Chemoradiation and consolidation chemotherapy for rectal cancer provides a high rate of organ preservation with a very good long-term oncological outcome: a single-center cohort series.

AIM: To report long-term oncological outcomes and organ preservation rate with a chemoradiotherapy-consolidation chemotherapy (CRT-CNCT) treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). METHOD: Retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained database was performed. Oncological outcomes of mid-low LARC patients (n=60) were analyzed after a follow-up of 63 (50-83) months. Patients with clinical complete response (cCR) were treated with the watch-and-wait (WW) protocol. Patients who could not achieve cCR were treated with total mesorectal excision (TME) or local excision (LE). RESULTS: Thirty-nine (65%) patients who achieved cCR were treated with the WW protocol. TME was performed in 15 (25%) patients and LE was performed in 6 (10%) patients. During the follow-up period, 10 (25.6%) patients in the WW group had regrowth (RG) and 3 (7.7%) had distant metastasis (DM). Five-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were 90.1% and 71.6%, respectively, in the WW group. Five-year OS and DFS were 94.9% (95% CI: 88-100%) and 80% (95% CI: 55.2-100%), respectively, in the RG group. For all patients (n=60), 5-year TME-free DFS was 57.3% (95% CI: 44.3-70.2%) and organ preservation-adapted DFS was 77.5% (95% CI: 66.4-88.4%). For the WW group (n=39), 5-year TME-free DFS was 77.5% (95% CI: 63.2-91.8%) and organ preservation-adapted DFS was 85.0% (95% CI: 72.3-97.8%). CONCLUSION: CRT-CNCT provides cCR as high as 2/3 of LARC patients. Regrowths, developed during follow-up, can be successfully salvaged without causing oncological disadvantage if strict surveillance is performed.

Completely Diverted Tube Ileostomy Versus Conventional Loop Ileostomy.

Purpose Diverting ileostomies are commonly performed to prevent morbidity and mortality caused by colorectal anastomotic leakage. However, many complications may develop due to loop ileostomy itself and its reversal. In this study, we aimed to compare the outcomes of completely diverted tube ileostomy and conventional loop ileostomy. Methods The study was designed prospectively, and operations were performed by the same surgeon at a single center. Completely diverted tube ileostomy with the rubber strip was performed in 20 consecutive patients, and loop ileostomy was performed in the next 20 consecutive patients who needed diverting stoma. The primary outcome of the study is to compare the overall complication rates in both techniques. Length of hospital stay, achieving complete diversion, and length of time with a stoma were evaluated as secondary outcomes. Results There were no significant differences in the demographic characteristics between the two groups. Complete diversion was achieved in both groups. The number of patients who developed any kind of complications during the observation period was significantly higher in the loop ileostomy group in comparison with the tube ileostomy group (13 (65%) versus 3 (15%), respectively (p=0.002)). The median time with a stoma was significantly higher in the loop ileostomy group compared to the tube ileostomy group (270 days (range: 56-443) versus 21 days (range: 14-28), respectively (p<0.001)). Conclusion Completely diverted tube ileostomy causes fewer complications, provides a cost advantage, and does not require surgery for stoma closure.

Robotic vs. laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: a case matched study reporting a median of 7-year long-term oncological and functional outcomes.

Aim of this study was to compare operative, long-term oncological and functional outcomes of laparoscopic (LISR) and robotic (RISR) intersphincteric resection in low-lying rectal cancer. Retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained database was performed. 115 cases (LISR, n = 55; RISR, n = 60) were performed by a single surgeon (January 2011-January 2020). Clinical characteristics did not differ between the groups. Operating time was longer in RISR (160.0 ± 45.7 vs. 205.0 ± 36.5 min, p = 0.035). There was no conversion in RISR, whereas in LISR, two patients (3.6%) converted to open surgery. Complete mesorectum was 61.8% and 83.3% for LISR and RISR (p = 0.046), respectively. Circumferential radial margin involvement was 10.9% and 8.3% in LISR and RISR (p = 0.365), respectively. Median follow-up was 82.8 (30-138) months for LISR and 83.6 (30-138) months for RISR. Three-, five-, and seven-year overall survival rates (OS) for LISR and RISR were: 88.6%, 80.4%, 73.4% and 90.4%, 86.3%, 76.9%, respectively. Three-, five-, and seven-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates for LISR and RISR were 80.5%, 75.2%, 70.4% and 84.4%, 81.4%, 79.8% (p = 0.328), respectively. Three-, five-, and seven-year local recurrence-free survival rates in LISR and RISR were: 96.1%, 92.6%, 88.4% and 96.7%, 94.2%, 90.4% (p = 0.573), respectively. Mean Wexner score for LISR (n = 32) and RISR (n = 40) was: 10.5 ± 4.7 and 9.8 ± 4.2 (p = 0.782), respectively. Colostomy-free survival in LISR and RISR was: 3 years 94.5%/95.2%, 5 years 89.1%/91.7%, and 7 years 83.6%/85.0%. RISR is associated with better mesorectal integrity, no conversion, and lower postoperative complication rate. RISR has longer operation time. Oncological and anorectal functional outcomes are similar in both groups.