Is Delaying a Coloanal Anastomosis the Ideal Solution for Rectal Surgery?: Analysis of a Multicentric Cohort of 564 Patients From the GRECCAR.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the specific results of delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) in light of its 2 main indications. BACKGROUND: DCAA can be proposed either immediately after a low anterior resection (primary DCAA) or after the failure of a primary pelvic surgery as a salvage procedure (salvage DCAA). METHODS: All patients who underwent DCAA intervention at 30 GRECCAR-affiliated hospitals between 2010 and 2021 were retrospectively included. RESULTS: Five hundred sixty-four patients (male: 63%; median age: 62 years; interquartile range: 53-69) underwent a DCAA: 66% for primary DCAA and 34% for salvage DCAA. Overall morbidity, major morbidity, and mortality were 57%, 30%, and 1.1%, respectively, without any significant differences between primary DCAA and salvage DCAA ( P = 0.933; P = 0.238, and P = 0.410, respectively). Anastomotic leakage was more frequent after salvage DCAA (23%) than after primary DCAA (15%), ( P = 0.016).Fifty-five patients (10%) developed necrosis of the intra-abdominal colon. In multivariate analysis, intra-abdominal colon necrosis was significantly associated with male sex [odds ratio (OR) = 2.67 95% CI: 1.22-6.49; P = 0.020], body mass index >25 (OR = 2.78 95% CI: 1.37-6.00; P = 0.006), and peripheral artery disease (OR = 4.68 95% CI: 1.12-19.1; P = 0.030). The occurrence of this complication was similar between primary DCAA (11%) and salvage DCAA (8%), ( P = 0.289).Preservation of bowel continuity was reached 3 years after DCAA in 74% of the cohort (primary DCAA: 77% vs salvage DCAA: 68%, P = 0.031). Among patients with a DCAA mannered without diverting stoma, 75% (301/403) have never required a stoma at the last follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: DCAA makes it possible to definitively avoid a stoma in 75% of patients when mannered initially without a stoma and to save bowel continuity in 68% of the patients in the setting of failure of primary pelvic surgery.

Blood, Cellular, and Tissular Calcineurin Inhibitors Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Relationship in Heart Transplant Recipients: The INTRACAR Study.

BACKGROUND: After heart transplantation, calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) (cyclosporin A and tacrolimus) are key immunosuppressive drugs to prevent graft rejection. Whole-blood concentration (C blood )-guided therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is systematically performed to improve graft outcomes. However, some patients will still experience graft rejection and/or adverse events despite CNI C blood within the therapeutic range. Other pharmacokinetic parameters, such as the intragraft, or intracellular concentration at the CNI site of action could refine their TDM. Nonetheless, these remain to be explored. The objective of the INTRACAR study was to describe the relationship between whole blood, intragraft, and intracellular CNI concentrations as well as their efficacy in heart transplant recipients (HTR). METHODS: In a cohort of HTR, protocol endomyocardial biopsies (EMB) were collected to assess rejection by anatomopathological analysis. Part of the EMB was used to measure the intragraft concentrations of CNI (C EMB ). C blood and the concentration inside peripheral blood mononuclear cells, (C PBMC ), a cellular fraction enriched with lymphocytes, were also monitored. Concentrations in the 3 matrices were compared between patients with and without biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR). RESULTS: Thirty-four HTR were included, representing nearly 100 pharmacokinetic (PK) samples for each CNI. C blood , C EMB , and C PBMC correlated for both CNI. BPAR was observed in 74 biopsies (39.6%) from 26 patients (76.5%), all except one was of low grade. None of the PK parameters (C blood , C EMB , C PBMC , C EMB/blood , and C PBMC/blood ) was associated with BPAR. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of well-immunosuppressed patients, no association was observed for any of the PK parameters, including C blood , with the occurrence of BPAR. However, a trend was noticed for the C EMB and C EMB/blood of cyclosporin A. Further studies in higher-risk patients may help optimize the use of C EMB and C PBMC for CNI TDM in HTR.

Local excision after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for mid and low rectal cancer: a multicentric French study from the GRECCAR group.

AIM: A complete or subcomplete tumour response (CTR) is observed in 10%-25% of patients with mid/low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). The aim of our study was to report a multicentric French experience in local excision (LE) after CRT. METHOD: All patients who underwent LE for mid/low rectal cancer with suspected CTR after CRT, from 2006 to 2019 in seven GRECCAR centres were included. LE was considered adequate if the specimen showed a ypT0/Tis/T1R0 tumour, otherwise, a completion total mesorectal excision (TME) was discussed. Morbi-mortality, functional results and oncological outcomes were studied. RESULTS: A total of 257 patients were included. LE specimens showed 36% ypT0, 4% ypTis and 19% ypT1. Thus, 108 patients (42%) had theoretical indication of completion TME, which was performed in only 42 patients. Overall, 30-day morbidity after LE was 11%, including 2% Clavien-Dindo grade III or IV complications. After completion TME, 47% described major low anterior resection syndrome versus 5% after LE alone (p < 0.001). After a mean follow-up of 4 years (range 2-6 years), the recurrence rate was 11% after LE, 32% after completion TME and 20% in patients for whom completion TME was indicated but not performed (p = 0.021). CONCLUSION: TME remains the gold standard for mid/low rectal cancer after CRT. LE in selected patients is safe for operative and functional, but also oncological, results. However, completion TME was indicated in 42% of patients after LE, highlighting the difficulty of the preoperative diagnosis of CTR after CRT.

