Total mesorectal excision in MRI-defined low rectal cancer: multicentre study comparing oncological outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic and transanal total mesorectal excision in high-volume centres.

BACKGROUND: The routine use of MRI in rectal cancer treatment allows the use of a strict definition for low rectal cancer. This study aimed to compare minimally invasive total mesorectal excision in MRI-defined low rectal cancer in expert laparoscopic, transanal and robotic high-volume centres. METHODS: All MRI-defined low rectal cancer operated on between 2015 and 2017 in 11 Dutch centres were included. Primary outcomes were: R1 rate, total mesorectal excision quality and 3-year local recurrence and survivals (overall and disease free). Secondary outcomes included conversion rate, complications and whether there was a perioperative change in the preoperative treatment plan. RESULTS: Of 1071 eligible rectal cancers, 633 patients with low rectal cancer were identified. Quality of the total mesorectal excision specimen (P = 0.337), R1 rate (P = 0.107), conversion (P = 0.344), anastomotic leakage rate (P = 0.942), local recurrence (P = 0.809), overall survival (P = 0.436) and disease-free survival (P = 0.347) were comparable among the centres. The laparoscopic centre group had the highest rate of perioperative change in the preoperative treatment plan (10.4%), compared with robotic expert centres (5.2%) and transanal centres (2.1%), P = 0.004. The main reason for this change was stapling difficulty (43%), followed by low tumour location (29%). Multivariable analysis showed that laparoscopic surgery was the only independent risk factor for a change in the preoperative planned procedure, P = 0.024. CONCLUSION: Centres with expertise in all three minimally invasive total mesorectal excision techniques can achieve good oncological resection in the treatment of MRI-defined low rectal cancer. However, compared with robotic expert centres and transanal centres, patients treated in laparoscopic centres have an increased risk of a change in the preoperative intended procedure due to technical limitations.

A Cost Overview of Minimally Invasive Total Mesorectal Excision in Rectal Cancer Patients: A Population-based Cohort in Experienced Centres.

Background: Total mesorectal excision has been the gold standard for the operative management of rectal cancer. The most frequently used minimally invasive techniques for surgical resection of rectal cancer are laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal total mesorectal excision. As studies comparing the costs of the techniques are lacking, this study aims to provide a cost overview. Method: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent total mesorectal resection between 2015 and 2017 at 11 dedicated centers, which completed the learning curve of the specific technique. The primary outcome was total in-hospital costs of each technique up to 30 days after surgery including all major surgical cost drivers, while taking into account different team approaches in the transanal approach. Secondary outcomes were hospitalization and complication rates. Statistical analysis was performed using multivariable linear regression analysis. Results: In total, 949 patients were included, consisting of 446 laparoscopic (47%), 306 (32%) robot-assisted, and 197 (21%) transanal total mesorectal excisions. Total costs were significantly higher for transanal and robot-assisted techniques compared to the laparoscopic technique, with median (interquartile range) for laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal at €10,556 (8,642;13,829), €12,918 (11,196;16,223), and € 13,052 (11,330;16,358), respectively (P < 0.001). Also, the one-team transanal approach showed significant higher operation time and higher costs compared to the two-team approach. Length of stay and postoperative complications did not differ between groups. Conclusion: Transanal and robot-assisted approaches show higher costs during 30-day follow-up compared to laparoscopy with comparable short-term clinical outcomes. Two-team transanal approach is associated with lower total costs compared to the transanal one-team approach.

