Organ Preservation in Patients with Rectal Cancer Treated with Total Neoadjuvant Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies suggest that watch-and-wait is a safe alternative to total mesorectal excision in selected patients with a clinical complete response after chemoradiotherapy. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the proportion of patients with rectal cancer who may benefit from watch-and-wait. DESIGN: This study is a retrospective analysis of data from prospectively maintained databases. SETTING: This study was conducted at a comprehensive cancer center. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients with stage II or III rectal adenocarcinoma who were treated with total neoadjuvant therapy using induction chemotherapy between 2012 and 2019 under the care of the same surgeon were included. INTERVENTION: Induction-type total neoadjuvant therapy consisted of 8 cycles of leucovorin-fluorouracil-oxaliplatin or 5 cycles of capecitabine-oxaliplatin before chemoradiotherapy. Patients with a clinical complete response were offered watch-and-wait, and patients with residual tumor were offered total mesorectal excision. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Tumor response was assessed with a digital rectal examination, endoscopy, and MRI. Patient characteristics and recurrence-free survival were compared between the watch-and-wait group and the total mesorectal excision group. RESULTS: A total of 88 patients were included in the analysis. One (1%) died during neoadjuvant therapy. Fifty-five patients (62.5%) had an incomplete clinical response and underwent surgery, 10 (18%) of the 55 developed distant metastasis, and 3 (5%) developed local recurrence. The remaining 32 patients (36.3%) had a clinical complete response and underwent watch-and-wait. On average, patients in the watch-and-wait group were older and had smaller, more distal tumors compared with patients in the surgery group. The median radiation dose, number of chemotherapy cycles, rate of adverse events, and length of follow-up did not differ substantively between the total mesorectal excision group and the watch-and-wait group. In the watch-and-wait group, 2 (6%) patients developed tumor regrowth, and one of them had distant metastasis. Recurrence-free survival was significantly higher in the watch-and-wait group. LIMITATIONS: Generalizability, sample size, and follow-up duration were limitations of this study. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-third of patients with stage II or III rectal cancer can benefit from a watch-and-wait approach with the aim of preserving the rectum if treated with induction-type total neoadjuvant therapy and followed by an experienced multidisciplinary team. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B688. CONSERVACIN DE RGANOS EN PACIENTES CON CNCER DE RECTO TRATADOS CON TERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE TOTAL: ANTECEDENTES:Estudios retrospectivos sugieren que observar y esperar es una alternativa segura a la escisión mesorrectal total en pacientes seleccionados con una respuesta clínica completa después de la quimiorradioterapia.OBJETIVO:Determinar la proporción de pacientes con cáncer de recto que pueden beneficiarse de observar y esperar.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo de datos de bases de datos mantenidas de forma prospectiva.ESCENARIO:Centro Oncológico Integral.PACIENTES:Pacientes consecutivos con adenocarcinoma de recto en estadio II o III tratados con TNT utilizando quimioterapia de inducción entre 2012 y 2019 bajo el cuidado del mismo cirujano.INTERVENCIÓN:La terapia neoadyuvante total de tipo inducción consistió en ocho ciclos de leucovorín-fluorouracilo-oxaliplatino o cinco ciclos de capecitabina-oxaliplatino antes de la quimiorradioterapia. A los pacientes con una respuesta clínica completa se les ofreció observar y esperar, y a los pacientes con tumor residual se les ofreció la escisión mesorrectal total.PRINCIPALES RESULTADOS Y MEDIDAS:La respuesta del tumor se evaluó con un tacto rectal, endoscopia y resonancia magnética. Se compararon las características de los pacientes y la supervivencia libre de recurrencia entre el grupo de observación y espera y el grupo de escisión mesorrectal total.RESULTADOS:Se incluyó en el análisis a un total de 88 pacientes. Uno (1%) murió durante la terapia neoadyuvante. Cincuenta y cinco pacientes (62.5%) tuvieron una respuesta clínica incompleta y se sometieron a cirugía; 10 (18%) de los 55 desarrollaron metástasis a distancia y 3 (5%) desarrollaron recidiva local. Los 32 pacientes restantes (36.3%) tuvieron una cCR (respuesta clínica completa) y se sometieron a observar y esperar. En promedio, los pacientes del grupo de observación y espera eran mayores y tenían tumores más pequeños y distales en comparación con el grupo de cirugía. La dosis mediana de radiación, el número de ciclos de quimioterapia, la tasa de eventos adversos y la duración del seguimiento no difirieron sustancialmente entre el grupo de escisión mesorrectal total y el grupo de observación y espera. En el grupo de observación y espera, 2 (6%) pacientes desarrollaron recrecimiento del tumor y uno de ellos tuvo metástasis a distancia. La supervivencia libre de recurrencia fue significativamente mayor en el grupo de observación y espera.LIMITACIONES:Generalizabilidad, tamaño de la muestra, duración del seguimiento.CONCLUSIONES:Aproximadamente un tercio de los pacientes con cáncer de recto en estadio II o III pueden beneficiarse de un abordaje de observación y espera con el objetivo de preservar el recto si se tratan con terapia neoadyuvante total de tipo inducción y son seguidos por un equipo multidisciplinario experimentado. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B688.