Supine bottom-up extralevator abdominoperineal excision for anorectal adenocarcinoma is not inferior to standard approach and may be thus safely performed.

BACKGROUND: Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (APE) for rectal carcinoma has been described in order to improve pathological and oncological results compared to standard APE. To obtain the same oncological advantages as extralevator APE, we have previously described a new procedure starting by a perineal approach: the supine bottom-up APE. Our objective is to compare oncological and surgical outcomes between the supine bottom-up APE and the standard APE. METHODS: All patients with low rectal adenocarcinoma requiring APE were retrospectively included and divided into 2 groups: supine bottom-up APE (Group A) and standard APE (Group B). RESULTS: From 2008 to 2016, 61 patients were divided into Groups A (n = 30) and B (n = 31). Postoperative outcomes and median length of stay were similar between groups. Patients from Group A had a significantly longer distal margin (30 [8-120] vs. 20 [1.5-60] mm, p = 0.04) and higher number of harvested lymph nodes (14.5 [0-33] vs. 11 [5-25], p = 0.03) than those from Group B. Circumferential resection margin involvement was similar between groups (28 vs. 22%, p = 0.6), whereas tumors from Group A were significantly larger and more frequently classified as T4 than those from Group B. Operative time was significantly shorter in Group A (437.5 [285-655] minutes) than in Group B (537.5 [361-721] minutes, p = 0.0009). At the end of follow-up, local recurrence occurred in 7 and 16% of patients from Groups A and B (p = 0.68). Three-year overall and disease-free survival rates were similar between groups (87 vs. 90%, p = 0.62 and 61 vs. 63%, p = 0.88, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that supine bottom-up APE doesn't impair surgical outcomes, pathological results, overall and disease-free survivals in comparison with standard APE. This new procedure may be thus safely performed and decrease the operative time. Further randomized multicentric studies are required to confirm these results.

An optimised liver-first strategy for synchronous metastatic rectal cancer leads to higher protocol completion and lower surgical morbidity.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal management of rectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases remains debatable. Thus, we propose an optimised liver-first (OLF) strategy that combines concomitant pelvic irradiation with hepatic management. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and oncological quality of the OLF strategy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients underwent systemic neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by preoperative radiotherapy. Liver resection was performed in one step (between radiotherapy and rectal surgery) or in two steps (before and after radiotherapy). The data were collected prospectively and analysed retrospectively as intent to treat. RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2018, 24 patients underwent the OLF strategy. The rate of treatment completion was 87.5%. Three patients (12.5%) did not proceed to the planned second-stage liver and rectal surgery because of progressive disease. The postoperative mortality rate was 0%, and the overall morbidity rates after liver and rectal surgeries were 21% and 28.6%, respectively. Only two patients developed severe complications. Liver and rectal complete resection was performed in 100% and 84.6%, respectively. A rectal-sparing strategy was performed in 6 patients who underwent local excision (n = 4) or a watch and wait strategy (n = 2). Among patients who completed treatment, the median overall and disease-free survivals were 60 months (range 12-139 months) and 40 months (range 10-139 months), respectively. Eleven patients (47.6%) developed recurrence, among whom five underwent further treatment with curative intent. CONCLUSION: The OLF approach is feasible, relevant, and safe. Organ preservation was feasible for a quarter of patients and may be associated with reduced morbidity.

Tailored Strategy for Locally Advanced Rectal Carcinoma (GRECCAR 4): Long-term Results From a Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label, Phase II Trial.