Uptake of robot-assisted colon cancer surgery in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The robot-assisted approach is now often used for rectal cancer surgery, but its use in colon cancer surgery is less well defined. This study aims to compare the outcomes of robotic-assisted colon cancer surgery to conventional laparoscopy in the Netherlands. METHODS: Data on all patients who underwent surgery for colon cancer from 2018 to 2020 were collected from the Dutch Colorectal Audit. All complications, readmissions, and deaths within 90 days after surgery were recorded along with conversion rate, margin and harvested nodes. Groups were stratified according to the robot-assisted and laparoscopic approach. RESULTS: In total, 18,886 patients were included in the analyses. The operative approach was open in 15.2%, laparoscopic in 78.9% and robot-assisted in 5.9%. The proportion of robot-assisted surgery increased from 4.7% in 2018 to 6.9% in 2020. There were no notable differences in outcomes between the robot-assisted and laparoscopic approach for Elective cT1-3M0 right, left, and sigmoid colectomy. Only conversion rate was consistently lower in the robotic group. (4.6% versus 8.8%, 4.6% versus 11.6%, and 1.6 versus 5.9%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This nationwide study on surgery for colon cancer shows there is a gradual but slow adoption of robotic surgery for colon cancer up to 6.9% in 2020. When comparing the outcomes of right, left, and sigmoid colectomy, clinical outcomes were similar between the robotic and laparoscopic approach. However, conversion rate is consistently lower in the robotic procedures.

Evaluation of National Surgical Practice for Lateral Lymph Nodes in Rectal Cancer in an Untrained Setting.

BACKGROUND: Involved lateral lymph nodes (LLNs) have been associated with increased local recurrence (LR) and ipsi-lateral LR (LLR) rates. However, consensus regarding the indication and type of surgical treatment for suspicious LLNs is lacking. This study evaluated the surgical treatment of LLNs in an untrained setting at a national level. METHODS: Patients who underwent additional LLN surgery were selected from a national cross-sectional cohort study regarding patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery in 69 Dutch hospitals in 2016. LLN surgery consisted of either 'node-picking' (the removal of an individual LLN) or 'partial regional node dissection' (PRND; an incomplete resection of the LLN area). For all patients with primarily enlarged (≥7 mm) LLNs, those undergoing rectal surgery with an additional LLN procedure were compared to those  undergoing only rectal resection. RESULTS: Out of 3057 patients, 64 underwent additional LLN surgery, with 4-year LR and LLR rates of 26% and 15%, respectively. Forty-eight patients (75%) had enlarged LLNs, with corresponding recurrence rates of 26% and 19%, respectively. Node-picking (n = 40) resulted in a 20% 4-year LLR, and a 14% LLR after PRND (n = 8; p = 0.677). Multivariable analysis of 158 patients with enlarged LLNs undergoing additional LLN surgery (n = 48) or rectal resection alone (n = 110) showed no significant association of LLN surgery with 4-year LR or LLR, but suggested higher recurrence risks after LLN surgery (LR: hazard ratio [HR] 1.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.7-3.2, p = 0.264; LLR: HR 1.9, 95% CI 0.2-2.5, p = 0.874). CONCLUSION: Evaluation of Dutch practice in 2016 revealed that approximately one-third of patients with primarily enlarged LLNs underwent surgical treatment, mostly consisting of node-picking. Recurrence rates were not significantly affected by LLN surgery, but did suggest worse outcomes. Outcomes of LLN surgery after adequate training requires further research.

Implementation of totally robotic right hemicolectomy: lessons learned from a prospective cohort.

Robotics facilitates the realization of intra-corporeal anastomosis during right hemicolectomy and allows extracting the operative specimen through a C-section, offering potential benefits in terms of post-operative recovery and incidence of incisional hernia. Therefore, we progressively implemented robotic right hemicolectomy (robRHC) in our centre, and would like to report our initial experience with the technique. Consecutive patients who underwent robRHC within a single centre were prospectively included. Variables related to patients' demographics, surgical procedures, post-operative recovery and pathological outcomes were collected. Sixty patients underwent robRHC in our centre. Indications for robRHC were colon cancer in 58 patients (96.7%) and polyps not amenable to endoscopic resection in 2 patients (3.3%). Fifty-eight patients underwent robRHC with D2 lymphadenectomy and central vessel ligation (96.7%), and two patients (3.3%) had robRHC associated with another procedure. All patients had intra-corporeal anastomosis. The mean ± operative time was of 200.4 ± 114.9 min. Two conversions (3.3%) to open surgery were performed. The mean ± SD length of stay was of 5.4 ± 3.8 days. Seven patients (11.7%) experienced a post-operative complication with a Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 2. Two patients (3.5%) had an anastomotic leak. The mean ± SD number of harvested lymph nodes was of 22.4 ± 7.6. All patients had negative pathological margins (R0 resection). To conclude, robotic RHC is a safe procedure, which can be implemented with satisfying peri- and post-operative outcomes. The potential benefits of the technique remain to be demonstrated by randomized controlled trials.

