Investigating anorectal function using postoperative MRI-based fibrosis score in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a two-center study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to develop a postoperative MRI-based fibrosis scoring system and to assess its correlation with anorectal function in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) cases administered neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). METHODS: Pathologically confirmed LARC cases administered nCRT and radical resection were assessed retrospectively. Based on postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings, anastomotic fibrosis score (AFS) and perirectal fibrosis score (PFS) were determined to evaluate the extent of fibrosis. The Wexner continence score for anorectal function was obtained 2 years postoperatively and assessed for correlation with MRI fibrosis scores. The cases were divided into 2 groups by the median Wexner score. Univariable and multivariable analyses were adopted for building a nomogram model, whose diagnostic performance was estimated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and decision curve analyses (DCA). RESULTS: Finally, 144 patients with LARC were included in cohort 1 (training set). 52 patients were enrolled in cohort 2 (external validation set). Spearman correlation analysis indicated that AFS and PFS were positively correlated with the Wexner score. Univariable and multivariable analyses revealed age, tumor height, AFS, and PFS were independent predictors of anorectal function. The nomogram model achieved a good diagnostic performance, with AUCs of 0.800 and 0.827 in the training and validation sets, respectively; its predicting value was also confirmed by DCA. CONCLUSION: The present study showed AFS and PFS derived from postoperative MRI are positively correlated with Wexner score. In addition, the new scoring system was effective in predicting anorectal function in LARC cases administered nCRT.

[Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer].

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effects of transperitoneal (Tp) versus extraperitoneal (Ep) robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, Wanfang, CNKI, and CBM for the articles comparing the clinical effect Tp-RARP with that of Ep-RARP in the treatment of localized prostate cancer published from January 2000 to November 2016. All the articles must meet the inclusion criteria, that is, dealing with at least one of the following aspects: operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative catheterization time, length of bed confinement, perioperative complications, positive surgical margins, bowel-related complications, postoperative anastomotic leakage, and postoperative urinary continence. We subjected the data obtained to statistical analysis using the RevMan5.3 software. RESULTS: Two randomized controlled trials and six case-control studies were included in this meta-analysis, involving 451 cases of Tp-RARP and 676 cases of Ep-RARP. Compared with Tp-RARP, Ep-RARP showed significantly shorter operation time (WMD = 21.39, 95% CI: 7.54－35.24, P = 0.002), shorter length of bed confinement (WMD = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.61－1.09, P <0.001), and lower rate of bowel-related complications (RR = 9.74, 95% CI: 3.26－29.07, P <0.001). However, no statistically significant differences were found between the two strategies in intraoperative blood loss (WMD = －8.12, 95% CI: －27.86－11.63, P = 0.42), postoperative catheterization time (WMD = 0.17, 95% CI: －0.55－0.21, P = 0.38), or the rates of perioperative complications (RR = 1.34, 95% CI: －0.97－1.87, P = 0.08), positive surgical margins (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 0.95－1.61, P = 0.12), anastomotic leakage (RR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.46－2.10, P = 0.95), urinary continence at 3 months (RR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.91－1.00, P = 0.05) and urinary continence at 6 months (RR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.97－1.02, P = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS: Ep-RARP has the advantages of shorter operation time, shorter length of bed confinement and lower rate of bowel-related complications over Tp-RARP, and therefore may be a better option for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. However, more multi-centered randomized controlled clinical trials are needed for further evaluation of these two approaches.