BACKGROUND: Systematic preoperative radiochemotherapy and total mesorectal excision are the standard of care for locally advanced rectal carcinoma. Some patients can be over- or undertreated. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the long-term oncological, functional, and late morbidity outcomes after tailored radiochemotherapy and induction high-dose chemotherapy. DESIGN: This is a prospective, phase II, multicenter, open-label study at 16 tertiary centers in France. SETTINGS: Patients were operated on by surgeons from the French GRECCAR group. PATIENTS: Two hundred six patients were randomly assigned to treatment: good responders after chemotherapy (≥75% tumor volume reduction) to immediate surgery (arm A) or standard radiochemotherapy (capecitabine 50) plus surgery (arm B) and poor responders to capecitabine 50 (arm C) or intensive radiochemotherapy (capecitabine 60; 60 Gy irradiation; arm D) before surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Treatment was tailored according to MRI response to induction chemotherapy. RESULTS: After induction treatment, 194 patients were classified as good (n = 30, 15%) or poor (n = 164, 85%) responders; they were included in arms A and B (16 and 14 patients) or C and D (113 and 51 patients). The primary objective was obtained: R0 resection rates (90% CI) in the 4 arms were 100% (74-100), 100% (85-100), 83% (72-91), and 88% (77-95). At 5 years, overall survival rates were 90% (47.3-98.5), 93.3% (61.3-99.0), 84.3% (71.0-91.8), and 86.1% (71.6-93.5); disease-free survival rates were 80% (40.9-94.6), 89.5% (64.1-97.3), 72.9% (58.5-82.9), and 72.8% (57.7-83.2); local recurrence rates were 0%, 0%, 2.1% (0.3-13.9), and 9.3% (3.6-23.0); and metastasis rates were 20% (5.4-59.1), 10.5% (2.7-35.9), 18% (31.8-94.6), and 18.8% (10.2-33.0). Late morbidity and quality-of-life evaluations showed no significant difference between arms. LIMITATIONS: Limitations were due to the small number of patients randomly assigned in the good responder arms, especially arm A without radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: Tailoring preoperative radiochemotherapy based on induction treatment response appears to be promising. Future prospective trials should confirm this strategy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B761 . REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Identifier: NCT01333709. ESTRATEGIA HECHA A MEDIDA PARA EL TRATAMIENTO DEL CARCINOMA DE RECTO LOCALMENTE AVANZADO GRECCAR RESULTADOS A LARGO PLAZO DE UN ESTUDIO ALEATRIO MULTICNTRICO Y ABIERTO DE FASE II: ANTECEDENTES:La radio-quimioterapia pré-operatoria sistemáticas y la excisión total del mesorrecto son el estándar en el tratamiento del carcinoma de recto localmente avanzado. En éste sentido, algunos pacientes podrían recibir un sobre o un infra-tratamiento.OBJETIVO:Evaluar los resultados oncológicos, funcionales y de morbilidad a largo plazo después de radio-quimioterapia personalizada y quimioterapia de inducción a dosis elevadas.DISEÑO:Estudio aleatório multicéntrico y abierto de Fase II° realizado en 16 centros terciarios en Francia.AJUSTE:Aquellos pacientes operados por cirujanos del grupo GRECCAR francés.PACIENTES:206 pacientes fueron asignados aleatoriamente al tratamiento: los buenos respondedores después de quimioterapia (reducción del volumen tumoral ≥75%) a la cirugía inmediata (brazo A) o a la radio-quimioterapia estándar (Cap 50) asociada a la cirugía (brazo B); los malos respondedores a Cap 50 (brazo C) o a la radio-quimioterapia intensiva (Cap 60 (irradiación de 60 Gy) (brazo D) previas a la cirugía.INTERVENCIONES:Tratamiento adaptado según la respuesta de la RM a la TC de inducción.RESULTADOS:Después del tratamiento de inducción, 194 pacientes fueron clasificados como buenos (n = 30, 15%) o malos (n = 164, 85%) respondedores, y se incluyeron en los brazos A y B (16 y 14 pacientes) o C y D (113 y 51 pacientes). Se alcanzó el objetivo principal: las tasas de resección R0 [intervalo de confianza del 90%] en los cuatro brazos respectivamente, fueron del 100% [74-100], 100% [85-100], 83% [72-91] y 88% [77-95]. A los 5 años, las tasas fueron: de sobrevida global 90% [47,3-98,5], 93,3% [61,3-99,0], 84,3% [71,0-91,8], 86,1% [71,6-93,5]; de sobrevida libre a la enfermedad 80% [40,9-94,6], 89,5% [64,1-97,3], 72,9% [58,5-82,9], 72,8% [57,7-83,2]; de recidiva local 0, 0, 2,1% [0,3-13,9], 9,3% [3,6-23,0]; de metástasis 20% [5,4-59,1], 10,5% [2,7-35,9], 18% [31,8-94,6], 18,8% [10,2-33,0]. La evaluación tardía de la morbilidad y la calidad de vida no mostraron diferencias significativas entre los brazos.LIMITACIONES:Debido al pequeño número de pacientes asignados al azar en los brazos de buenos respondedores, especialmente en el brazo A de aquellos sin radioterapia.CONCLUSIÓN:Parecería muy prometedor el adaptar la radio-quimioterapia pré-operatoria basada en la respuesta al tratamiento de inducción. Estudios prospectivos en el futuro podrán confirmar la presente estrategia. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B761 . (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo )IDENTIFICADOR DE CLINICALTRIALS.GOV:NCT01333709. Groupe de REcherche Chirurgicale sur le CAncer du Rectum.