Predictors for selective flexure mobilization during robotic anterior resection for rectal cancer: a prospective cohort analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Splenic flexure mobilization (SFM) may be indicated during anterior resection to provide a tension-free anastomosis. However, to date, no score allows identifying patients who may benefit from SFM. METHODS: Patients who underwent robotic anterior resection for rectal cancer were identified from a prospective register. Demographic and cancer-related variables were extracted, and predictors of SFM were identified using regression models. Thereafter, 20 patients with SFM and 20 patients without SFM were randomly selected and their pre-operative CTscan were reviewed. The radiological index was defined as 1/(sigmoid length/pelvis depth). The optimal cut-off value for predicting SFM was identified using ROC curve analysis. RESULTS: Five hundred and twenty-four patients were included. SFM was performed in 121 patients (27.8%) and increased operative time by 21.8 min (95% CI: 11.3 to 32.4, p < 0.001). The incidence of postoperative complications did not differ between patient with or without SFM. Realization of an anastomosis was the main predictor for SFM (OR: 42.4, 95% CI: 5.8 to 308.5, p < 0.001). In patients with colorectal anastomosis, both sigmoid length (15 ± 5.1 cm versus 24.2 ± 80.9 cm, p < 0.001) and radiological index (1 ± 0.3 versus 0.6 ± 0.2, p < 0.001) differed between patients who had SFM and patients who did not. ROC curve analysis of the radiological index indicated an optimal cut-off value of 0.8 (sensitivity: 75%, specificity: 90%). CONCLUSION: SFM was performed in 27.8% of patients who underwent robotic anterior resection, and increased operative time by 21.8 min. For optimal surgical planning, patients requiring SFM can be identified based on pre-operative CT using the index 1/(sigmoid length/pelvis depth) with a cut-off value set at 0.8.

Postponing surgery to optimise patients with acute right-sided obstructing colon cancer - A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Right-sided obstructing colon cancer is most often treated with acute resection. Recent studies on right-sided obstructing colon cancer report higher mortality and morbidity rates than those in patients without obstruction. The aim of this study is to retrospectively analyse whether it is possible to optimise the health condition of patients with acute right-sided obstructing colon cancer, prior to surgery, and whether this improves postoperative outcomes. METHOD: All consecutive patients with high suspicion of, or histologically proven, right-sided obstructing colon cancer, treated with curative intent between March 2013 and December 2019, were analysed retrospectively. Patients were divided into two groups: optimised group and non-optimised group. Pre-operative optimisation included additional nutrition, physiotherapy, and, if needed, bowel decompression. RESULTS: In total, 54 patients were analysed in this study. Twenty-four patients received optimisation before elective surgery, and thirty patients received emergency surgery, without optimisation. Scheduled surgery was performed after a median of eight days (IQR 7-12). Postoperative complications were found in twelve (50%) patients in the optimised group, compared to twenty-three (77%) patients in the non-optimised group (p = 0.051). Major complications were diagnosed in three (13%) patients with optimisation, compared to ten (33%) patients without optimisation (p = 0.111). Postoperative in-hospital stay, 30-day mortality, as well as primary anastomosis were comparable in both groups. CONCLUSION: This pilot study suggests that pre-operative optimisation of patients with obstructing right sided colonic cancer may be feasible and safe but is associated with longer in-patient stay.

