-low rectal adenocarcinoma treated with any neoadjuvant therapy, and either transanal local excision or watch-and-wait approach, based on tumor response (major or complete) and patient/surgeon choice. The primary endpoint of the study was rectum preservation at a minimum follow-up of two years. Secondary endpoints were overall, disease-free, local and distant recurrence-free, and stoma-free survival at three years. RESULTS: Of 178 patients enrolled in 16 centres, 112 (62.9%) were managed with local excision and 66 (37.1%) with watch-and-wait. At a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 36.1 (30.6-45.6) months, the rectum was preserved in 144 (80.9%) patients. The 3-year rectum-sparing, overall, disease-free, local recurrence-free, distant recurrence-free survival was 80.6% (95%CI 73.9-85.8), 97.6% (95%CI 93.6-99.1), 90.0% (95%CI 84.3-93.7), 94.7% (95%CI 90.1-97.2), and 94.6% (95%CI 89.9-97.2), respectively. The 3-year stoma-free survival was 95.0% (95%CI 89.5-97.6). The 3-year regrowth-free survival in the watch-and-wait group was 71.8% (95%CI 59.9-81.2). CONCLUSIONS: In rectal cancer patients with major or complete clinical response after neoadjuvant therapy, the rectum can be preserved in about 80% of cases, without compromise the outcomes.

Abdominal drainage after elective colorectal surgery: propensity score-matched retrospective analysis of an Italian cohort.

BACKGROUND: In Italy, surgeons continue to drain the abdominal cavity in more than 50 per cent of patients after colorectal resection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of abdominal drain placement on early adverse events in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. METHODS: A database was retrospectively analysed through a 1:1 propensity score-matching model including 21 covariates. The primary endpoint was the postoperative duration of stay, and the secondary endpoints were surgical site infections, infectious morbidity rate defined as surgical site infections plus pulmonary infections plus urinary infections, anastomotic leakage, overall morbidity rate, major morbidity rate, reoperation and mortality rates. The results of multiple logistic regression analyses were presented as odds ratios (OR) and 95 per cent c.i. RESULTS: A total of 6157 patients were analysed to produce two well-balanced groups of 1802 patients: group (A), no abdominal drain(s) and group (B), abdominal drain(s). Group A versus group B showed a significantly lower risk of postoperative duration of stay >6 days (OR 0.60; 95 per cent c.i. 0.51-0.70; P < 0.001). A mean postoperative duration of stay difference of 0.86 days was detected between groups. No difference was recorded between the two groups for all the other endpoints. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that placement of abdominal drain(s) after elective colorectal surgery is associated with a non-clinically significant longer (0.86 days) postoperative duration of stay but has no impact on any other secondary outcomes, confirming that abdominal drains should not be used routinely in colorectal surgery.

Mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery: a propensity score-matched analysis of the Italian colorectal anastomotic leakage (iCral) study group prospective cohorts.

Retrospective evaluation of the effects of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on data derived from two prospective open-label observational multicenter studies in Italy regarding elective colorectal surgery. MBP for elective colorectal surgery remains a controversial issue with contrasting recommendations in current guidelines. The Italian ColoRectal Anastomotic Leakage (iCral) study group, therefore, decided to estimate the effects of no MBP (treatment variable) versus MBP for elective colorectal surgery. A total of 8359 patients who underwent colorectal resection with anastomosis were enrolled in two consecutive prospective studies in 78 surgical centers in Italy from January 2019 to September 2021. A retrospective PSMA was performed on 5455 (65.3%) cases after the application of explicit exclusion criteria to eliminate confounders. The primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage (AL) and surgical site infections (SSI) rates; the secondary endpoints included SSI subgroups, overall and major morbidity, reoperation, and mortality rates. Overall length of postoperative hospital stay (LOS) was also considered. Two well-balanced groups of 1125 patients each were generated: group A (No MBP, true population of interest), and group B (MBP, control population), performing a PSMA considering 21 covariates. Group A vs. group B resulted significantly associated with a lower risk of AL [42 (3.5%) vs. 73 (6.0%) events; OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.38-0.84; p = 0.005]. No difference was recorded between the two groups for SSI [73 (6.0%) vs. 85 (7.0%) events; OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.63-1.22; p = 0.441]. Regarding the secondary endpoints, no MBP resulted significantly associated with a lower risk of reoperation and LOS > 6 days. This study confirms that no MBP before elective colorectal surgery is significantly associated with a lower risk of AL, reoperation rate, and LOS < 6 days when compared with MBP.

