Exercise and colorectal cancer survival: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The benefit of exercise to colorectal cancer patients has been advocated. However, comparative data to quantify the survival benefit is lacking. The aim of this review was to assess the effect of exercise on colorectal cancer survival. METHODS: An up-to-date systematic review was performed on the available literature between 2000 and 2021 on PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases. All studies reporting on the impact of exercise and colorectal cancer outcomes in patients treated for non-metastatic colorectal cancer were analysed. The main outcome measures were the overall survival (OS), cancer specific survival (CSS) and disease free survival (DFS). RESULTS: A total of 13 prospective observational studies were included, accounting for 19,135 patients. Compared to negligible physical activity, overall survival (OS) was significantly increased for both moderate and highest activity group (HR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.74-0.90, p < 0.001 and HR 0.64, 0.56-0.72, p < 0.001 respectively). This was also reflected in cancer specific survival (CSS) analysis, but not disease-free survival (DFS) analysis. CONCLUSION: Exercise was associated with an increased in overall survival after a colorectal cancer resection. This would support the promotion of exercise interventions amongst colorectal cancer patients.

Comparing functional outcomes between transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is concern that transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) may result in poorer functional outcomes as compared to laparoscopic TME (LaTME). These concerns arise from the fact that TaTME entails both a low anastomosis and prolonged dilatation of the anal sphincter from the transanal platform. OBJECTIVES: This paper aimed to assess the comparative functional outcomes following TaTME and LaTME, with a focus on anorectal and genitourinary outcomes. DATA SOURCES: A meta-analysis and systematic review was performed on available literature between 2000 and 2020 from the PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases. STUDY SELECTION: All comparative studies assessing the functional outcomes following taTME versus LaTME in adults were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Functional anorectal and genitourinary outcomes were evaluated using validated scoring systems. RESULTS: A total of seven studies were included, consisting of one randomised controlled trial and six non-randomised studies. There were 242 (52.0%) and 233 (48.0%) patients in the TaTME and LaTME groups respectively. Anorectal functional outcomes were similar in both groups with regard to LARS scores (30.6 in the TaTME group and 28.3 in the LaTME group), Jorge-Wexner incontinence scores, and EORTC QLQ C30/29 scores. Genitourinary function was similar in both groups with IPSS scores of 5.5 to 8.0 in the TaTME group, and 3.5 to 10.1 in the LaTME group. (p = 0.835). CONCLUSION: This review corroborates findings from previous studies in showing that the transanal approach is not associated with increased anal sphincter damage. Further prospective clinical trials are needed in this field of research.

Oncological reasons for performing a complete mesocolic excision: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: While complete mesocolic excision (CME) has been shown to have an oncological benefit as compared to conventional colonic surgery for colon surgery, this benefit must be weighed up against the risk of major intra-abdominal complications. This paper aimed to assess the comparative oncological benefits of CME. METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, a systematic review of the literature until May 2020 was performed. Comparative studies assessing CME versus conventional colonic surgery for colon cancer were compared, and outcomes were pooled. RESULTS: A total of 700 publications were identified, of which 19 were found to meet the inclusion criteria. A total of 25 886 patients were compared, with 14 431 patients in the CME arm. CME was associated with a significantly higher rate of vascular injury (odds ratio 3, P < 0.001). Rates of local and distant recurrence were lower in the CME group (odds ratio 0.66 and 0.73, respectively, both P < 0.001). CME patients had a significantly higher lymph node yield (P < 0.001). While no significant differences were noted between the two groups in terms of pooled 3- or 5-year disease-free survival, pooled 5-year overall survival was significantly higher in the CME group (relative risk 0.82, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Based on the available evidence, CME is associated with improved oncologic outcomes at the expense of higher complication rates, including vascular injury. The oncological benefits need to weighed up against a multitude of factors including the level of hospital support, surgeon experience, patient age, and associated comorbidities.

Does rectal tube/transanal stent placement after an anterior resection for rectal cancer reduce anastomotic leak? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that either a transanal stent (TAS) or rectal tube (RT) can decrease the risk of anastomotic leakage (AL) after anterior resection for rectal cancer, in which a diverting stoma may not be required. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to investigate the efficacy and safety of RT/TAS in preventing AL after anterior resections. DATA SOURCES: An up-to-date systematic review was performed on the available literature between 2000 and 2020 on PubMed, EMBASE, Medline and Cochrane Library databases. STUDY SELECTION: All studies reporting on anterior resections in adults, comparing transanal tube/stent versus non-tube/stent, were analysed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was rates of AL, whereas secondary outcomes compared associated unplanned re-operation for AL and hospital length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: Two randomized controlled trials and 13 observational studies were included, with 1714 patients receiving RT/TAS and 1741 patients without. There were 119 (7%) patients with AL in the RT/TAS group compared to 216 (12.3%) patients in the non-RT/TAS group (OR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.38-0.62, p < 0.001). There were 47 (2.9%) patients with AL complications requiring surgery in the RT/TAS group compared to 132 (8%) patients in the non-RT/TAS group (OR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.20-0.42, p < 0.001) and no significant difference identified with the standardized mean difference (SMD) favouring the RT/TAS group for hospital LOS (SMD: -0.23, 95% CI: -0.51 to 0.06, p = 0.115). CONCLUSION: The use of RT/TAS post restorative anterior resection for rectal cancer should be considered, given the benefits shown from this meta-analysis.