Locoregional Failure During and After Short-course Radiotherapy Followed by Chemotherapy and Surgery Compared With Long-course Chemoradiotherapy and Surgery: A 5-Year Follow-up of the RAPIDO Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze risk and patterns of locoregional failure (LRF) in patients of the RAPIDO trial at 5 years. BACKGROUND: Multimodality treatment improves local control in rectal cancer. Total neoadjuvant treatment (TNT) aims to improve systemic control while local control is maintained. At 3 years, LRF rate was comparable between TNT and chemoradiotherapy in the RAPIDO trial. METHODS: A total of 920 patients were randomized between an experimental (EXP, short-course radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and surgery) and a standard-care group (STD, chemoradiotherapy, surgery, and optional postoperative chemotherapy). LRFs, including early LRF (no resection except for organ preservation/R2 resection) and locoregional recurrence (LRR) after an R0/R1 resection, were analyzed. RESULTS: Totally, 460 EXP and 446 STD patients were eligible. At 5.6 years (median follow-up), LRF was detected in 54/460 (12%) and 36/446 (8%) patients in the EXP and STD groups, respectively ( P =0.07), in which EXP patients were more often treated with 3-dimensional-conformed radiotherapy ( P =0.029). In the EXP group, LRR was detected more often [44/431 (10%) vs. 26/428 (6%); P =0.027], with more often a breached mesorectum (9/44 (21%) vs. 1/26 (4); P =0.048). The EXP treatment, enlarged lateral lymph nodes, positive circumferential resection margin, tumor deposits, and node positivity at pathology were the significant predictors for developing LRR. Location of the LRRs was similar between groups. Overall survival after LRF was comparable [hazard ratio: 0.76 (95% CI, 0.46-1.26); P =0.29]. CONCLUSIONS: The EXP treatment was associated with an increased risk of LRR, whereas the reduction in disease-related treatment failure and distant metastases remained after 5 years. Further refinement of the TNT in rectal cancer is mandated.

Comparison of three-year oncological results after restorative low anterior resection, non-restorative low anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Oncological outcome might be influenced by the type of resection in total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. The aim was to see if non-restorative LAR would have worse oncological outcome. A comparison was made between non-restorative low anterior resection (NRLAR), restorative low anterior resection (RLAR) and abdominoperineal resection (APR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort included data from patients undergoing TME for rectal cancer between 2015 and 2017 in eleven Dutch hospitals. A comparison was made for each different type of procedure (APR, NRLAR or RLAR). Primary outcome was 3-year overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 3-year local recurrence (LR) rate. RESULTS: Of 998 patients 363 underwent APR, 132 NRLAR and 503 RLAR. Three-year OS was worse after NRLAR (78.2%) compared to APR (86.3%) and RLAR (92.2%, p < 0.001). This was confirmed in a multivariable Cox regression analysis (HR 1.85 (1.07, 3.19), p = 0.03). The 3-year DFS was also worse after NRLAR (60.3%), compared to APR (70.5%) and RLAR (80.1%, p < 0.001), HR 2.05 (1.42, 2.97), p < 0.001. The LR rate was 14.6% after NRLAR, 5.2% after APR and 4.8% after RLAR (p = 0.005), HR 3.22 (1.61, 6.47), p < 0.001. CONCLUSION: NRLAR might be associated with worse 3-year OS, DFS and LR rate compared to RLAR and APR.