Completion total mesorectal excision after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and local excision for rectal cancer.

AIM: Local excision (LE) in selected cases after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (RCT) for locally advanced rectal cancer in clinically complete or major responders has been recently reported as an alternative to standard radical resection. Completion total mesorectal excision (cTME) is generally performed when high-risk pathological features are found in LE surgical specimens. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of residual tumour and lymph node metastases after cTME in patients previously treated by RCT + LE. The secondary aims were to quantify the rate of postoperative morbidity and mortality and to evaluate the long-term oncological outcome of this group of patients. METHODS: All patients treated from 2007 to 2020 by LE for locally advanced rectal cancer with a clinically complete or major response to RCT who had a subsequent cTME for high-risk pathological factors (ypT >1 and/or TRG >2 and/or positive margins) were included in this multicentre retrospective study. Pathological data, postoperative short-term morbidity (classified according to Clavien-Dindo) and mortality and oncological long-term outcome after cTME were recorded in a database. Statistical analysis was performed using Wizard for iOS version 1.9.31. RESULTS: A total of 47 patients were included in the study. The rate of R0 resection was 95.7%, and a sphincter-saving procedure was performed in 37 patients (78.7%), with a protective stoma rate of 78.4%. In 28 cases (59.6%), it was possible to perform a minimally invasive approach. A residual tumour (pT and/or pN) on cTME specimens was found in 21 cases (44.7%). The rate of lymph node metastases was 12.8%. The overall short-term (within 30 days) postoperative morbidity was 34%, but grade >2 postoperative complications occurred in only nine patients (19.1%), with a reoperation rate of 6.4%. No short-term postoperative deaths occurred. At a median follow-up of 57 months (range: 21-174), the long-term stoma-free rate was 70.2%, and the actuarial 5-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and local control (LC) were 86.7%, 88.9% and 95.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: When patients exhibit high-risk pathological factors after RCT + LE, cTME should be suggested due to the high risk of residual tumour or lymph node involvement (44.7%). The results after cTME in terms of the rate of R0 resection, sphincter-saving procedure, postoperative morbidity and mortality and long-term oncological outcome seem to be acceptable and do not represent a contraindication to use LE as a first-step treatment in patients with major or complete clinical response after RCT.

Oligo-metastatic neoPlasms from the gastro-intestinal tract: iDentIfiCaTIon of cliNical and molecular drivers: the PREDICTION study.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic disease in tumors originating from the gastrointestinal tract can exhibit varying degrees of tumor burden at presentation. Some patients follow a less aggressive disease course, characterized by a limited number of metastatic sites, referred to as "oligo-metastatic disease" (OMD). The precise biological characteristics that define the oligometastatic behavior remain uncertain. In this study, we present a protocol designed to prospectively identify OMD, with the aim of proposing novel therapeutic approaches and monitoring strategies. METHODS: The PREDICTION study is a monocentric, prospective, observational investigation. Enrolled patients will receive standard treatment, while translational activities will involve analysis of the tumor microenvironment and genomic profiling using immunohistochemistry and next-generation sequencing, respectively. The first primary objective (descriptive) is to determine the prevalence of biological characteristics in OMD derived from gastrointestinal tract neoplasms, including high genetic concordance between primary tumors and metastases, a significant infiltration of T lymphocytes, and the absence of clonal evolution favoring specific driver genes (KRAS and PIK3CA). The second co-primary objective (analytic) is to identify a prognostic score for true OMD, with a primary focus on metastatic colorectal cancer. The score will comprise genetic concordance (> 80%), high T-lymphocyte infiltration, and the absence of clonal evolution favoring driver genes. It is hypothesized that patients with true OMD (score 3+) will have a lower rate of progression/recurrence within one year (20%) compared to those with false OMD (80%). The endpoint of the co-primary objective is the rate of recurrence/progression at one year. Considering a reasonable probability (60%) of the three factors occurring simultaneously in true OMD (score 3+), using a significance level of α = 0.05 and a test power of 90%, the study requires a minimum enrollment of 32 patients. DISCUSSION: Few studies have explored the precise genetic and biological features of OMD thus far. In clinical settings, the diagnosis of OMD is typically made retrospectively, as some patients who undergo intensive treatment for oligometastases develop polymetastatic diseases within a year, while others do not experience disease progression (true OMD). In the coming years, the identification of true OMD will allow us to employ more personalized and comprehensive strategies in cancer treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05806151.