Case-Matched Comparison of Functional and Quality of Life Outcomes of Local Excision and Total Mesorectal Excision Following Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by radical surgery is the standard curative treatment for mid- to low-rectal cancer. However, the combination of these treatments may affect patients' GI and genitourinary functions and their quality of life. In the cases of good clinical response to neoadjuvant treatment, local excision is a rectal sparing strategy that would limit these side effects. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare the effects of local excision or conventional laparoscopic total mesorectal excision after chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer. DESIGN: The design is a retrospective study. SETTING: The setting used is a single tertiary center. PATIENTS: Patients with mid- to low-rectal cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy and accessible via conservative surgery at our hospital between January 2010 and December 2018 were included. Patients undergoing local excision were matched 1 to 1 with the patients undergoing total mesorectal excision by age, sex, body mass index, tumor height, and year of surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality of life and digestive and genitourinary functions were measured using validated questionnaires. The socioeconomic impact was also assessed. RESULTS: Forty-four patients undergoing local excision agreed to participate and were matched with 44 patients undergoing total mesorectal excision. Patients who underwent local excision reported a more favorable global health status ( p < 0.01), emotional function ( p = 0.035), social function ( p = 0.04), and body image ( p = 0.04). The low anterior resection syndrome score (rate of major syndrome, 23.8% vs 54.5%; p < 0.01) and the specific fecal incontinence subscale score ( p < 0.01) were more favorable in the local excision group. Sexual and urinary outcomes were comparable between the 2 groups. Local excision had a lower impact on the professional status (35.7% vs 76.5%; p = 0.03). LIMITATIONS: The study limitations include its retrospective design and small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: When indicated, local excision improves the bowel function and quality of life of patients undergoing surgery for rectal cancer after chemoradiotherapy compared with total mesorectal excision. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B997 . COMPARACIN DE CASOS EMPAREJADOS DE LOS RESULTADOS FUNCIONALES Y DE CALIDAD DE VIDA DE LA ESCISIN LOCAL Y LA ESCISIN TOTAL DE MESORECTO DESPUS DE QUIMIORRADIOTERAPIA EN CNCER DE RECTO: ANTECEDENTES:La quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante seguida de cirugía radical es el tratamiento curativo estándar para el cáncer de recto medio-bajo. Sin embargo, la combinación de estos tratamientos puede afectar las funciones gastrointestinales y genitourinarias de los pacientes y su calidad de vida. En casos de buena respuesta clínica al tratamiento neoadyuvante, la escisión local es una estrategia conservadora del recto que limitaría estos efectos secundarios.OBJETIVO:Este estudio comparó los efectos de la escisión local o escisión total de mesorecto laparoscópica convencional después de quimiorradioterapia en pacientes con cáncer de recto.DISEÑO:Estudio retrospectivo.ENTORNO CLINICO:Centro terciario único.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes con cáncer de recto medio-bajo tratados con quimiorradioterapia y accesibles mediante cirugía conservadora en nuestro hospital entre enero del 2010 y diciembre del 2018. Los pacientes sometidos a escisión local se emparejaron uno a uno con los sometidos a escisión total de mesorecto por edad, sexo, índice de masa corporal, altura del tumor y año de cirugía.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:La calidad de vida, las funciones digestivas y genitourinarias se midieron mediante cuestionarios validados. También se evaluó el impacto socioeconómico.RESULTADOS:Cuarenta y cuatro pacientes sometidos a escisión local aceptaron participar y fueron emparejados con 44 pacientes sometidos a escisión mesorrectal total. Los pacientes que se sometieron a escisión local informaron un estado de salud global más favorable ( p <0,01), función emocional ( p = 0,035), función social ( p = 0,04) e imagen corporal ( p = 0,04). La puntuación baja del síndrome de resección anterior (tasa de síndrome mayor: 23,8 % frente a 54,5 %; p <0,01) y la puntuación de la subescala de incontinencia fecal específica ( p <0,01) fueron más favorables en el grupo de escisión local. Los resultados sexuales y urinarios fueron comparables entre los dos grupos. La escisión local tuvo un menor impacto en el estatus profesional (35,7% vs 76,5%; p = 0,03).LIMITACIONES:Diseño retrospectivo, tamaño de muestra pequeño.CONCLUSIONES:Cuando está indicada, la escisión local mejora la función intestinal y la calidad de vida de los pacientes sometidos a cirugía por cáncer de recto después de quimiorradioterapia en comparación con escisión total de mesorecto. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B997 . (Traducción-Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon ).

Impact of fast-track care program in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a cohort-comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Fast-track care programs after surgery improve recovery and decrease the length of hospital stay and postoperative morbidity in colonic cancer. However, the true impact of these programs on morbidity rates after rectal cancer surgery remains unclear. We aimed to assess the feasibility and impact of the fast-track program on postoperative outcomes after restorative laparoscopic rectal cancer resection and temporary loop ileostomy. METHODS: This single-center observational study assessed data of patients undergoing elective rectal cancer surgery during a defined period before (standard group) and after the introduction of a fast-track program (fast-track group) from a prospectively maintained database. The primary endpoint was postoperative 90-day morbidity. Secondary endpoints were 30-day morbidity, fast-track program compliance, length of hospital stay, and readmission rate. RESULTS: Overall, 336 patients (n = 176, standard group; n = 160, fast-track group) were assessed; there was no significant between-group difference in the patients' baseline characteristics (age, sex, body mass index, comorbidities, or neoadjuvant treatment). The protocol compliance rate was 91.4% in the fast-track group. The 90-day morbidity and mean total length of hospital stay were significantly lower in the fast-track group than in the standard group (34% vs 49%, respectively, p < 0.01 and 8.96 days vs 10.2 days, p < 0.01, respectively). There was no difference in readmission rates. Multivariate analysis revealed the fast-track program to be the only predictive factor of postoperative morbidity. CONCLUSION: Fast-track programs can be safely implemented following rectal cancer surgery to reduce the overall morbidity rate and length of hospital stay without adversely increasing the readmission rate.

Surgical Management of Retrorectal Tumors: A French Multicentric Experience of 270 Consecutives Cases.