Impact of a diverting ileostomy in total mesorectal excision with primary anastomosis for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of diverting ileostomy in total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer with primary anastomosis is debated. The aim of this study is to gain insight in the clinical consequences of a diverting ileostomy, with respect to stoma rate at one year and stoma-related morbidity. METHODS: Patients undergoing TME with primary anastomosis for rectal cancer between 2015 and 2017 in eleven participating hospitals were included. Retrospectively, two groups were compared: patients with or without diverting ileostomy construction during primary surgery. Primary endpoint was stoma rate at one year. Secondary endpoints were severity and rate of anastomotic leakage, overall morbidity rate within thirty days and stoma (reversal) related morbidity. RESULTS: In 353 out of 595 patients (59.3%) a diverting ileostomy was constructed during primary surgery. Stoma rate at one year was 9.9% in the non-ileostomy group and 18.7% in the ileostomy group (p = 0.003). After correction for confounders, multivariate analysis showed that the construction of a diverting ileostomy during primary surgery was an independent risk factor for stoma at one year (OR 2.563 (95%CI 1.424-4.611), p = 0.002). Anastomotic leakage rate was 17.8% in the non-ileostomy group and 17.2% in the ileostomy group (p = 0.913). Overall 30-days morbidity rate was 37.6% in the non-ileostomy group and 56.1% in the ileostomy group (p < 0.001). Stoma reversal related morbidity rate was 17.9%. CONCLUSIONS: The stoma rate at one year was higher in patients with ileostomy construction during primary surgery. The incidence and severity of anastomotic leakage were not reduced by construction of an ileostomy. The morbidity related to the presence and reversal of a diverting ileostomy was substantial.

The Mesentery in Robot-Assisted Total Mesorectal Excision.

In recent decades, surgery for rectal cancer has evolved from an operation normally performed under poor vision with a lot of blood loss, relatively high morbidity, and mortality to a safer operation. Currently, minimally invasive rectal procedures are performed with limited blood loss, reduced morbidity, and minimal mortality. The main cause is better knowledge of anatomy and adhering to the principle of operating along embryological planes. Surgery has become surgery of compartments, more so than that of organs. So, rectal cancer surgery has evolved to mesorectal cancer surgery as propagated by Heald and others. The focus on the mesentery of the rectum has led to renewed attention to the anatomy of the fascia surrounding the rectum. Better magnification during laparoscopy and improved optimal three-dimensional (3D) vision during robot-assisted surgery have contributed to the refinement of total mesorectal excision (TME). In this chapter, we describe how to perform a robot-assisted TME with particular attention to the mesentery. Specific points of focus and problem solving are discussed.

Quality of life and late toxicity after short-course radiotherapy followed by chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer - The RAPIDO trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The RAPIDO trial demonstrated a decrease in disease-related treatment failure (DrTF) and an increase in pathological complete responses (pCR) in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) patients receiving total neoadjuvant treatment (TNT) compared to conventional chemoradiotherapy. This study examines health-related quality of life (HRQL), bowel function, and late toxicity in patients in the trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized between short-course radiotherapy followed by pre-operative chemotherapy (EXP), or chemoradiotherapy and optional post-operative chemotherapy (STD). The STD group was divided into patients who did (STD+) and did not (STD-) receive post-operative chemotherapy. Three years after surgery patients received HRQL (EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-CR29 and QLQ-CIPN20) and LARS questionnaires. Patients who experienced a DrTF event before the toxicity assessments (6, 12, 24, or 36 months) were excluded from analyses. RESULTS: Of 574 eligible patients, 495 questionnaires were returned (86%) and 453 analyzed (79% completed within time limits). No significant differences were observed between the groups regarding QLQ-C30, QLQ-CR29 or LARS scores. Sensory-related symptoms occurred significantly more often in the EXP group compared to all STD patients, but not compared to STD+ patients. Any toxicity of any grade and grade ≥ 3 toxicity was comparable between the EXP and STD groups at all time-points. Neurotoxicity grade 1-2 occurred significantly more often in the EXP and STD+ group at all time-points compared to the STD- group. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate that TNT for LARC, yielding improved DrTF and pCRs, does not compromise HRQL, bowel functional or results in more grade ≥3 toxicity compared to standard chemoradiotherapy at three years after surgery in DrTF-free patients.

Robot-Assisted Total Mesorectal Excision Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision: A Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Analysis in Experienced Centers.

