Complete mesocolic excision for right colon cancer: Is D3 lymphadenectomy necessary?

AIM: Although complete mesocolic excision (CME) for colon cancer is oncologically sound, to date, there has been no consensus on the extent of lymphadenectomy in radical right colectomy. This study essentially compared the perioperative and survival outcomes of CME with two templates of lymphadenectomy for right colon cancer. METHOD: This was a propensity matched, retrospective analysis of a single centre, prospectively maintained database of all patients undergoing elective right colectomy for nonmetastatic, biopsy-proven adenocarcinoma from November 2013 to October 2018. CME + D3 was adopted selectively, documented prospectively, and compared with patients undergoing CME + central vascular ligation (CVL). The only technical difference between the groups was the excision of the surgical trunk of Gillot in the CME + D3 group. Postoperative, long-term outcomes and patterns of recurrence were compared between the groups. RESULTS: Of the 244 eligible patients, 88 (36.1%) and 156 (63.9%) underwent CME + D3 and CME + CVL, respectively. Matched groups (72 [CME + D3] vs. 108 [CME + CVL]) showed no difference in histology, tumour grade, postoperative complications, mortality, and hospital stay. CME + D3 was preferentially performed laparoscopically (35.2% vs. 9%), was associated with lower blood loss (215 mL vs. 297 mL, p = 0.001), higher nodal yield (31 vs. 25 nodes, p = 0.003) and a higher incidence of chyle leak (4 vs. 0, p = 0.013). At a median follow-up of more than 57 months, there was no significant difference in local recurrence, disease-free or overall survival. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study, lymphadenectomy along the superior mesenteric vein, as a component of CME for right colon cancer, offered a higher nodal yield with no improvement in oncological outcome. Dissection of the SMV, over and above a D2 dissection, could therefore be restricted to specialized colorectal units until further studies establish the incremental oncological benefit of this extended lymphadenectomy or define a patient group in whom it is beneficial.

Impact of consolidation chemotherapy in poor responders to neoadjuvant radiation therapy: magnetic resonance imaging-based clinical-radiological correlation in high-risk rectal cancers.

PURPOSE: The current study was conducted to examine the role of consolidation chemotherapy after neoadjuvant radiation therapy (NART) in decreasing the involvement of the mesorectal fascia (MRF) in high-risk locally advanced rectal cancers (LARCs). METHODS: In total, 46 patients who received consolidation chemotherapy after NART due to persistent MRF involvement were identified from a database. A team of 2 radiologists, blinded to the clinical data, studied sequential magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans to assess the tumor response and then predict a surgical plan. This prediction was then correlated with the actual procedure conducted as well as histopathological details to assess the impact of consolidation chemotherapy. RESULTS: The comparison of MRI-based parameters of sequential images showed significant downstaging of T2 signal intensity, tumor height, MRF involvement, diffusion restriction, and N category between sequential MRIs (P < 0.05). However, clinically relevant downstaging (standardized mean difference, > 0.3) was observed for only T2 signal intensity and diffusion restriction on diffusion-weighted imaging. No clinically relevant changes occurred in the remaining parameters; thus, no change was noted in the extent of surgery predicted by MRI. Weak agreement (Cohen κ coefficient, 0.375) and correlation (Spearman rank coefficient, 0.231) were found between MRI-predicted surgery and the actual procedure performed. The comparison of MRI-based and pathological tumor response grading also showed a poor correlation. CONCLUSION: Evidence is lacking regarding the use of consolidation chemotherapy in reducing MRF involvement in LARCs. The benefit of additional chemotherapy after NART in decreasing the extent of planned surgery by reducing margin involvement requires prospective research.

Outcomes of rectal cancer patients with a positive pathological circumferential resection margin.

