[Initiating a Robotic Program for Abdominal Surgery - Experiences from a Centre in Germany]. / Implementierung eines Roboterprogramms in der Viszeralchirurgie ­ Erfahrungen eines deutschen Zentrums.

PURPOSE: Robotic systems are becoming increasingly important in abdominal surgery. We describe the implementation of a robotic program at a German centre for abdominal surgery, with focus on feasibility, safety, patient selection, learning curves, financial aspects and the lessons learned. METHODS: This retrospective analysis covered data on patient demographics, intra- and postoperative parameters, oncological results and costs of all robotic-assisted abdominal operations performed at our institution between August 2012 to December 2016. It was also evaluated how possible factors for preoperative patient selection might influence intra- or postoperative outcome and learning parameters. RESULTS: 81 operations were performed - mostly colorectal resections (n = 35), ventral mesh rectopexy (n = 23) and liver resections (n = 18). The conversion rate was 7%. All oncological patients underwent R0 resection. Mean postoperative hospitalisation was 8.8 days; mean morbidity was 24%, with major complications (Clavien-Dindo > II) in 7%; mortality was 0%. BMI above 33.5 kg/m2 was associated with significantly higher morbidity (p = 0.024) and rate of major complications (p = 0.046), as well as a significantly longer hospitalisation (p = 0.009). Patients older than 65 years had significantly higher morbidity (p = 0.025). With increasing numbers of operations, time of surgery decreased (p = 0.001). The average cost of a robot-assisted operation, including hospital stay, was 15,221 €. The costs of robotic sigmoid resections or liver resections were higher (compared to the open approach: 106.8 and 62.8% higher, respectively, compared to the laparoscopic approach 93.5 and 66.5% higher, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic surgery is a safe approach. A crucial factor in the successful and safe performance of robotic assisted operations is proper patient selection, especially during the implementation period. The inevitable learning curve and the higher costs compared to open and laparocopic surgery must be respected and specialisation of the whole team is necessary.

Comparing Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Young-onset and Late-onset Colorectal Cancer: An International Collaborative Study.

BACKGROUND: Compared with the general population, the incidence of young-onset (YO) colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing. However, a significant knowledge gap exists in the clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes for these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six international tertiary cancer centers conducted a retrospective study. Patients with YO CRC (aged 18-44 years) and LO CRC (aged > 44 years) diagnosed with histologically proven colorectal adenocarcinoma from June 2003 to June 2014 were enrolled. Patients were randomly chosen from each center's database, and the patient demographics and treatment information were collected. The data were then centralized, and the final analysis was performed at a single institution. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the crude and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for progression-free survival and mortality, and YO was compared with LO. Site-specific HRs were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 498 patients, including 224 with YO (129 men; mean age, 37 ± 5.5 years) and 274 with LO (167 men; mean age, 64.8 ± 9.5 years) CRC, were included. At the diagnosis, 137 patients (61.2%) and 122 patients (44.5%) with YO and LO CRC had metastatic disease, respectively. For both cohorts, the 3 most common presenting symptoms were pain, hematochezia, and weight loss. Surgery was performed in 141 YO (63.0%) and 219 LO (79.9%) patients. The longitudinal noncurative treatment patterns were similar, but more biologic therapy was used for these YO patients. The pooled progression-free survival analysis results for first-line noncurative treatment favored LO (HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.04-3.68). The mortality analysis showed no significant differences between the 2 groups (YO: HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 0.91-2.58). CONCLUSION: Despite similar treatment patterns and survival outcomes, YO disease might be clinically more aggressive.

Repeated cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in patients with recurrent peritoneal carcinomatosis.

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has become the treatment of choice for resectable peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) and improved the survival of these patients. The situation changes if PC recurs and repeated CRS with HIPEC is considered. The patient selection and outcome of the repeated approach has not been well described. We analyzed our cohort and share the experiences. METHODS: Ninety-three CRS/HIPEC procedures, performed in 85 patients during the period 2001-2013, were examined in a retrospective analysis. Type of primary, ECOG status, peritoneal cancer index (PCI), completeness of cytoreduction (CC), duration of hospitalization, postoperative morbidity, mortality, and disease-free/overall survival were reviewed. RESULTS: Six patients (7%) underwent a second CRS/HIPEC (median interval between the two procedures: 26 months, range 8-61) including two patients with mesotheliomas, one patient with ovarian adenocarcinoma, one patient with leiomyosarcoma of uterus, one patient with colon adenocarcinoma, and one patient with appendiceal adenocarcinoma. The last two patients underwent a third CRS/HIPEC, 25 and 36 months, after the second procedure. The median PCI was 14 (range, 4-26) during the first and 20 (range, 7-39) during the second CRS/HIPEC of these patients. Completeness of cytoreduction score of 0 (CC-0) was achieved in all first procedures and in 67% of second procedures (CC-0; n=4 and CC-1; n=2). A CC-0 score was possible in both of the third procedures. The mean operating time was 444 min (range, 198-642) and 427 min (range, 239-617) during the first and the second procedure. Median intensive care unit (ICU) was 2 days, and hospital stay after second CRS/HIPEC was 17 days (range, 7-50). The 30-day morbidity after repeated CRS/HIPEC was 33% (16% for grade III-IV complications), and there was no 30-day mortality neither after the second nor after the third CRS/HIPEC. Median disease-free interval between first CRS/HIPEC and peritoneal recurrence was 17 months (range, 8-30). Median disease-free survival of 18 months (range, 4-33) was achieved after the second CRS/HIPEC. After a median follow-up of 74 months (range, 39-151), all patients are alive with disease (n=5) or disease free (n=1) under chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: In experienced centers, repeated CRS/HIPEC can be performed with safety. Patient selection and correct timing is of particular importance in achieving control of the disease. Repeated CRS/HIPEC should be considered as treatment option for selected patients with recurrent PC.

An international survey of practice patterns and difficulties in cancer pain management in Southeastern Europe: a Turkish & Balkan Oncology Group common initiative.

PURPOSE: While pain is highly prevalent in cancer patients and its management is universally challenging, it is more commonly undertreated in the developing world. Southeastern European countries have limited resources and manpower to allocate for delivery of effective care for cancer-related pain. The purpose of this study was to explore the practice methods and the barriers to effective pain management in Southeastern Europe. METHODS: We conducted a Web-based survey using a specially designed questionnaire among physicians practicing in member countries of the Balkan Union of Oncology (BUON). RESULTS: A representative from each of the member countries of BUON (including Armenia and Georgia) and close to 100 physicians from 8 countries responded. The majority (89%) of respondents were medical oncologists and had been practising for 10 years on average. For pain assessment, only 35.4% of the physicians used a formal pain scale. Of the respondents 34.1% were not able to reach the optimal doses of narcotic medications while managing cancer pain, mostly due to concerns about toxicity, such as constipation and nausea. Most physicians listed their inability to consult sub-specialists to seek assistance for improving pain management cases as one of the major difficulties in day-to- day clinical practice, along with lack of time. CONCLUSIONS: The limitations faced by our respondents seem to be related mostly to the shortcomings of the respective health care systems, along with the need for more experience and knowledge about the titration of pain medications and dealing with toxicities.