The Role of Colonoscopy in the Management of Individuals with Lynch Syndrome: A Narrative Review.

The history of Lynch syndrome changed definitively in 2000, when a study published in Gastroenterology demonstrated a significant reduction in mortality among individuals with Lynch syndrome who undergo regular endoscopic surveillance. As a consequence of this clinical evidence, all scientific societies developed guidelines, which highlighted the role of colonoscopy in the management of Lynch syndrome, especially for individuals at high risk of colorectal cancer. Over the years, these guidelines were modified and updated. Specialized networks were developed in order to standardize endoscopic surveillance programs and evaluate all the clinical data retrieved by the results of colonoscopies performed for both the screening and the surveillance of individuals with Lynch syndrome. Recent data show that the impact of colonoscopy (with polypectomy) on the prevention of colorectal cancer in individuals with Lynch syndrome is less significant than previously thought. This narrative review summarizes the current discussion, the hypotheses elaborated and the algorithms depicted for the management of individuals with Lynch Syndrome on the basis of the recent data published in the literature.

The MIS-COVID-AGICT Study: Trend of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Gastrointestinal Cancer Treatment During the First Waves of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy. Subgroup Analysis from the COVID-AGICT Study: COVID-19 and Advanced Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgical Treatment.

Background: A preliminary analysis from the COVID-Advanced Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgical Treatment (AGICT) study showed that the rate of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for elective and urgent procedures did not decrease during the pandemic year. In this article, we aimed to perform a subgroup analysis using data from the COVID-AGICT study to evaluate the trend of MIS during the COVID-19 pandemic period in Italy. Methods: This study was conducted collecting data of MIS patients from the COVID-AGICT database. The primary endpoint was to demonstrate whether the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic scenario reduced MIS for elective treatment of gastrointestinal cancer (GIC) in Italy in 2020. The secondary endpoint was to evaluate the impact of the pandemic period on perioperative outcomes in the MIS group. Results: In the pandemic year, 62% of patients underwent surgery with a minimally invasive approach, compared to 63% in 2019 (P = .23). In 2020, the proportion of patients undergoing elective MIS decreased compared to the previous year (80% versus 82%, P = .04), and the rate of urgent MIS did not differ between the 2 years (31% and 33% in 2019 and 2020 - P = .66). Colorectal cancer was less likely to be treated with MIS approach during 2020 (78% versus 75%, P < .001). Conversely, the rate of MIS pancreatic resection was higher in 2020 (28% versus 22%, P < .002). Conversion to an open approach was lower in 2020 (7.2% versus 9.2% - P = .01). Major postoperative complications were similar in both years (11% versus 11%, P = .9). Conclusion: In conclusion, although MIS for elective treatment of GIC in Italy was reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic period, our study revealed that the overall proportion of MIS (elective and urgent) and postoperative outcomes were comparable to the prepandemic period. ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT04686747).

The impact of preoperative nutritional screening, ERAS protocol, and mini-invasive surgery in surgical oncology: A multi-institutional SEM analysis of patients with digestive cancer.