Anorectal Mucosal Melanoma in the Era of Immune Checkpoint Inhibition: Should We Change Our Surgical Management Paradigm?

BACKGROUND: The advent of immune checkpoint inhibition therapy has dramatically improved survival in patients with skin melanoma. Survival outcomes after resection of anorectal melanoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibition have not been reported. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare survival outcomes following surgical resection of anorectal melanoma between patients who received immune checkpoint inhibition and patients who did not. DESIGN: This study is a retrospective analysis of data from a prospectively maintained database. SETTING: This study was conducted at a comprehensive cancer center. PATIENTS: Patients who underwent surgery for anorectal melanoma between 2006 and 2017 were included. They were stratified according to the use of immune checkpoint inhibition. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were overall and disease-specific survival. RESULTS: Of the 47 patients included in the analysis, 29 (62%) received immune checkpoint inhibition therapy. Twenty-two (76%) of the 29 patients received immune checkpoint inhibition after detection of metastasis or disease progression rather than in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting. Overall survival did not differ significantly between patients who received immune checkpoint inhibition therapy and patients who did not (median, 52 and 20 months; 5-year rate, 41% vs 35%; p = 0.25). Disease-specific survival also did not differ significantly. Our analysis did not identify any clinical or pathological features associated with response to immune checkpoint inhibition therapy or with survival. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its relatively small sample and retrospective design and by the heterogeneous treatment regimen in the immune checkpoint inhibition group. CONCLUSIONS: Immune checkpoint inhibition therapy by itself does not appear to improve survival in patients who undergo resection or excision of anorectal melanoma. Combinations of immune checkpoint inhibition with other therapeutic modalities warrant further investigation. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B499. MELANOMA DE LA MUCOSA ANORRECTAL EN LA ERA DE LOS INHIBIDORES DEL PUNTO DE CONTROL INMUNOLÓGICO: ¿DEBEMOS DE CAMBIAR NUESTRO PARADIGMA DEL MANEJO QUIRÚRGICO: El advenimiento de la terapia de los inhibidores del punto de control inmunológico, han mejorado dramáticamente la supervivencia en pacientes con melanoma de piel. No se han informado los resultados de supervivencia después de la resección del melanoma anorrectal, tratado con inhibidores del punto de control inmunológico.Comparar los resultados de supervivencia después de la resección quirúrgica de melanoma anorrectal entre pacientes que recibieron y no recibieron inhibidores del punto de control inmunológico.Análisis retrospectivo de una base de datos mantenida prospectivamente.Centro oncológico integral.Pacientes que se sometieron a cirugía por melanoma anorrectal entre 2006 y 2017. Los pacientes fueron estratificados según el uso de inhibidores del punto de control inmunológico.Supervivencia global y específica de la enfermedad.De los 47 pacientes incluidos en el análisis, 29 (62%) recibieron terapia de inhibidores del punto de control inmunológico. Veintidós (76%) de los 29 pacientes recibieron inhibidores del punto de control inmunológico después de la detección de metástasis o progresión de la enfermedad, en vez de administración adyuvante o neoadyuvante. La supervivencia global no varió significativamente entre los pacientes que recibieron o no recibieron terapia de inhibidores del punto de control inmunológico (mediana, 52 y 20 meses, respectivamente; tasa a 5 años, 41% frente a 35%, respectivamente; p = 0,25). La supervivencia específica de la enfermedad tampoco varió significativamente. Nuestro análisis no identificó ninguna característica clínica o patológica, asociada con la respuesta a la terapia de inhibidores del punto de control inmunológico o con la supervivencia.Muestra relativamente pequeña y diseño retrospectivo. Régimen de tratamiento heterogéneo en el grupo de inhibidores del punto de control inmunológico.La terapia por sí sola, de inhibidores del punto de control inmunológico, no parece mejorar la supervivencia en pacientes que se someten a resección o escisión de melanoma anorrectal. Las combinaciones de inhibidores del punto de control inmunológico con otras modalidades terapéuticas, merecen una mayor investigación. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B499. (Traducción-Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy).

