Organ preservation after neoadjuvant long-course chemoradiotherapy versus short-course radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Potential differences in organ preservation between total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) regimens integrating long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCCRT) and short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) in rectal cancer remain undefined. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This natural experiment arose from a policy change in response to the COVID-19 pandemic during which our institution switched from uniformly treating patients with LCCRT to mandating that all patients be treated with SCRT. Our study includes 323 locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma patients treated with LCCRT-based or SCRT-based TNT from January 2018 to January 2021. Patients who achieved clinical complete response were offered organ preservation with watch-and-wait (WW) management. The primary outcome was 2-year organ preservation. Additional outcomes included local regrowth, distant recurrence, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Patient and tumor characteristics were similar between LCCRT (n = 247) and SCRT (n = 76) cohorts. Median follow-up was 31 months. Similar clinical complete response rates were observed following LCCRT and SCRT (44.5% versus 43.4%). Two-year organ preservation was 40% [95% confidence interval (CI) 34% to 46%] and 31% (95% CI 22% to 44%) among all patients treated with LCCRT and SCRT, respectively. In patients managed with WW, LCCRT resulted in higher 2-year organ preservation (89% LCCRT, 95% CI 83% to 95% versus 70% SCRT, 95% CI 55% to 90%; P = 0.005) and lower 2-year local regrowth (19% LCCRT, 95% CI 11% to 26% versus 36% SCRT, 95% CI 16% to 52%; P = 0.072) compared with SCRT. The 2-year distant recurrence (10% versus 6%), DFS (90% versus 90%), and OS (99% versus 100%) were similar between WW patients treated with LCCRT and SCRT, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: While WW eligibility was similar between cohorts, WW patients treated with LCCRT had higher 2-year organ preservation and lower local regrowth than those treated with SCRT, yet similar DFS and OS. These data support induction LCCRT followed by consolidation chemotherapy as the preferred TNT regimen for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer pursuing organ preservation.

Lymph node yield in right colectomy for cancer: a comparison of open, laparoscopic and robotic approaches.

AIM: Studies have demonstrated a relationship between lymph node (LN) yield and survival after colectomy for cancer. The impact of surgical technique on LN yield has not been well explored. METHOD: This is a retrospective study of right colectomy (RC) for cancer at a single institution from 2012 to 2014. Exclusion criteria were previous colectomy and emergent and palliative operations. All data were collected by chart review. Primary outcomes were LN yield and the LN to length of surgical specimen (LN-LSS) ratio. Multivariable mixed models were created with surgeon and pathologist as random effects. Sensitivity analyses were performed to exclude Stage IV cancers and to analyse groups on an 'as-treated' basis. RESULTS: We identified 181 open (O-RC), 163 laparoscopic (L-RC) and 119 robotic (R-RC) right colectomies. O-RC was more commonly performed in women with metastatic disease. The mean LN yield was 28, 29 and 34 in O-RC, L-RC and R-RC, respectively; the respective mean LN-LSS ratios were 0.83, 0.91 and 1.0. The R-RC approach produced a higher LN yield than the other approaches (P < 0.01), and a higher LN-LSS ratio than O-RC (P < 0.01). These findings were unchanged in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Robotic right colectomy improves LN yield and the LN-LSS ratio, which may reflect better mesocolic excision. The effect of these findings on survival requires further investigation.

Incisional hernias after laparoscopic and robotic right colectomy.

PURPOSE: Incisional hernia (IH) is a common complication after colectomy, with impacts on both health care utilization and quality of life. The true incidence of IH after minimally invasive colectomy is not well described. The purpose of this study was to examine IH incidence after minimally invasive right colectomies (RC) and to compare the IH rates after laparoscopic (L-RC) and robotic (R-RC) colectomies. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of patients undergoing minimally invasive RC at a single institution from 2009 to 2014. Only patients undergoing RC for colonic neoplasia were included. Patients with previous colectomy or intraperitoneal chemotherapy were excluded. Three L-RC patients were included for each R-RC patient. The primary outcome was IH rate based on clinical examination or computed tomography (CT). Univariate and multivariate time-to-event analyses were used to assess predictors of IH. RESULTS: 276 patients where included, of which 69 had undergone R-RC and 207 L-RC. Patient and tumor characteristics were similar between the groups, except for higher tumor stage in L-RC patients. Both the median time to diagnosis (9.2 months) and the overall IH rate were similar between the groups (17.4 % for R-RC and 22.2 % for L-RC), as were all other postoperative complications. In multivariable analyses, the only significant predictor of IH was former or current tobacco use (hazard raio 3.0, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the incidence of IH is high after minimally invasive colectomy and that this rate is equivalent after R-RC and L-RC. Reducing the IH rate represents an important opportunity for improving quality of life and reducing health care utilization after minimally invasive colectomy.