Background: Mini-invasive surgery (MIS), ERAS, and preoperative nutritional screening are currently used to reduce complications and the length of hospital stay (LOS); however, inter-variable correlations have seldom been explored. This research aimed to define inter-variable correlations in a large series of patients with gastrointestinal cancer and their impact on outcomes. Methods: Patients with consecutive cancer who underwent radical gastrointestinal surgery between 2019 and 2020 were analyzed. Age, BMI, comorbidities, ERAS, nutritional screening, and MIS were evaluated to determine their impact on 30-day complications and LOS. Inter-variable correlations were measured, and a latent variable was computed to define the patients' performance status using nutritional screening and comorbidity. Analyses were conducted using structural equation modeling (SEM). Results: Of the 1,968 eligible patients, 1,648 were analyzed. Univariable analyses documented the benefit of nutritional screening for LOS and MIS and ERAS (≥7 items) for LOS and complications; conversely, being male and comorbidities correlated with complications, while increased age and BMI correlated with worse outcomes. SEM analysis revealed that (a) the latent variable is explained by the use of nutritional screening (p0·004); (b) the variables were correlated (age-comorbidity, ERAS-MIS, and ERAS-nutritional screening, p < 0·001); and (c) their impact on the outcomes was based on direct effects (complications: sex, p0·001), indirect effects (LOS: MIS-ERAS-nutritional screening, p < 0·001; complications: MIS-ERAS, p0·001), and regression-based effects (LOS: ERAS, MIS, p < 0·001, nutritional screening, p0·021; complications: ERAS, MIS, p < 0·001, sex, p0·001). Finally, LOS and complications were correlated (p < 0·001). Conclusion: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS), MIS, and nutritional screening are beneficial in surgical oncology; however, the inter-variable correlation is reliable, underlying the importance of the multidisciplinary approach.

The COVID - AGICT study: COVID-19 and advanced gastro-intestinal cancer surgical treatment. A multicentric Italian study on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic impact on gastro-intestinal cancers surgical treatment during the 2020. Analysis of perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes.

BACKGROUND: This Italian multicentric retrospective study aimed to investigate the possible changes in outcomes of patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: Our primary endpoint was to determine whether the pandemic scenario increased the rate of patients with colorectal, gastroesophageal, and pancreatic cancers resected at an advanced stage in 2020 compared to 2019. Considering different cancer staging systems, we divided tumors into early stages and advanced stages, using pathological outcomes. Furthermore, to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical outcomes, perioperative data of both 2020 and 2019 were also examined. RESULTS: Overall, a total of 8250 patients, 4370 (53%) and 3880 (47%) were surgically treated during 2019 and 2020 respectively, in 62 Italian surgical Units. In 2020, the rate of patients treated with an advanced pathological stage was not different compared to 2019 (P = 0.25). Nevertheless, the analysis of quarters revealed that in the second half of 2020 the rate of advanced cancer resected, tented to be higher compared with the same months of 2019 (P = 0.05). During the pandemic year 'Charlson Comorbidity Index score of cancer patients (5.38 ± 2.08 vs 5.28 ± 2.22, P = 0.036), neoadjuvant treatments (23.9% vs. 19.5%, P < 0.001), rate of urgent diagnosis (24.2% vs 20.3%, P < 0.001), colorectal cancer urgent resection (9.4% vs. 7.37, P < 0.001), and the rate of positive nodes on the total nodes resected per surgery increased significantly (7 vs 9% - 2.02 ± 4.21 vs 2.39 ± 5.23, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic did not influence the pathological stage of colorectal, gastroesophageal, and pancreatic cancers at the time of surgery, our study revealed that the pandemic scenario negatively impacted on several perioperative and post-operative outcomes.

Oligo-Metastatic Cancers: Putative Biomarkers, Emerging Challenges and New Perspectives.

Some cancer patients display a less aggressive form of metastatic disease, characterized by a low tumor burden and involving a smaller number of sites, which is referred to as "oligometastatic disease" (OMD). This review discusses new biomarkers, as well as methodological challenges and perspectives characterizing OMD. Recent studies have revealed that specific microRNA profiles, chromosome patterns, driver gene mutations (ERBB2, PBRM1, SETD2, KRAS, PIK3CA, SMAD4), polymorphisms (TCF7L2), and levels of immune cell infiltration into metastases, depending on the tumor type, are associated with an oligometastatic behavior. This suggests that OMD could be a distinct disease with specific biological and molecular characteristics. Therefore, the heterogeneity of initial tumor burden and inclusion of OMD patients in clinical trials pose a crucial methodological question that requires responses in the near future. Additionally, a solid understanding of the molecular and biological features of OMD will be necessary to support and complete the clinical staging systems, enabling a better distinction of metastatic behavior and tailored treatments.