OBJECTIVE: To report the largest multicentric experience on surgical management of retrorectal tumors (RRT). BACKGROUND: Literature data on RRT is limited. There is no consensus concerning the best surgical approach for the management of RRT. METHODS: Patients operated for RRT in 18 academic French centers were retrospectively included (2000-2019). RESULTS: A total of 270 patients were included. Surgery was performed through abdominal (n = 72, 27%), bottom (n = 190, 70%), or combined approach (n = 8, 3%). Abdominal approach was laparoscopic in 53/72 (74%) and bottom approach was Kraske modified procedures in 169/190 (89%) patients. In laparoscopic abdominal group, tumors were more frequently symptomatic (37/53, 70% vs 88/169, 52%, P = 0.02), larger [mean diameter = 60.5 ± 24 (range, 13-107) vs 51 ± 26 (20-105) mm, P = 0.02] and located above S3 vertebra (n = 3/42, 7% vs 0%, P = 0.001) than those from Kraske modified group. Laparoscopy was associated with a higher risk of postoperative ileus (n = 4/53, 7.5% vs 0%, P = 0.002) and rectal fistula (n = 3/53, 6% vs 0%, P=0.01) but less wound abscess (n = 1/53, 2% vs 24/169, 14%, P = 0.02) than Kraske modified procedures. RRT was malignant in 8%. After a mean follow up of 27 ±39 (1-221) months, local recurrence was noted in 8% of the patients. After surgery, chronic pain was observed in 17% of the patients without significant difference between the 2 groups (15/74, 20% vs 3/30, 10%; P = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Both laparoscopic and Kraske modified approaches can be used for surgical treatment of RRT (according to their location and their size), with similar long-term results.

End Colostomy With or Without Mesh to Prevent a Parastomal Hernia (GRECCAR 7): A Prospective, Randomized, Double Blinded, Multicentre Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether systematic mesh implantation upon primary colostomy creation was effective to prevent PSH. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous randomized trials on prevention of PSH by mesh placement have shown contradictory results. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized controlled trial in 18 hospitals in France on patients aged ≥18 receiving a first colostomy for an indication other than infection. Participants were randomized by blocks of random size, stratified by center in a 1:1 ratio to colostomy with or without a synthetic, lightweight monofilament mesh. Patients and outcome assessors were blinded to patient group. The primary endpoint was clinically diagnosed PSH rate at 24 months of the intention-to-treat population. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01380860. RESULTS: From November 2012 to October 2016, 200 patients were enrolled. Finally, 65 patients remained in the no mesh group (Group A) and 70 in the mesh group (Group B) at 24 months with the most common reason for drop-out being death (n = 41). At 24 months, PSH was clinically detected in 28 patients (28%) in Group A and 30 (31%) in Group B [P = 0.77, odds ratio = 1.15 95% confidence interval = (0.62;2.13)]. Stoma-related complications were reported in 32 Group A patients and 37 Group B patients, but no mesh infections. There were no deaths related to mesh insertion. CONCLUSION: We failed to show efficiency of a prophylactic mesh on PSH rate. Placement of a mesh in a retro-muscular position with a central incision to allow colon passage cannot be recommended to prevent PSH. Optimization of mesh location and reinforcement material should be performed.

Sphincter-saving surgery for ultra-low rectal carcinoma initially indicated for abdominoperineal resection: Is it safe on a long-term follow-up?

BACKGROUND: Rate of abdominoperineal resection (APR) varies from countries and surgeons. Surgical impact of preoperative treatment for ultra-low rectal carcinoma (ULRC) initially indicated for APR is debated. We report the 10-year oncological results from a prospective controlled trial (GRECCAR 1) which evaluate the sphincter saving surgery (SSR). METHODS: ULRC indicated for APR were included (n = 207). Randomization was between high-dose radiation (HDR, 45 + 18 Gy) and radiochemotherapy (RCT, 45 Gy + 5FU infusion). Surgical decision was based on tumour volume regression at surgery. SSR technique was standardized as mucosectomy (M) or partial (PISR)/complete (CISR) intersphincteric resection. RESULTS: Overall SSR rate was 85% (72% ISR), postoperative morbidity 27%, with no mortality. There were no significant differences between the HDR and RCT groups: 10-year overall survival (OS10) 70.1% versus 69.4%, respectively, 10.2% local recurrence (9.2%/14.5%) and 27.6% metastases (32.4%/27.7%). OS and disease-free survival were significantly longer for SSR (72.2% and 60.1%, respectively) versus APR (54.7% and 38.3%). No difference in OS10 between surgical approaches (M 78.9%, PISR 75.5%, CISR 65.5%) or tumour location (low 64.8%, ultralow 76.7%). CONCLUSION: GRECCAR 1 demonstrates the feasibility of safely changing an initial APR indication into an SSR procedure according to the preoperative treatment tumour response. Long-term oncologic follow-up validates this attitude.

Early and Long-Term Outcomes after Direct Bridge-to-Transplantation with Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

BACKGROUND: Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) as direct bridge-to-transplantation (dBTT) remains controversial. We compared the short- and long-term outcomes of adult patients undergoing urgent heart transplantation (HT) with (dBTT) and without (non-BTT) VA-ECMO support at the time of HT. METHODS: Adults who underwent urgent HT in two institutions were assessed (N = 133; dBTT: N = 34 and non-BTT: N = 99). Patient characteristics, donor characteristics, in-hospital outcomes, and overall survival were compared. Mean follow up was 77±38 months and was 100% complete. Mortality predictors were identified using univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Before HT, patients with dBTT had higher rates of ischemic cardiomyopathy, acute kidney injury, liver failure, respiratory failure, and longer graft ischemia times. More patients in the dBTT group had complications, such as requiring VA-ECMO postoperatively (dBTT=50% vs. non-BTT=20%, P < 0.01). Hospital deaths (dBTT=23% vs. non-BTT=19%, P = 0.58), one-year (74% vs. 80%) and five-year survival (62% vs. 75%, P = 0.74 for overall survival) were not significantly different. The MELD-XI score and previous cardiac surgery were independent predictors of hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: Direct bridge-to-transplantation in patients on VA-ECMO support was not associated with worse long-term outcomes compared with non-VA-ECMO urgent HT, especially in recipients without any associated organ failure and a low MELD-XI score before HT.