PURPOSE: Evidence-based management of positive pathological circumferential resection margin (pCRM) following preoperative radiation and an adequate rectal resection for rectal cancers is lacking. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained single-centre institutional database was done to study the patterns of failure and management strategies after a rectal cancer surgery with a positive pCRM. RESULTS: A total of 86 patients with rectal adenocarcinoma with a positive pCRM were identified over 8 years (2011-2018). Majority had low-lying rectal cancers (90.7%) and were operated after preoperative radiotherapy (95.3%). Operative procedures included abdomino-perineal resections, inter-sphincteric resections, low anterior resections and pelvic exenteration in 61 (70.9%), 9 (10.5%), 11(12.8%) and 5 (5.8%) patients respectively. A total of 83 (96.5%) received chemotherapy as the sole adjuvant treatment modality while 2 patients (2.3%) were given post-operative radiotherapy and 1 patient underwent revision surgery. A total of 53 patients (61.6%) had recurrence, with 16 (18.6%), 20 (23.2%), 8(9.3%) and 9 (10.5%) patients having locoregional, systemic, peritoneal and simultaneous local-systemic relapse. Systemic recurrences were more often detected either by surveillance in an asymptomatic patient (20.1%) while local (13.1%) and peritoneal (13.2%) recurrences were more often symptomatic (p = 0.000). The 2-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of the cohort was 82.4% and 74.0%. Median local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) was 10.3 months. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a positive pCRM have high local and distal relapse rates. Systemic relapses are more often asymptomatic as compared to peritoneal or locoregional relapse and detected on follow-up surveillance. Hence, identification of such recurrences while still salvageable via an intensive surveillance protocol is desirable.

Demographics, Pattern of Care, and Outcome Analysis of Malignant Melanomas - Experience From a Tertiary Cancer Centre in India.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of malignant melanoma has undergone a paradigm shift with the advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and targeted therapies. However, access to ICI is limited in low-middle income countries (LMICs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Histologically confirmed malignant melanoma cases registered from 2013 to 2019 were analysed for pattern of care, safety, and efficacy of systemic therapies (ST). RESULTS: There were 659 patients with a median age of 53 (range 44-63) years; 58.9% were males; 55.2% were mucosal melanomas. Most common primary sites were extremities (36.6%) and anorectum (31.4%). Nearly 10.8% of the metastatic cohort were BRAF mutated. Among 368 non-metastatic patients (172 prior treated, 185 de novo, and 11 unresectable), with a median follow-up of 26 months (0-83 months), median EFS and OS were 29.5 (95% CI: 22-40) and 33.3 (95% CI: 29.5-41.2) months, respectively. In the metastatic cohort, with a median follow up of 24 (0-85) months, the median EFS for BSC was 3.1 (95% CI 1.9-4.8) months versus 3.98 (95% CI 3.2-4.7) months with any ST (HR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.52-0.92; P = 0.011). The median OS was 3.9 (95% CI 3.3-6.4) months for BSC alone versus 12.0 (95% CI 10.5-15.1) months in any ST (HR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.28-0.50; P < 0.001). The disease control rate was 51.55%. Commonest grade 3-4 toxicity was anemia with chemotherapy (9.5%) and ICI (8.8%). In multivariate analysis, any ST received had a better prognostic impact in the metastatic cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Large real-world data reflects the treatment patterns adopted in LMIC for melanomas and poor access to expensive, standard of care therapies. Other systemic therapies provide meaningful clinical benefit and are worth exploring especially when the standard therapies are challenging to administer.

Local recurrence with intersphincteric resection in adverse histology rectal cancers. A retrospective study with competing risk analysis.

BACKGROUND: The safety of inter-sphincteric resection (ISR) for low rectal cancer with adverse histologic subtypes has been incompletely studied. The present study aims at determining the risk of local recurrence with this procedure in poorly differentiated and signet ring cell (PDSR) adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Retrospective analysis from a single tertiary cancer centre of non-metastatic primary rectal cancer <6 cm from the anal verge that underwent ISR. Competing risk analysis and sub-distribution hazard ratios for local recurrence free survivals were calculated to determine factors that influenced local recurrence with the competing risk of death from any cause to overcome the exceeding risk of distant metastasis associated with adverse histologic types. RESULTS: One hundred forty-two patients underwent ISR and 22.6% has PDSR histology. At a median follow up of 61 months, 15.6% of the PDSR cohort developed local recurrence (five patients) compared to 11.7% in the non-PDSR group. PDSR histology influenced overall and disease free survival but not local recurrence on cox regression. On competing risk analysis, only ypT stage ≥3 predicted worse local recurrence free survival and not histology. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of PDSR histology did not increase the risk of local recurrence after ISR in this retrospective competing risk analysis.