Blood Transfusions and Adverse Events after Colorectal Surgery: A Propensity-Score-Matched Analysis of a Hen-Egg Issue.

Blood transfusions are considered a risk factor for adverse outcomes after colorectal surgery. However, it is still unclear if they are the cause (the hen) or the consequence (the egg) of adverse events. A prospective database of 4529 colorectal resections gathered over a 12-month period in 76 Italian surgical units (the iCral3 study), reporting patient-, disease-, and procedure-related variables, together with 60-day adverse events, was retrospectively analyzed identifying a subgroup of 304 cases (6.7%) that received intra- and/or postoperative blood transfusions (IPBTs). The endpoints considered were overall and major morbidity (OM and MM, respectively), anastomotic leakage (AL), and mortality (M) rates. After the exclusion of 336 patients who underwent neo-adjuvant treatments, 4193 (92.6%) cases were analyzed through a 1:1 propensity score matching model including 22 covariates. Two well-balanced groups of 275 patients each were obtained: group A, presence of IPBT, and group B, absence of IPBT. Group A vs. group B showed a significantly higher risk of overall morbidity (154 (56%) vs. 84 (31%) events; OR 3.07; 95%CI 2.13-4.43; p = 0.001), major morbidity (59 (21%) vs. 13 (4.7%) events; OR 6.06; 95%CI 3.17-11.6; p = 0.001), and anastomotic leakage (31 (11.3%) vs. 8 (2.9%) events; OR 4.72; 95%CI 2.09-10.66; p = 0.0002). No significant difference was recorded between the two groups concerning the risk of mortality. The original subpopulation of 304 patients that received IPBT was further analyzed considering three variables: appropriateness of BT according to liberal transfusion thresholds, BT following any hemorrhagic and/or major adverse event, and major adverse event following BT without any previous hemorrhagic adverse event. Inappropriate BT was administered in more than a quarter of cases, without any significant influence on any endpoint. The majority of BT was administered after a hemorrhagic or a major adverse event, with significantly higher rates of MM and AL. Finally, a major adverse event followed BT in a minority (4.3%) of cases, with significantly higher MM, AL, and M rates. In conclusion, although the majority of IPBT was administered with the consequence of hemorrhage and/or major adverse events (the egg), after adjustment accounting for 22 covariates, IPBT still resulted in a definite source of a higher risk of major morbidity and anastomotic leakage rates after colorectal surgery (the hen), calling urgent attention to the implementation of patient blood management programs.

Heterogeneous disease and intermittent treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer: A case report.

Background: Metastatic colorectal cancer is one of the most common causes of cancer death worldwide. RAS and BRAF mutational analyses are strongly recommended before beginning chemotherapy in the metastatic setting for their predictive role for the efficacy of anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies. In most of cases, mutational status coincides between primary tumor and metastases. In RAS and BRAF wild-type patients treated with anti-EGFRs, after an induction treatment period, recent evidence supports the role of a maintenance treatment with fluoropyrimidines and anti-EGFRs. However, skin toxicity is the most described and limiting side-effect of maintenance. Moreover, it is described that the continuous administration of these monoclonal antibodies leads to an acquired resistance to anti-EGFRs, with subsequent treatment failure. Intermittent strategy with chemotherapy plus anti-EGFR may help maintain treatment efficacy, delaying resistance. Case presentation: In this case report, we describe the case of a RAS-BRAF wild-type elderly patient undergoing first-line chemotherapy with FOLFOX + panitumumab, reporting response of disease on all metastatic sites except for a node. This node, surgically removed, revealed host BRAF V600 mutant clones. After surgery, patient continued chemotherapy with a stop-and-go strategy continuing to benefit from the same drugs after 4 years since diagnosis, and continuing to achieve response when on treatment, avoiding unacceptable anti-EGFR toxicity. This patient, still alive after 6 years since the diagnosis, represents the case of a good synergy between molecular profiling of disease, surgery, and intermittent treatment.

Multicenter International Study of the Consensus Immunoscore for the Prediction of Relapse and Survival in Early-Stage Colon Cancer.