Comparative analysis of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Bowel Function Instrument and the Low Anterior Resection Syndrome Questionnaire for assessment of bowel dysfunction in rectal cancer patients after low anterior resection.

AIM: Neoadjuvant therapy and total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer are associated with bowel dysfunction symptoms known as low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). Our study compared the only two validated instruments-the LARS Questionnaire (LARS-Q) and the Memorial Sloan Kettering Bowel Function Instrument (MSK-BFI)-in rectal cancer patients undergoing sphincter-preserving TME. METHODS: One hundred and ninety patients undergoing sphincter-preserving TME for Stage I-III rectal cancer completed the MSK-BFI and LARS-Q simultaneously at a median time of 12 (range 1-43) months after restoration of bowel continuity. Associations between the MSK-BFI total/subscale scores and the LARS-Q score were investigated using Spearman rank correlation (r s ). Discriminant validity for the two questionnaires was assessed, and the questionnaires were compared with the European Quality of Life Instrument. RESULTS: Major LARS was identified in 62% of patients. The median MSK-BFI scores for no LARS, minor LARS and major LARS were 76.5, 70 and 57, respectively. We found a strong association between MSK-BFI and LARS-Q (r s -0.79). The urgency/soilage subscale (r s -0.7) and the frequency subscale (rs -0.68) of MSK-BFI strongly correlated with LARS-Q. Low correlation was observed between the MSK-BFI diet subscale and LARS-Q (r s -0.39). On multivariate analysis, both questionnaires showed worse bowel function in patients with distal tumours. A low to moderate correlation with the European Quality of Life Instrument was observed for both questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: The MSK-BFI and LARS-Q showed good correlation and similar discriminant validity. As the LARS-Q is easier to complete, it may be considered the preferred tool to screen for bowel dysfunction.

Options for Low Rectal Cancer: Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision.

Low rectal cancers (LRCs) may offer a difficult technical challenge even to experienced colorectal surgeons. Although laparoscopic surgery offers a superior exposure of the pelvis when compared with open approach, its role in rectal cancer surgery has been controversial. Robotic platforms are well suited for difficult pelvic surgery due to its three-dimensional visualization, degree of articulation of instruments, precise movements, and better ergonomics. The robot may be suitable especially in the anatomically narrow pelvis such as in male and obese patients. Meticulous dissection in critical steps, such as splenic flexure takedown, nerve-sparing mesorectal excision, and distal margin clearance, are potential technical advantages. In addition, robotic rectal resections are associated with lower conversion rates to open surgery, less blood loss, and shorter learning curve with similar short-term quality of life outcomes, similar rates of postoperative complications, and equivalent short-term surrogate outcomes compared with conventional laparoscopy. Robotic surgery approach, if used correctly, can enhance the skills and the capabilities of the well-trained surgeon during minimally invasive procedures for LRC.