Laparoscopy is not enough: full ERAS compliance is the key to improvement of short-term outcomes after colectomy for cancer.

BACKGROUND: The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs and laparoscopic techniques both reduce hospital stay and postoperative morbidity in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery. Laparoscopic techniques are an integral part of the ERAS program. However, evidence showing that the implementation of a multimodal rehabilitation program in addition to laparoscopy for colonic cancer would improve postoperative outcomes is still lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of ERAS program on postoperative outcomes after elective laparoscopic colonic cancer resection. METHODS: This is a single-center observational study from a prospectively maintained database. Two groups were formed from all patients undergoing laparoscopic colonic surgery for neoplasm during a defined period before (standard group) and after introduction of an ERAS program (ERAS group). The primary endpoint was postoperative 90-day morbidity. Secondary endpoints were the total length of hospital stay, readmission rate, and compliance with ERAS protocol. RESULTS: A total of 320 patients were included in the analyses, with 160 patients in the standard group and 160 in the ERAS group. There were no differences in the baseline characteristics between the two groups. Overall morbidity was significantly lower in the ERAS group (21.25%) than that in the standard group (34.4%; OR = 0.52 [0.31-0.85], p < 0.01). This difference was not due to the reduction in major complications. Mean total hospital stay was significantly lower in the ERAS group (5.8 days) than that in the standard group (8.2 days, p < 0.01). There were no differences in readmission rates and anastomotic complications. CONCLUSIONS: The ERAS pathway reduced the overall morbidity rates and shortened the length of hospital stay, without increasing the readmission rates. A significant reduction in nonsurgical complications was evident, whereas no significant reduction was found for surgical complications.

Prognostic impact of blood product transfusion in VA and VV ECMO.

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is an accepted and reliable technique to provide temporary circulatory and/or respiratory support. Our objective was to describe the transfusion requirements in ECMO recipients. Secondarily, we addressed the effect of indications for ECMO on transfusion requirements and the baseline factors associated with worse survival. METHODS: We reviewed the prospectively collected data of 509 patients receiving venoarterial (VA) or venovenous (VV) ECMO therapy (2005-2016). Follow-up was prospectively conducted. Data were prospectively entered in the Rennes ECMO database. RESULTS: VA ECMO was employed in 81% of cases; indications were post-cardiotomy myocardial failure in 28% of cases, post-heart transplantation (early graft failure) in 13.2% and cardiogenic shock in 149 (36.4%). VV ECMO was employed in the remaining patients. Average follow-up was 80.25 ± 85.13 days and was 100% complete. In the VA and VV groups, survival at the 30th post-implantation day was 58.3% and 71.1%, respectively, and survival at 6 months was 40.5% and 50.5%, respectively. Platelets and prothrombin time (PT) levels were significantly lower in the VA ECMO group at implantation (p<0.001). VA ECMO patients had a higher rate of thrombotic/haemorrhagic complications (p<0.001) and received both fresh frozen plasma (FFP) (60.5% vs. 31.8% p<0.001) and platelet units (Plt) (61.7% vs. 34.1% p<0.001) more frequently than VV ECMO patients. Post-cardiotomy and post-transplantation patients had significantly higher rates of transfusion of packed red blood cells (pRBC), FFP and Plt than other VA ECMO cases (p<0.001, all). Mortality was equal or greater than 80% among patient subgroups who received more than 19 pRBC, 5 Plt and/or 12 FFP. CONCLUSIONS: An ECMO program is associated with important consumption of blood products. VA ECMO patients have a greater transfusion burden than VV ECMO patients. Mortality is greater in the case of extreme transfusion requirements.

Single-incision Laparoscopy Versus Multiport Laparoscopy for Colonic Surgery: A Multicenter, Double-blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcome of single-port laparoscopy (SPL) and multiport laparoscopy (MPL) laparoscopy for colonic surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Benefits of SPL over MPL are yet to be demonstrated in large randomized trials. METHODS: In this prospective, double-blinded, superiority trial, patients undergoing laparoscopic colonic resection for benign or malignant disease were randomly assigned to SPL or MPL (NCT01959087). Primary outcome was length of theoretical hospital stay (LHS). RESULTS: One hundred twenty-eight patients were randomized and 125 analyzed: 62 SPL and 63 MPL, including 91 right (SPL: n = 44, 71%; MPL: n = 47, 75%) and 34 left (SPL: n = 18, 29%; MPL: n = 16, 25%) colectomies, performed for Crohn disease (n = 53, 42%), cancer (n = 36, 29%), diverticulitis (n = 21, 17%), or benign neoplasia (n = 15, 12%). Additional port insertion was required in 5 (8%) SPL patients and conversion to laparotomy occurred in 7 patients (SPL: n = 3, 5%; MPL: n = 4, 7%; P = 1.000). Total length of skin incision was significantly shorter in the SPL group [SPL: 56 ±â€Š41 (range, 30-300) mm; MPL: 87 ±â€Š40 (50-250) mm; P < 0.001]. Procedure duration, intraoperative complication rate, postoperative 30-day morbidity, postoperative pain, and time to first bowel movement were similar between the groups, leading to similar theoretical LHS (SPL: 6 ±â€Š3 days; MPL: 6 ±â€Š2; P = 0.298). At 6 months, quality of life was similar between groups, but patients from the SPL group were significantly more satisfied with their scar aspect than patients from the MPL group (P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: SPL colectomy does not confer any additional benefit other than cosmetic result, as compared to MPL.