BACKGROUND: The superiority of robot-assisted over laparoscopic total mesorectal excision has not been proven. Most studies do not consider the learning curve while comparing the surgical technique. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare laparoscopic with robot-assisted total mesorectal excision performed by surgeons who completed the learning curve of the technique. DESIGN: This is a multicenter retrospective propensity score-matched analysis. SETTINGS: The study was performed in 2 large, dedicated robot-assisted hospitals and 5 large, dedicated laparoscopic hospitals. PATIENTS: Patients were included if they underwent a robot-assisted or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer with curative intent at a dedicated center for the minimally invasive technique between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017. INTERVENTIONS: We compared robot-assisted with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was conversion to laparotomy during surgery. Secondary outcomes were postoperative morbidity and positive circumferential resection margin. RESULTS: A total of 884 patients were included and, after matching, 315 patients per treatment group remained. Conversion was similar between laparoscopic and robot-assisted total mesorectal excision (4.4% vs 2.5% (p = 0.20)). Positive circumferential resection margin was equal (3.2% vs 4.4% (p = 0.41)). Overall morbidity was comparable as well, although a lower rate of wound infections was observed in the robot-assisted group (5.7% vs 1.9% (p = 0.01)). More primary anastomoses were constructed in the robot-assisted group (50.8% vs 68.3% (p < 0.001)). Finally, more open procedures were performed in dedicated laparoscopic centers, with an overrepresentation of cT4N+ tumors in this group. LIMITATIONS: This is a retrospective multicenter cohort; however, propensity score matching was applied to control for confounding by indication. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision are equally safe in terms of short-term outcomes. However, with the robot-assisted approach, more primary anastomoses were constructed, and a lower wound infection rate was observed. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B677.ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL ASISTIDA POR ROBOT VERSUS ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL LAPAROSCÓPICA: UNA PUNTUACIÓN DE PROPENSIÓN RETROSPECTIVA ANÁLISIS DE COHORTES EMPAREJADAS EN CENTROS EXPERIMENTADOS. ANTECEDENTES: No se ha demostrado la superioridad de la escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot sobre la laparoscópica. La mayoría de los estudios no tienen en cuenta la curva de aprendizaje al comparar la técnica quirúrgica. OBJETIVO: Este estudio tiene como objetivo comparar la escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica con la asistida por robot realizada por cirujanos que completaron la curva de aprendizaje de la técnica. DISEO: Este es un análisis multicéntrico retrospectivo emparejado por puntuación de propensión. AJUSTES: El estudio se realizó en dos grandes hospitales dedicados asistidos por robots y cinco grandes hospitales laparoscópicos dedicados. PACIENTES: Se incluyeron pacientes que se sometieron a escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot o laparoscópica para cáncer de recto con intención curativa, en un centro dedicado a la técnica mínimamente invasiva entre el 1 de enero de 2015 y el 31 de diciembre de 2017. INTERVENCIONES: Comparamos la escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot con la laparoscópica. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: El principal resultado fue la conversión a laparotomía durante la cirugía. Los resultados secundarios fueron la morbilidad posoperatoria y el margen circunferencial positivo. RESULTADOS: Se incluyó a un total de 884 pacientes y, después de emparejar, quedaron 315 pacientes por grupo de tratamiento. La conversión fue similar entre la escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica y asistida por robot (4,4% frente a 2,5% [p = 0,20]). El margen de resección circunferencial positivo fue igual (3,2% vs 4,4% [p = 0,41]). La morbilidad general también fue comparable, aunque se observó una menor tasa de infecciones de heridas en el grupo asistido por robot (5,7% frente a 1,9% [p = 0,01]). Se construyeron más anastomosis primarias en el grupo asistido por robot (50,8% frente a 68,3% [p < 0,001]). Finalmente, se realizaron procedimientos más abiertos en centros laparoscópicos dedicados, con una sobrerrepresentación de tumores cT4N + en este grupo. LIMITACIONES: Ésta es una cohorte multicéntrica retrospectiva; sin embargo, se aplicó el emparejamiento por puntuación de propensión para controlar los factores de confusión por indicación. CONCLUSIONES: La escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot y laparoscópica son igualmente seguras en términos de resultados a corto plazo. Sin embargo, con el abordaje asistido por robot, se construyeron más anastomosis primarias y se observó una menor tasa de infección de la herida. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B677. (Traducción-Dr. Gonzalo Hagerman).