Patient-Reported Bowel Function in Patients With Rectal Cancer Managed by a Watch-and-Wait Strategy After Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND: A watch-and-wait strategy is a nonoperative alternative to sphincter-preserving surgery for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who achieve a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant therapy. There are limited data about bowel function for patients undergoing this organ-preservation approach. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare bowel function in patients with rectal cancer managed with a watch-and-wait approach with bowel function in patients who underwent sphincter-preserving surgery (total mesorectal excision). DESIGN: This was a retrospective case-control study using patient-reported outcomes. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a comprehensive cancer center. PATIENTS: Twenty-one patients underwent a watch-and-wait approach and were matched 1:1 with 21 patients from a pool of 190 patients who underwent sphincter-preserving surgery, based on age, sex, and tumor distance from the anal verge. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Bowel function was measured using the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Bowel Function Instrument. RESULTS: Patients in the watch-and-wait arm had better bowel function on the overall scale (median total score, 76 vs 55; p < 0.001) and on all of the subscales, with the greatest difference on the urgency/soilage subscale (median score, 20 vs 12; p < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its retrospective design, small sample size, and temporal variability between surgery and time of questionnaire completion. CONCLUSIONS: A watch-and-wait strategy correlated with overall better bowel function when compared with sphincter-preserving surgery using a comprehensive validated bowel dysfunction tool. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B218. FUNCIÓN EVACUATORIA INFORMADA POR PACIENTES EN CÁNCER RECTAL MANEJADO CON UNA ESTRATEGIA DE OBSERVAR Y ESPERAR DESPUÉS DE LA TERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE: UN ESTUDIO DE CASOS Y CONTROLES: Observar y esperar es una alternativa no operativa a la cirugía de preservación del esfínter para pacientes con cáncer rectal localmente avanzado que logran una respuesta clínica completa después de la terapia neoadyuvante. Hay datos limitados sobre la función evacuatoria en pacientes sometidos a este abordaje para preservación de órganos.Evaluar la función evacuatoria en pacientes con cáncer rectal manejados con observar y esperar comparado a pacientes sometidos a cirugía de preservación de esfínteres (escisión mesorrectal total).Estudio retrospectivo de casos y controles utilizando resultados reportados por pacientes.Centro especializado oncológico.21 pacientes se sometieron a observar y esperar y se compararon con 21 pacientes de un grupo de 190 pacientes que se sometieron a cirugía de preservación de esfínteres controlando por edad, sexo y la distancia del tumor al borde anal.Función evacuatoria utilizando un instrumento de valoración del Centro de Cáncer Memorial Sloan Kettering.Los pacientes de observar y esperar demostraron mejor función evacuatoria en la escala general (puntuación total media, 76 versus 55; p <0,001) y en todas las subescalas, con la mayor diferencia en la subescala de urgencia / ensuciamiento fecal (puntuación media, 20 versus 12; p <0,001).Diseño retrospectivo, numero de muestra pequeño y variabilidad temporal entre la cirugía y el tiempo de finalización del cuestionario.Observar y esperar se correlacionó con mejor función evacuatoria en general en comparación con la cirugía de preservación del esfínter utilizando una herramienta integral validada para la disfunción evacuatoria. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B218. (Traducción-Dr. Adrián Ortega).