Organ preservation for rectal cancer (GRECCAR 2): a prospective, randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Organ preservation is a concept proposed for patients with rectal cancer after a good clinical response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, to potentially avoid morbidity and side-effects of rectal excision. The objective of this study was to compare local excision and total mesorectal excision in patients with a good response after chemoradiotherapy for lower rectal cancer. METHODS: We did a prospective, randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial at 15 tertiary centres in France that were experts in the treatment of rectal cancer. Patients aged 18 years and older with stage T2T3 lower rectal carcinoma, of maximum size 4 cm, who had a good clinical response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (residual tumour ≤2 cm) were centrally randomly assigned by the surgeon before surgery to either local excision or total mesorectal excision surgery. Randomisation, which was done via the internet, was not stratified and used permuted blocks of size eight. In the local excision group, a completion total mesorectal excision was required if tumour stage was ypT2-3. The primary endpoint was a composite outcome of death, recurrence, morbidity, and side-effects at 2 years after surgery, to show superiority of local excision over total mesorectal excision in the modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population (expected proportions of patients having at least one event were 25% vs 60% for superiority). This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00427375. FINDINGS: From March 1, 2007, to Sept 24, 2012, 186 patients received chemoradiotherapy and were enrolled in the study. 148 good clinical responders were randomly assigned to treatment, three were excluded (because they had metastatic disease, tumour >8 cm from anal verge, and withdrew consent), and 145 were analysed: 74 in the local excision group and 71 in the total mesorectal excision group. In the local excision group, 26 patients had a completion total mesorectal excision. At 2 years in the modified ITT population, one or more events from the composite primary outcome occurred in 41 (56%) of 73 patients in the local excision group and 33 (48%) of 69 in the total mesorectal excision group (odds ratio 1·33, 95% CI 0·62-2·86; p=0·43). In the modified ITT analysis, there was no difference between the groups in all components of the composite outcome, and superiority was not shown for local excision over total mesorectal excision. INTERPRETATION: We failed to show superiority of local excision over total mesorectal excision, because many patients in the local excision group received a completion total mesorectal excision that probably increased morbidity and side-effects, and compromised the potential advantages of local excision. Better patient selection to avoid unnecessary completion total mesorectal excision could improve the strategy. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute of France, Sanofi, Roche Pharma.

To Drain or Not to Drain Infraperitoneal Anastomosis After Rectal Excision for Cancer: The GRECCAR 5 Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of pelvic drainage after rectal surgery for cancer. BACKGROUND: Pelvic sepsis is one of the major complications after rectal excision for rectal cancer. Although many studies have confirmed infectiveness of drainage after colectomy, there is still a controversy after rectal surgery. METHODS: This multicenter randomized trial with 2 parallel arms (drain vs no drain) was performed between 2011 and 2014. Primary endpoint was postoperative pelvic sepsis within 30 postoperative days, including anastomotic leakage, pelvic abscess, and peritonitis. Secondary endpoints were overall morbidity and mortality, rate of reoperation, length of hospital stay, and rate of stoma closure at 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 494 patients were randomized, 25 did not meet the criteria and 469 were analyzed: 236 with drain and 233 without. The anastomotic height was 3.5 ±â€Š1.9 cm from the anal verge. The rate of pelvic sepsis was 17.1% (80/469) and was similar between drain and no drain: 16.1% versus 18.0% (P = 0.58). There was no difference of surgical morbidity (18.7% vs 25.3%; P = 0.83), rate of reoperation (16.6% vs 21.0%; P = 0.22), length of hospital stay (12.2 vs 12.2; P = 0.99) and rate of stoma closure (80.1% vs 77.3%; P = 0.53) between groups. Absence of colonic pouch was the only independent factor of pelvic sepsis (odds ratio = 1.757; 95% confidence interval 1.078-2.864; P = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: This randomized trial suggests that the use of a pelvic drain after rectal excision for rectal cancer did not confer any benefit to the patient.

A multicentre randomised controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy, morbidity and functional outcome of endoscopic transanal proctectomy versus laparoscopic proctectomy for low-lying rectal cancer (ETAP-GRECCAR 11 TRIAL): rationale and design.