Background: The prognostic value of Immunoscore was evaluated in Stage II/III colon cancer (CC) patients, but it remains unclear in Stage I/II, and in early-stage subgroups at risk. An international Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) study evaluated the pre-defined consensus Immunoscore in tumors from 1885 AJCC/UICC-TNM Stage I/II CC patients from Canada/USA (Cohort 1) and Europe/Asia (Cohort 2). METHODS: Digital-pathology is used to quantify the densities of CD3+ and CD8+ T-lymphocyte in the center of tumor (CT) and the invasive margin (IM). The time to recurrence (TTR) was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), prognosis in Stage I, Stage II, Stage II-high-risk, and microsatellite-stable (MSS) patients. RESULTS: High-Immunoscore presented with the lowest risk of recurrence in both cohorts. In Stage I/II, recurrence-free rates at 5 years were 78.4% (95%-CI, 74.4−82.6), 88.1% (95%-CI, 85.7−90.4), 93.4% (95%-CI, 91.1−95.8) in low, intermediate and high Immunoscore, respectively (HR (Hi vs. Lo) = 0.27 (95%-CI, 0.18−0.41); p < 0.0001). In Cox multivariable analysis, the association of Immunoscore to outcome was independent (TTR: HR (Hi vs. Lo) = 0.29, (95%-CI, 0.17−0.50); p < 0.0001) of the patient's gender, T-stage, sidedness, and microsatellite instability-status (MSI). A significant association of Immunoscore with survival was found for Stage II, high-risk Stage II, T4N0 and MSS patients. The Immunoscore also showed significant association with TTR in Stage-I (HR (Hi vs. Lo) = 0.07 (95%-CI, 0.01−0.61); P = 0.016). The Immunoscore had the strongest (69.5%) contribution χ2 for influencing survival. Patients with a high Immunoscore had prolonged TTR in T4N0 tumors even for patients not receiving chemotherapy, and the Immunoscore remained the only significant parameter in multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION: In early CC, low Immunoscore reliably identifies patients at risk of relapse for whom a more intensive surveillance program or adjuvant treatment should be considered.

Short- and long-term outcomes in ypT2 rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant therapy and local excision: a multicentre observational study.

BACKGROUND: Although local excision (LE) after neoadjuvant treatment (NT) has achieved encouraging oncological outcomes in selected patients, radical surgery still remains the rule when unfavorable pathology occurs. However, there is a risk of undertreating patients not eligible for radical surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of patients with pathological incomplete response (ypT2) in a multicentre cohort of patients undergoing LE after NT and to compare them with ypT0-is-1 rectal cancers. METHODS: From 2010 to 2019, all patients who underwent LE after NT for rectal cancer were identified from five institutional retrospective databases. After excluding 12 patients with ypT3 tumors, patients with ypT2 tumors were compared to patients with ypT0-is-1 tumors). The endpoints of the study were early postoperative and long-term oncological outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 177 patients (132 males, 45 females, median age 70 [IQR 16] years) underwent LE following NT. There were 46 ypT2 patients (39 males, 7 females, median age 72 [IQR 18.25] years) and 119 ypT0-is-1 patients (83 males, 36 females, median age 69 [IQR 15] years). Patients with pathological incomplete response (ypT2) were frailer than the ypT0-is-1 patients (mean Charlson Comorbidity Index 6.15 ± 2.43 vs. 5.29 ± 1.99; p = 0.02) and there was a significant difference in the type of NT used for the two groups (long- course radiotherapy: 100 (84%) vs. 23 (63%), p = 0.006; short-course radiotherapy: 19 (16%) vs. 17 (37%), p = 0.006). The postoperative rectal bleeding rate (13% vs. 1.7%; p = 0.008), readmission rate (10.9% vs. 0.8%; p = 0.008) and R1 resection rate (8.7% vs. 0; p = 0.008) was significantly higher in the ypT2 group. Recurrence rates were comparable between groups (5% vs. 13%; p = 0.15). Five-year overall survival was 91.3% and 94.9% in the ypT2 and ypT0-is-1 groups, respectively (p = 0.39), while 5-year cancer specific survival was 93.4% in the ypT2 group and 94.9% in the ypT0-is-1 group (p = 0.70). No difference was found in terms of 5-year local recurrence free-survival (p = 0.18) and 5-year distant recurrence free-survival (p = 0.37). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ypT2 tumors after NT and LE have a higher risk of late-onset rectal bleeding and positive resection margins than patients with complete or near complete response. However, long-term recurrence rates and survival seem comparable.