V-Y Gluteal Advancement Fasciocutaneous Flap for Reconstruction of Perineal Defects After Surgery for Anorectal Cancers- A Single-Center Experience.

An ideal method of perineal closure after resection for low rectal cancer surgery is a topic of debate. Morbidity associated with primary perineal closure due to wound break down delays recovery from surgery and adjuvant treatment with poor oncological outcome at the end. Herewith, we present our experience with V-Y gluteal advancement fasciocutaneous flap done for 131 patients for reconstruction of perineal and pelvic defect. With our experience, this is a safe and simple method with an acceptable complication rate that can be practiced by colorectal surgeons, even in the absence of a dedicated plastic surgery team.

Correction to: Twelve Hundred Consecutive Pancreato-Duodenectomies from Single Centre: Impact of Centre of Excellence on Pancreatic Cancer Surgery Across India.

The authors' affiliations are updated as reflected here.

Twelve Hundred Consecutive Pancreato-Duodenectomies from Single Centre: Impact of Centre of Excellence on Pancreatic Cancer Surgery Across India.

BACKGROUND: Pancreato-duodenectomy (PD) is a technically challenging operation with significant morbidity and mortality. Over the period of time, Tata Memorial Centre has evolved into a high-volume centre for management of pancreatic cancer. Aim of this study is to report the short- and long-term outcomes of 1200 consecutive PDs performed at single tertiary cancer centre in India. METHODS: 1200 PDs were performed from 1992 to 2017. Prospectively maintained database was used to retrospectively assess the short- and long-term outcomes. RESULTS: Study cohort was divided into periods A and B (500 and 700 patients, respectively). Both groups were comparable for demographic variables. Overall morbidity and mortality in entire cohort were 31.2% and 3.9%, respectively. Period B documented significant reduction in post-operative mortality (5.4% vs 2.8%), post-pancreatectomy haemorrhage (5.8% vs 3%) and bile leaks (3.4% vs 1.3%). However, incidence of delayed gastric emptying and clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula was higher in period B. With median follow-up of 25 months, 3-year overall survival and disease-free survival for patients with pancreatic cancer were 43.7% and 38.7%, respectively, and that for periampullary tumours were 65.9% and 59.4%, respectively. Period B also corresponded with dissemination of technical expertise across diverse regions of India with specialised training of 35 surgeons. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates the feasibility of delivering high-quality care in a dedicated high-volume centre even in a country with low incidence of pancreatic cancer with marked disparities in medical care and socio-economic conditions. Improved outcomes underscore the need to promote regionalisation via a dedicated training programme.

Selective extra levator versus conventional abdomino perineal resection: experience from a tertiary-care center.

BACKGROUND: To compare extra levator abdomino perineal resection (ELAPER) with conventional abdominoperineal resection (APER) in terms of short-term oncological and clinical outcomes. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database including all the patients of rectal cancer who underwent APER at Tata Memorial Center between July 1, 2013, and January 31, 2015. Short-term oncological parameters evaluated included circumferential resection margin involvement (CRM), tumor site perforation, and number of nodes harvested. Peri operative outcomes included blood loss, length of hospital stay, postoperative perineal wound complications, and 30-day mortality. The χ(2)-test was used to compare the results between the two groups. RESULTS: Forty-two cases of ELAPER and 78 cases of conventional APER were included in the study. Levator involvement was significantly higher in the ELAPER compared with the conventional group; otherwise, the two groups were comparable in all the aspects. CRM involvement was seen in seven patients (8.9%) in the conventional group compared with three patients (7.14%) in the ELAPER group. Median hospital stay was significantly longer with ELAPER. The univariate analysis of the factors influencing CRM positivity did not show any significance. CONCLUSIONS: ELAPER should be the preferred approach for low rectal tumors with involvement of levators. For those cases in which levators are not involved, as shown in preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the current evidence is insufficient to recommend ELAPER over conventional APER. This stresses the importance of preoperative MRI in determining the best approach for an individual patient.

Robotic cylindrical abdominoperineal resection with transabdominal levator transection.

PURPOSE: The extralevator approach to abdominoperineal resection is an emerging surgical option for patients with low rectal cancer. This technique involves a wide excision of the levator muscles that could reduce the high incidence of circumferential margin positivity associated with conventional abdominoperineal resections. We present our technique of robotic cylindrical abdominoperineal resection where the daVinci robot is used to perform a controlled transection of the levator muscles transabdominally under direct visualization. METHODS: Five patients with rectal adenocarcinoma within 5 cm of the anal verge underwent robot-assisted cylindrical abdominoperineal resection. Safety, feasibility, immediate postoperative outcomes, and pathological adequacy of the specimen were assessed. RESULTS: The procedure was successfully completed in all 5 patients without any intraoperative complications, robot-associated morbidity, or conversion to the open approach. The mean operative time and length of hospital stay were 343 minutes and 5.8 days. An intact mesorectal envelope and negative circumferential margin was achieved in all cases. All specimens had a cylindrical shape. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic assistance enables the transabdominal transection of the levator muscles in cylindrical abdominoperineal resection, with acceptable perioperative and pathological outcomes. Further studies are essential to objectively define the safety, efficacy, and long-term results of this new technique.

A comparison of open and robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal adenocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: This retrospective study was designed to compare open with robot-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: With use of predefined exclusion criteria, all consecutive laparoscopic-assisted (51 patients) and robot-assisted (36 patients) rectal resections for adenocarcinoma from August 2005 to November 2009 at a single institution were considered. Hand-assisted laparoscopy was used for splenic flexure mobilization in all cases. Patients were assigned into robotic and open groups on the basis of the technique used for total mesorectal excision. All 36 robot-assisted resections had the total mesorectal excision performed with robotic assistance and were included in the robotic group. Forty-six of the 51 patients who received a laparoscopic-assisted procedure had the total mesorectal excision performed through the hand port using open surgical technique and were included in the open group. Both groups were compared with respect to patient demographics, perioperative outcomes, and pathology. RESULTS: The robotic and open groups were comparable in age, sex, body mass index, history of prior abdominal surgery, ASA class, number of patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiation, and tumor stage. There were more abdominoperineal resections (P = .019) and more low and mid rectal tumors (P = .007) in the robotic group. Total procedure time was longer in the robotic group (P = .003), but blood loss was less (P = .036). Lymph node yield, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and length of stay were all comparable. There were 3 positive circumferential margins in the open group vs none in the robotic group, but this did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic total mesorectal excision is feasible and safe, and is comparable to open total mesorectal excision in terms of perioperative and pathological outcomes. The longer operative time associated with robotic total mesorectal excision could decrease as experience with this relatively new technique increases. Large randomized trials are necessary to validate the potential benefits of less blood loss and lower margin positivity rates observed in this study.

Total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: the potential advantage of robotic assistance.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of the da Vinci S HD robotic system in mesorectal excision for rectal adenocarcinoma, with the aim to identify areas of potential advantage for the robot in this procedure. METHODS: This study was conducted as a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of 44 consecutive cases of robot-assisted mesorectal excision for rectal adenocarcinoma performed between August 2005 and February 2010. Patient demographics, perioperative outcomes, and complications were evaluated and compared with similar published reports and relevant literature. RESULTS: There were 28 (63.6%) men and 16 (36.4%) women, with a mean age of 63 years. The majority of patients were either overweight or obese and 88.7% of lesions were in the mid or low rectum. We performed 36 low anterior resections (6 intersphincteric) and 8 abdominoperineal resections with a median blood loss of 150 mL (range, 50-1000), a median operative time of 347 minutes (range, 155-510), and a median length of stay of 5 days (range, 3-36). The median lymph node yield was 14 (range, 5-45) and the circumferential resection margin was negative in all patients. We had 1 distal margin positivity (2.7%), 2 anastomotic leaks (5.6%), 1 death (2.7%), and 2 conversions (4.5%) to the open approach. No robot-associated morbidity occurred in this series. CONCLUSIONS: This series compares favorably with similar published reports with regard to the safety and feasibility of robotic assistance in total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. The lower conversion rates reported for robotic rectal resection compared with laparoscopy require validation in large randomized trials.