Use of the Xi robotic platform for total abdominal colectomy: a step forward in minimally invasive colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: The use of the da Vinci robotic platform for total colectomy has been limited by the need to reposition the patient-side surgical cart from one side of the patient to the other, which increases operative time. In this study, we examined the feasibility of robotic total colectomy using the da Vinci Xi model, which offers a rotating boom-mounted system and laser-targeted trocar positioning. METHODS: The study cohort consisted of 23 patients who underwent minimally invasive total colectomy for cancer or polyposis syndromes at a comprehensive cancer center between 2015 and 2017. Of the 23 colectomies, 15 were robotic and eight were laparoscopic. For the robotic colectomies, trocars were placed in the supraumbilical region and all four quadrants. The da Vinci Xi robot was placed between the patient's legs, and the boom was rotated from left to right and then to the middle in order to work sequentially on the right colon, the left colon, and the pelvis. Operating time and short-term outcomes were compared between the patients who underwent robotic surgery and the patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery. RESULTS: The two groups of patients were comparable in age, gender, BMI, physical status, and disease types. In the robotic group, median length of stay (4 vs. 6 days, p = 0.047) was significantly shorter and median operative time (243 vs. 263 min, p = 0.97) and median estimated blood loss (50 vs. 100 ml; p = 0.08) were similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: With the da Vinci Xi boom-mounted system, total abdominal colectomy can be performed without the need to move the patient-side surgical cart and is associated with shorter length of stay and similar operative time compared to the laparoscopic approach.

Oncologic Outcomes of Salvage Abdominoperineal Resection for Anal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Initially Managed with Chemoradiation.

Background: Abdominoperineal resection (APR) has been advocated for persistent or recurrent disease after failure of chemoradiation (CRT) for anal squamous cell cancer (SCC). Treatment with salvage APR can potentially achieve a cure. This study aimed to analyze oncological outcomes for salvage APR in a recent time period at a comprehensive cancer center. Methods: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent APR for biopsy-proven persistent or recurrent anal SCC between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2020 was performed. Patients with stage IV disease at the time of initial diagnosis and patients with missing data were excluded. Univariate analysis was used with a chi-square test for categorical variables, and non-parametric tests were used for continuous variables. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to evaluate disease-specific (DSS), post-APR local recurrence-free (RFS), and disease-free survival (DFS). Results: A total of 96 patients were included in the analysis: 39 (41%) with persistent disease and 57 (59%) with recurrent SCC after chemoradiation had been completed. The median follow-up was 22 months (IQR 11-47). Forty-nine patients (51%) underwent extended APR and/or pelvic exenteration. Eight (8%) patients developed local recurrence, 30 (31%) developed local and distant recurrences, and 16 (17%) developed distant recurrences alone. The 3-year DSS, post-APR local recurrence-free survival, and disease-free survival were 53.8% (95% CI 43.5-66.5%), 54.5% (95% CI 44.4-66.8%), and 26.8% (95% CI 18.6-38.7%), respectively. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, positive microscopic margin (OR 10.0, 95% CI 2.16-46.12, p = 0.003), positive nodes in the surgical specimen (OR 9.19, 95% CI 1.99-42.52, p = 0.005), and lymphovascular invasion (OR 2.61 95% CI 1.05-6.51, p = 0.04) were associated with recurrence of disease. Gender, indication for APR (recurrent vs. persistent disease), HIV status, extent of surgery, or type of reconstruction did not influence survival outcomes. Twenty patients had targeted tumor-sequencing data available. Nine patients had PIK3CA mutations, seven of whom experienced a recurrence. Conclusions: Salvage APR for anal SCC after failed CRT was associated with poor disease-specific survival and low recurrence-free survival. Anal SCC patients undergoing salvage APR should be counseled that microscopic positive margins, positive lymph nodes, or the presence of lymphovascular invasion in the APR specimen are prognosticators for disease relapse. Our results accentuate the necessity for additional treatment strategies for the ongoing treatment challenge of persistent or recurrent anal SCC after failed CRT.

Is Nonoperative Management of Rectal Cancer Feasible?

During the past decade, the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) has become more complex. Total neoadjuvant treatment (TNT) has increased the rates of both clinical and pathologic complete response, resulting in improved long-term oncological outcomes. The feasibility to implement nonoperative management (NOM) depends on solving current challenges such as how to correctly identify the best candidates for a NOM without compromising oncologic safety. NOM should be part of the treatment discussion of LARC, considering increasing rates of clinical complete response, potential quality of life gains, avoidance of surgical morbidity, and patient preferences.