BACKGROUND: Total mesorectal excision is the standard surgical treatment for mid- and low-rectal cancer. Laparoscopy represents a clear leap forward in the management of rectal cancer patients, offering significant improvements in post-operative measures such as pain, first bowel movement, and hospital length of stay. However, there are still some limits to its applications, especially in difficult cases. Such cases may entail either conversion to an open procedure or positive resection margins. Transanal endoscopic proctectomy (ETAP) was recently described and could address the difficulties of approaching the lower third of the rectum. Early series and case-control studies have shown favourable short-term results, such as a low conversion rate, reduced hospital length of stay and oncological outcomes comparable to laparoscopic surgery. The aim of the proposed study is to compare the rate of positive resection margins (R1 resection) with ETAP versus laparoscopic proctectomy (LAP), with patients randomly assigned to each arm. METHODS/DESIGN: The proposed study is a multicentre randomised trial using two parallel groups to compare ETAP and LAP. Patients with T3 lower-third rectal adenocarcinomas for whom conservative surgery with manual coloanal anastomosis is planned will be recruited. Randomisation will be performed immediately prior to surgery after ensuring that the patient meets the inclusion criteria and completing the baseline functional and quality of life tests. The study is designed as a non-inferiority trial with a main criterion of R0/R1 resection. Secondary endpoints will include the conversion rate, the minimal invasiveness of the abdominal approach, postoperative morbidity, the length of hospital stay, mesorectal macroscopic assessment, functional urologic and sexual results, faecal continence, global quality of life, stoma-free survival, and disease-free survival at 3 years. The inclusion period will be 3 years, and every patient will be followed for 3 years. The number of patients needed is 226. DISCUSSION: There is a strong need for optimal evaluation of the ETAP because of substancial changes in the operative technique. Assessment of oncological safety and septic risk, as well as digestive and urological functional results, is particularily mandatory. Moreover, benefits of the ETAP technique could be demonstrated  in post-operative outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT02584985 . Date and version identifier: Version n°2 - 2015 July 6.

Tailored Treatment Strategy for Locally Advanced Rectal Carcinoma Based on the Tumor Response to Induction Chemotherapy: Preliminary Results of the French Phase II Multicenter GRECCAR4 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative radiochemotherapy and total mesorectal excision are the standard-of-care for locally advanced rectal carcinoma, but some patients could be over- or undertreated. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the feasibility of radiochemotherapy tailored based on the tumor response to induction chemotherapy (FOLFIRINOX) to obtain a minimum R0 resection rate of 90% in the 4 arms of the study. DESIGN: This study is a multicenter randomized trial (NCT01333709). SETTING: This study was conducted at 16 French cancer specialty centers. PATIENTS: Two hundred six patients with locally advanced rectal carcinoma were enrolled between 2011 and 2014. INTERVENTIONS: Good responders (≥75% tumor volume reduction) were randomly assigned to immediate surgery (arm A) or standard radiochemotherapy (Cap 50: 50 Gy irradiation and 1600 mg/m oral capecitabine daily) plus surgery (arm B). Poor responders were randomly assigned to Cap 50 (arm C) or intensive radiochemotherapy (Cap 60, 60 Gy irradiation, arm D) before surgery. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was a R0 resection rate (circumferential resection margin >1 mm). STATISTICAL CONSIDERATIONS: The experimental strategies were to be considered effective if at least 28 successes (R0 resection) among 31 patients in each arm of stratum I and 34 successes among 40 patients in each arm of stratum II were reported (Simon 2-stage design). RESULTS: After induction treatment (good compliance), 194 patients were classified as good (n = 30, 15%) or poor (n = 164, 85%) responders who were included in arms A and B (16 and 14 patients) and arms C and D (113 and 51 patients). The trial was prematurely stopped because of low accrual in arms A and B and recruitment completion in arms C and D. Data from 133 randomly assigned patients were analyzed: 11, 19, 52, and 51 patients in arms A, B, C, and D. Good responders had smaller tumors than poor responders (23 cm vs 45 cm; p < 0.001). The surgical procedure was similar among groups. The R0 resection rates [90% CI] were 100% [70-100], 100% [85-100], 83% [72-91], and 88% [77-95]. Among the first 40 patients, 34 successes were reported in arms C and D (85% R0 resection rate). The circumferential resection margin ≤1 rates were 0%, 0%, 12%, and 5% in arms A, B, C, and D. The rate of transformation from positive to negative circumferential resection margin was 93%. LIMITATIONS: There was low accrual in arms A and B. CONCLUSION: Tailoring preoperative radiochemotherapy based on the induction treatment response appears safe for poor responders and promising for good responders. Long-term clinical results are needed to confirm its efficacy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A359.

A step toward NOTES total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: endoscopic transanal proctectomy.

BACKGROUND: Previous publications have suggested that endoscopic transanal proctectomy (ETAP) is a promising technique and may be an alternative to conventional low anterior resection for rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the technical feasibility of ETAP, with a particular focus on postoperative and oncological results and on functional outcomes. METHODS: This study was a multicenter prospective study of unselected consecutive patients with low rectal cancer requiring proctectomy and coloanal anastomosis. All patients underwent a standardized procedure. The study endpoints were the safety and adequacy of the oncological resection criteria. All patients were evaluated with the Wexner Fecal Incontinence Questionnaire after stoma closure. RESULTS: Fifty-six consecutive patients (41 men) underwent ETAP between February 2010 and June 2012. The median age was 65 years (39-83), and the median body mass index was 27 (20-42). No intraoperative complications were encountered. There was no postoperative mortality, and the morbidity rate was 26%. The mesorectum was complete in 47 cases (84%) and nearly complete in 9 cases (16%). The median number of lymph nodes retrieved was 12 (range, 7-29) per patient. The median radial and distal margins were 8 mm (0-20) and 10 mm (3-40), respectively. R0 resection was achieved in 53 patients (94.6%). The median Wexner score was 4 (3-12). Thirteen (28%) patients reported stool fragmentation and difficult evacuation. CONCLUSIONS: ETAP is a feasible alternative surgical option to conventional laparoscopy for rectal resection and may represent a promising step toward rectal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES).