A Randomized Phase III Trial of Complete Mesocolic Excision Compared with Conventional Surgery for Right Colon Cancer: Interim Analysis of a Nationwide Multicenter Study of the Italian Society of Surgical Oncology Colorectal Cancer Network (CoME-in trial).

BACKGROUND: Although complete mesocolic excision (CME) is supposed to be associated with a higher lymph node (LN) yield, decreased local recurrence, and survival improvement, its implementation currently is debated because the evidence level of these data is rather low and still not supported by randomized controlled trials. METHOD: This is a multicenter, randomized, superiority trial (NCT04871399). The 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) was the primary end point of the study. The secondary end points were safety (duration of operation, perioperative complications, hospital length of stay), oncologic outcomes (number of LNs retrieved, 3- and 5-year overall survival, 5-year DFS), and surgery quality (specimen length, area and integrity rate of mesentery, length of ileocolic and middle-colic vessels). The trial design required the LN yield to be higher in the CME group at interim analysis. RESULTS: Interim data analysis is presented in this report. The study enrolled 258 patients in nine referral centers. The number of LNs retrieved was significantly higher after CME (25 vs. 20; p = 0.012). No differences were observed with respect to intra- or post-operative complications, postoperative mortality, or duration of surgery. The hospital stay was even shorter after CME (p = 0.039). Quality of surgery indicators were higher in the CME arm of the study. Survival data still were not available. CONCLUSIONS: Interim data show that CME for right colon cancer in referral centers is safe and feasible and does not increase perioperative complications. The study documented with evidence that quality of surgery and LN yield are higher after CME, and this is essential for continuation of patient recruitment and implementation of an optimal comparison. Trial registration The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with the code NCT04871399 and with the acronym CoME-In trial.

Complete mesocolic excision in comparison with conventional surgery for right colon cancer: a nationwide multicenter study of the Italian Society of Surgical Oncology colorectal cancer network (CoME-in trial). Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation, or simply CME, includes the sharp dissection along the mesocolic visceral and parietal layers, with the ligation of the main vessels at their origins. To date, there is low evidence on its safety and efficacy. This is a study-protocol of a multicenter, randomized, superiority trial in patients with right-sided colon cancer. It aims to investigate whether the complete mesocolic excision improves the oncological outcomes as compared with conventional right hemicolectomy, without worsening early outcomes. Data on efficacy and safety of complete mesocolic excision are available only from a large trial recruiting eastern patients and from a low-volume single-center western study. No results on survival are still available. For this reason, complete mesocolic excision continues to be a controversial topic in daily practice, particularly in western world. This new nationwide multicenter large-volume trial aims to provide further data on western patients, concerning both postoperative and survival outcomes.

The Italian version of the LARS score: cross-cultural adaptation and validation. An Italian Society of Surgical Oncology-Colorectal Cancer Network (SICO-CCN) collaborative study.

PURPOSE: The LARS score is an internationally well-accepted questionnaire to assess low anterior resection syndrome, but currently there is no formally validated Italian version. The purpose of this study was to test the reliability and validity of the Italian version among Italian patients submitted to sphincter-sparing surgery for rectal cancer. METHODS: The English version of the LARS score was translated into Italian following the forward-and-back translation process. A total of 147 patients filled out our version. Among them, 40 patients answered the questionnaire twice for the test-retest reliability phase. The validity of the LARS score was tested using convergent and discriminant validity indicators by correlating the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29 questionnaires. The LARS score capability to differentiate groups of patients with different demographic or clinical features was also assessed. RESULTS: The test-retest reliability was excellent in 87.5% of patients, remained in the same LARS category in both tests. The convergent validity phase showed a relevant relationship of the LARS score with the EORTC domains, which was significant for 7 of 15 EORTC QLQ-C30 subscales, and for 14 of 29 EORTC QLQ-CR29 subscales. The LARS score was able to discriminate patients who received radiotherapy (p = 0.0026), TME vs. PME (p = 0.0060), tumour site at < 10 cm from the anal verge (p = 0.0030) and history of protective stoma (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The Italian version of the LARS score is a valid and reliable tool for measuring LARS in Italian patients after SSS for rectal cancer.