Nonoperative Management for Rectal Cancer.

The treatment algorithm for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) has increased in complexity over the past 10 years. Nonoperative management (NOM) for rectal cancer in patients with clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant therapy has been gaining acceptance as a potential treatment option for selected LARC patients. The current challenge is to accurately select the patients with an apparent cCR, thereby correctly identifying those would-be appropriate candidates for a NOM strategy. NOM should be part of the treatment discussion of LARC, considering increasing rates of cCR, patient preference, potential quality of life gains, and the potential avoidance of surgical morbidity.

Neoadjuvant Therapy for Rectal Cancer.

The treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer is challenging and requires a multidisciplinary approach. Neoadjuvant treatment has improved local control by the combination of radiotherapy, surgery, and chemotherapy. However, neoadjuvant treatment has not yet been shown to improve overall survival and is associated with toxicities and late sequelae that impair the quality of life of patients. Currently, different types of neoadjuvant strategies have raised the question about which one is the optimal strategy for rectal cancer treatment. In this article, we explore the different neoadjuvant treatment regimens currently available, their associated benefits and toxicities, and novel approaches in this area.

Non-Operative Management of Patients with Rectal Cancer: Lessons Learnt from the OPRA Trial.

Over the past decade, the management of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) has progressively become more complex. The introduction of total neoadjuvant treatment (TNT) has increased the rates of both clinical and pathological complete response, resulting in excellent long-term oncological outcomes. As a result, non-operative management (NOM) of LARC patients with a clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant therapy has gained acceptance as a potential treatment option in selected cases. NOM is based on replacement of surgical resection with safe and active surveillance. However, the identification of appropriate candidates for a NOM strategy without compromising oncologic safety is currently challenging due to the lack of an objective standardization. NOM should be part of the treatment plan discussion with LARC patients, considering the increasing rates of cCR, patient preference, quality of life, expectations, and the potential avoidance of surgical morbidity. The recently published OPRA trial showed that organ preservation is achievable in half of rectal cancer patients treated with TNT, and that chemoradiotherapy followed by consolidation chemotherapy may an appropriate strategy to maximize cCR rates. Ongoing trials are investigating optimal algorithms of TNT delivery to further expand the pool of patients who may benefit from NOM of LARC.

Malakoplakia mimicking a locally advanced colorectal neoplasm.

Malakoplakia is a rare disease. Clinical presentation is non-specific, making its diagnosis an incidental finding on histopathological analysis. The aim of this case report is to describe a patient diagnosed with colon, renal and soft tissue malacoplakia mimicking a locally advanced colorectal cancer. A 75-year-old man was admitted due to intense abdominal pain. No relevant findings at the physical examination. Computed tomography showed parietal thickening of the descending colon with left kidney, iliopsoas muscle and retroperitoneum involvement. An elevated blood serum creatinine, elevated glycated hemoglobin and urinary infection were detected. Surgery was decided for suspicious symptomatic colonic neoplasm. Left segmental colectomy with left partial nephrectomy and retroperitoneal soft tissue resection was performed. Pathology report was compatible with malakoplakia. Malakoplakia is a rare disease and may affect multiple organs. Because there are no clinical-specific findings, diagnosis is usually made with histopathological study of the surgical specimen.