Influence of Minimally Invasive Resection Technique on Sphincter Preservation and Short-term Outcome in Low Rectal Cancer in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Transanal and robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision are techniques that can potentially overcome challenges encountered with a pure laparoscopic approach in patients with rectal cancer. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the proportion and predictive factors of restorative procedures and subsequent short-term outcomes of 3 minimally invasive techniques to treat low rectal cancer. DESIGN: This is a nationwide observational comparative registry study. SETTINGS: Patients with rectal cancer were selected from the mandatory Dutch ColoRectal Audit. PATIENTS: Patients with low rectal cancer (≤5 cm) who underwent curative minimally invasive total mesorectal excision between 2015 and 2018 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were the proportion of restorative procedure, positive circumferential resection margin, and postoperative complications. RESULTS: A total of 3466 patients were included for analysis, of which 33% underwent a restorative procedure. Resections were performed laparoscopically in 2845 patients, transanally in 448 patients, and were robot-assisted in 173 patients, with a proportion of restorative procedures of 28%, 66%, and 40%. The transanal approach was independently associated with a restorative procedure (OR, 4.11; 95% CI, 3.21-5.26; p < 0.001). Independent risk factors for a nonrestorative procedure, irrespective of the surgical technique, were age >75 years, ASA physical status ≥3, BMI >30, history of abdominal surgery, clinical T4-stage, mesorectal fascia ≤1 mm, neoadjuvant therapy, and having a procedure in 2015 to 2016 versus 2017 to 2018. The circumferential resection margin involvement was similar for all 3 groups (5.4%, 5.1%, and 5.1%). Short-term postoperative complications were less favorable for the newer techniques than for the laparoscopic approach. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited because of the registry's variables and different group sizes. CONCLUSION: Patients with low rectal cancer in the Netherlands are more likely to receive a restorative procedure with a transanal approach, compared with a laparoscopic or robotic procedure. Short-term oncological outcomes are comparable between the 3 minimally invasive techniques. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B608. INFLUENCIA DE LA TCNICA DE RESECCIN MINIMAMENTE INVASIVA CON PRESERVACIN DE ESFNTERES EN LA RESOLUCIN A CORTO PLAZO EN CANCER DE TERCIO INFERIOR DE RECTO EN LOS PASES BAJOS: ANTECEDENTES:La excisión mesorrectal transanal y asistida por robot son técnicas que potencialmente pueden superar algunos obstáculos que podemos encontrar en un abordaje exclusivamente laparoscópico en pacientes con cáncer de recto.OBJECTIVOS:El objetivo de este estudio es evaluar la proporción y los factores de predicción positivos de los procedimientos restauradores y los resultados subsecuentes a corto plazo de tres técnicas mínimamente invasivas para tratar el cáncer de tercio inferior de recto.DISEÑO:Es un estudio comparativo observacional del registro nacional.ESCENARIO:Pacientes con cáncer de recto seleccionados del Registro Oficial de la Auditoría Holandesa Colo-rectal.PACIENTGES:Pacientes con cáncer de tercio inferior de recto (≤5 centimetros) sometidos a excision mesorrectal total mínimamente invasiva curativa.PRINCIPALES PARAMETROS DE EFECTIVIDAD:Proporción de procedimientos restauradores, margen de resección circunferencial positivo y complicaciones postoperatorias.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron un total de 3,466 pacientes para análisis, de los cuales 33% fueron sometidos a procedimiento restaurador. Las resecciones fueron laparoscópica en 2,845 pacientes, transanal en 448 y asistidas por robot en 173, con una proporción de procedimientos restauradores en 28%, 66% y 40% respectivamente. El abordaje transanal se correlacionó en forma independiente con el procedimiento restaurador (OR 4.11; 95% CI 4.11; 95% CI 3.21-5.26; p<0.001). Los factores de riesgo independientes para un procedimiento no restaurador, sin tomar en cuenta la técnica quirúrgica fueron: edad >75, American Society of Anesthesiologist ≥3, índice de masa corporal >30, antecedente de cirugía abdominal, Estadio clínico T4, fascia mesorrectal ≤1 millimetro, terapia neoadyuvante y haber sido sometido al procedimiento en 2015-2016 y no en 2017-2018. El margen circunferencial de resección involucrado fue similar para los tres grupos (5.4%, 5.1% y 5.1%). Las complicaciones postquirúrgicas a corto plazo fueron menos favorables para las técnicas nuevas comparadas con el abordaje laparoscópico.LIMTANTES:El estudio tiene la limitación de las variables dependientes del registro y la diferencia entre el número de pacientes en cada grupo.CONCLUSION:Los pacientes con cáncer de tercio inferior de recto en Holanda se tratan con mayor frecuencia mediante un procedimiento restaurador transanal en comparación con los abordajes laparoscópico o robótico. Los resultados favorables desde el punto de vista oncológico a corto plazo son comparables entre las tres técnicas de invasión mínima. Consulte Video Resumenhttp://links.lww.com/DCR/B608.