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.

Genetic landscape of colorectal cancer patients manifesting tumor shrinkage during SARS-Cov-2 infection.

We previously described three patients affected by metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who experienced spontaneous tumour shrinkage during severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Thereafter, the patients were closely monitored and no systemic treatments were applied. Here, we report follow-up clinical information about these patients as well as genetic characterization of their primary tumours through the TruSigt™Oncology 500 Next Generation Sequencing test targeting 523 cancer-relevant genes. An Illumina NovaSeq 6000 platform was used to perform sequencing. Time-to-progression was 23 and 2 months, respectively, in Patients 2 and 3 while it was not reached in Patient 1. Patients 1 and 2 had the greatest anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG titres. Assessment of genetic landscapes evidenced common mutation in BARD1 gene (p.Val507Met) in Patients 1 and 2. Although our report is descriptive in its nature, we suggest that complex and unexplored interactions between genetic background and components of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection could be responsible of unexpected rare mCRC shrinkage.

Nutritional Support in Cancer patients: update of the Italian Intersociety Working Group practical recommendations.

Malnutrition is a frequent problem in cancer patients, which leads to prolonged and repeated hospitalizations, increased treatment-related toxicity, reduced response to cancer treatment, impaired quality of life, a worse overall prognosis and the avoidable waste of health care resources. Despite being perceived as a limiting factor in oncologic treatments by both oncologists and patients, there is still a considerable gap between need and actual delivery of nutrition care, and attitudes still vary considerably among health care professionals. In the last 5 years, the Italian Intersociety Working Group for Nutritional Support in Cancer Patients (WG), has repeatedly revisited this issue and has concluded that some improvement in nutritional care in Italy has occurred, at least with regard to awareness and institutional activities. In the same period, new international guidelines for the management of malnutrition and cachexia have been released. Despite these valuable initiatives, effective structural strategies and concrete actions aimed at facing the challenging issues of nutritional care in oncology are still needed, requiring the active participation of scientific societies and health authorities. As a continuation of the WG's work, we have reviewed available data present in the literature from January 2016 to September 2021, together with the most recent guidelines issued by scientific societies and health authorities, thus providing an update of the 2016 WG practical recommendations, with suggestions for new areas/issues for possible improvement and implementation.

The impact of anastomotic leak on long-term oncological outcomes after low anterior resection for mid-low rectal cancer: extended follow-up of a randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The impact of anastomotic leaks (AL) on oncological outcomes after low anterior resection for mid-low rectal cancer is still debated. The aim of this study was to evaluate overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and local and distant recurrence in patients with AL following low anterior resection. METHODS: This is an extension of a multicentre RCT (NCT01110798). Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test were used to estimate and compare the 3-, 5-, and 10-year OS and DFS, and local and distant recurrence in patients with and without AL. Predictors of OS and DFS were evaluated using the Cox regression analysis as secondary aim. RESULTS: Follow-up was available for 311 patients. Of them, 252 (81.0%) underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and 138 (44.3%) adjuvant therapy. AL occurred in 63 (20.3%) patients. At a mean follow-up of 69.5 ± 31.9 months, 23 (7.4%) patients experienced local recurrence and 49 (15.8%) distant recurrence. The 3-, 5-, and 10-year OS and DFS were 89.2%, 85.3%, and 70.2%; and 80.7%, 75.1%, and 63.5% in patients with AL, and 88.9%, 79.8% and 72.3%; and 83.7, 74.2 and 62.8%, respectively in patients without (p = 0.89 and p = 0.84, respectively). At multivariable analysis, AL was not an independent predictor of OS (HR 0.65, 95%CI 0.34-1.28) and DFS (HR 0.70, 95%CI 0.39-1.25), whereas positive circumferential resection margins and pathological stage impaired both. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of modern multimodal rectal cancer treatment, AL does not affect long-term OS, DFS, and local and distant recurrence in patients with mid-low rectal cancer.