Comparing outcomes of robotic versus open mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The outcomes of robot-assisted mesorectal excision for rectal cancer, compared with open resection, have not been fully characterized. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of pathologic, short-term, and long-term outcomes in patients with rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent total or tumour-specific mesorectal excision at a high-volume cancer centre between 2008 and 2017 was conducted. Outcomes after robotic and open surgery were compared on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: Out of 1048 resections performed, 1018 patients were reviewed, with 638 who underwent robotic surgery and 380 open surgery. Robotic surgery was converted to the open approach in 17 (2.7 per cent) patients. Patients who underwent robotic surgery were younger (median 54 (range 22-91) years versus median 58 (range 18-97) years; P < 0.001), had higher tumours (median 80 (range 0-150) mm from the anal verge versus median 70 (0-150) mm; P = 0.001), and were less likely to have received neoadjuvant therapy (64 per cent versus 73 per cent; P = 0.003). For patients who underwent a robotic total mesorectal excision, the operating time was longer (median 283.5 (range 117-712) min versus median 249 (range 70-661) min; P < 0.001). However, the rate of complications was lower (29 per cent versus 45 per cent; P < 0.001) and length of hospital stay was shorter (median 5 (range 1-32) days versus median 7 (range 0-137) days; P < 0.001). Median follow-up of survivors was 2.9 years. The proportion of patients with a positive circumferential resection margin did not differ between the groups, nor did the rate of local recurrence (robotic versus open: 3.7 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 1.9 to 5.6 versus 2.8 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 1.0 to 4.6; P = 0.400), systemic recurrence (robotic versus open: 11.7 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 8.5 to 14.8 versus 13.0 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 9.2 to 16.5; P = 0.300), or overall survival (robotic versus open: 97.8 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 96.3 to 99.3 versus 93.5 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 90.8 to 96.2; P = 0.050). The same results were documented in a subanalysis of 370 matched patients, including 185 who underwent robotic surgery and 185 open surgery, for the overall incidence of any postoperative complications, overall survival, disease-free survival, local recurrence, and systemic recurrence. CONCLUSION: In patients with rectal cancer who are candidates for curative resection, robotic mesorectal excision is associated with lower complication rates, shorter length of stay, and equivalent oncologic outcomes, compared with open mesorectal excision.

Risk of Metachronous Colorectal Neoplasm after a Segmental Colectomy in Lynch Syndrome Patients According to Mismatch Repair Gene Status.

BACKGROUND: Because of increased risk of metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC), all patients with Lynch syndrome (LS) are offered a total colectomy. However, because metachronous CRC rate by mismatch repair (MMR) gene is uncertain, and total colectomy negatively impacts quality of life, it remains unclear whether segmental resection is indicated for lower penetrance MMR genes. We evaluated metachronous CRC incidence according to MMR gene in LS patients who underwent a segmental colectomy. STUDY DESIGN: Single-center, retrospective cohort study in patients with an earlier colectomy for CRC and an MMR germline mutation in MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, or PMS2 followed prospectively in a hereditary CRC family registry. All patients underwent surveillance colonoscopy. Metachronous CRC was defined as one detected more than 1 year after index resection. Primary end point was cumulative incidence of metachronous CRC overall and by MMR gene. RESULTS: One hundred and ten patients were included: 35 with MLH1 likely pathogenic/pathogenic (LP/P) variants (32%), 42 MSH2 (38%), 20 MSH6 (18%), and 13 PMS2 (12%). Median follow-up 4.26 years (range 0.53 to 19.92 years). Overall, metachronous CRC developed in 22 patients (20%). At 10-year follow-up, incidence was 12% (95% CI 6% to 23%), with no metachronous CRC detected in patients with a PMS2 or MSH6 LP/P variant. CONCLUSIONS: After index segmental resection, metachronous CRC is less likely to develop in LS patients with MSH6 or PMS2 LP/P variant than in MLH1 or MSH2 carriers. Our data support segmental resection and long-term colonoscopic surveillance rather than total colectomy in carefully selected, well-informed LS patients with MSH6 or PMS2 LP/P variant.