A Systematic Review Comparing Emergency Resection and Staged Treatment for Curable Obstructing Right-Sided Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Treatment for obstructing colon cancer (OCC) is controversial because the outcome of acute resection is less favorable than for patients without obstruction. Few studies have investigated curable right-sided OCC, and patients with OCC usually undergo acute resection. This study aimed to better understand the outcome and best management of potentially curable right-sided OCC. METHODS: A systematic review of studies was performed with a focus on differences in mortality and morbidity between emergency resection and staged treatment for patients with potentially curable right-sided OCC. In March 2019, the study searched Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Google scholar databases according to PRISMA guidelines using search terms related to "colon tumour," "stenosis or obstruction and surgery," and "decompression or stents." All English-language studies reporting emergency or staged treatment for potentially curable right-sided OCC were included in the review. Emergency resection and staged resection were compared for mortality, morbidity, complications, and survival. RESULTS: Nine studies were found to be eligible and comprised 600 patients treated with curative intent for their right-sided OCC by emergency resection or staged resection. The mean overall complication rate was 42% (range 19-54%) after emergency resection, and 30% (range 7-44%) after staged treatment. The average mortality rate was 7.2% (range 0-14.5%) after emergency resection and 1.2% (range 0-6.3%) after staged treatment. The 5-year disease-free and overall survival rates were comparable for the two treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The patients who received staged treatment for right-sided OCC had lower mortality rates, fewer complications, and fewer anastomotic leaks and stoma creations than the patients who had emergency resection.

Colonoscopy Surveillance After Colorectal Cancer: the Optimal Interval for Follow-Up.

PURPOSE: Patients who have undergone curative surgery for colorectal cancer are at risk of developing a metachronous colorectal tumour or anastomotic recurrence. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of recurrent colorectal cancer in a cohort of patients who participated in a colonoscopy surveillance programme. METHODS: This single-centre retrospective observational cohort study included patients who underwent curative surgery for colorectal cancer between 2005 and 2015. All reports of postoperative colonoscopies were retrieved to calculate the incidence rates of recurrence and metachronous colorectal cancer. RESULTS: Of 2420 patients, 1644 (67.9%) underwent at least one postoperative colonoscopy and 776 (32.1%) did not. In 1087 patients, colonoscopy was performed in the first 18 months after surgery, which detected 34 (3.1%) instances of metachronous colorectal tumours or anastomotic recurrence. Thirty-three additional patients were also diagnosed with recurrent colorectal cancer, but the tumours were detected by other diagnostic modalities or detected perioperatively, rather than by colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a history of colorectal cancer have an increased risk for a second colorectal tumour. Therefore, we recommend a colonoscopic surveillance programme with the first colonoscopy performed 1 year after curative surgery, which is in accordance with national guidelines.