Effect of Neoadjuvant Systemic Chemotherapy With or Without Chemoradiation on Bowel Function in Rectal Cancer Patients Treated With Total Mesorectal Excision.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) impairs bowel function in patients with rectal cancer treated with total mesorectal excision (TME). The impact of other forms of neoadjuvant therapy such as neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (NC) and induction chemotherapy followed by CRT (total neoadjuvant therapy or TNT) on postoperative bowel function has not been investigated. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 176 rectal cancer patients treated between November 1, 2011, and August 31, 2017. All patients completed the MSKCC Bowel Function Instrument (BFI), a validated bowel function questionnaire, at least 6 months after TME and/or ileostomy reversal. Differences in BFI scores were compared across four groups (surgery alone, CRT, NC, and TNT) and also according to exposure to neoadjuvant RT and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. A multivariable linear regression model was used to evaluate the independent relationship between exposure to neoadjuvant RT or chemotherapy and BFI. RESULTS: BFI total scores were significantly different between the four groups (p = 0.008). Exposure to RT correlated with worse BFI total scores (p = 0.002), and no differences were found in BFI total score after exposure to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.92). In a linear regression model, only exposure to RT (ß = - 5.1; 95% CI - 8.9 to - 1.3; p = 0.008) and tumor distance from the anal verge (ß = 1.23; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.97; p = 0.001) were significantly correlated with BFI total score. CONCLUSION: NC, whether administered alone or added to CRT, does not seem to impair bowel function. These data should be used to counsel rectal cancer patients when discussing neoadjuvant therapy options.

Resultados de un programa de recuperación mejorada (PRM) en cirugía colorrectal: efectos en la estadía hospitalaria / Shortening of hospital length of stay after the implementation of an Enhanced Recovery Program for elective colorectal surgery

Resumen Introducción Los Programas de Recuperación Mejorada (PRM) en cirugía colorrectal disminuyen las complicaciones y acortan la estadía hospitalaria. La implementación de un PRM representa un desafío en nuestro sistema de salud público, dado la alta demanda y recursos limitados. Objetivo Evaluar el efecto en la estadía hospitalaria (EH) posterior a la implementación de un PRM en cirugía colorrectal electiva en un hospital público. Materiales y Método Estudio retrospectivo, que incluyó pacientes entre 15 y 85 años operados electivamente de resecciones colorrectales en un hospital público entre 1 de enero de 2015 y 31 de diciembre de 2016. Se compararon dos grupos: 1) total de pacientes operados electivamente 1 año posterior a la implementación del PRM (post-PRM) y 2) total de pacientes operados electivamente un año previo a la implementación de PRM (pre-PRM), en términos de EH, reingresos, complicaciones y mortalidad a 30 días. Se realizó análisis de tiempo a evento para comparar la EH entre ambos grupos. Resultados Un total de 144 pacientes fueron incluidos: 92 en el grupo post-PRM y 52 en el grupo pre-PRM. No hubo diferencias clínicas entre ambos grupos. La mediana de EH en el grupo post-PRM fue 2 días menor que en el grupo control (5 vs 7 días, test de log-rank, p = 0,03). No hubo diferencia en complicaciones, reingresos ni mortalidad. Conclusión La implementación de un PRM en cirugía colorrectal electiva en un hospital público se asocia a una disminución de la EH sin aumento de morbimortalidad.

Background Enhanced Recovery Programs (ERP) in colorectal surgery has proved to decrease complications and shorten hospital stay. The implementation of an ERP could be a difficult task in a high-demanding public health system with limited resources. Aim Evaluate the effect on length of stay (LOS) after the implantation of an ERP for colorectal surgery in a resource-limited public hospital. Materials and Method This retrospective study included patients aged 15-85 years who underwent elective colorectal surgery at a resource-limited public hospital in Chile between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2016. We compared two groups: (1) total number of patients operated electively after 1-year of ERP implementation (post-ERP group) and (2) total number of patients electively operated 1-year previous ERP (pre-ERP group) in terms of LOS, readmissions, complications, and 30-day mortality. A time to event analysis was performed to evaluate differences in LOS. Results A total of 144 patients were included in this study: 92 in the post-ERP group and 52 in the pre-ERP group. There were no clinical differences between groups. The median LOS in the post-ERP group was 2 days lower than that in the control group (5 vs 7 days, log-rank test p = 0.03). There were no differences in complications, readmissions, and 30-day mortality. Conclusions The implementation of an ERP for colorectal surgery in a resource-limited hospital was associated with decreased LOS without increasing morbidity.