Beyond N staging in colorectal cancer: Current approaches and future perspectives.

Traditionally, lymph node metastases (LNM) evaluation is essential to the staging of colon cancer patients according to the TNM (tumor-node-metastasis) system. However, in recent years evidence has accumulated regarding the role of emerging pathological features, which could significantly impact the prognosis of colorectal cancer patients. Lymph Node Ratio (LNR) and Log Odds of Positive Lymph Nodes (LODDS) have been shown to predict patients' prognosis more accurately than traditional nodal staging and it has been suggested that their implementation in existing classification could help stratify further patients with overlapping TNM stage. Tumor deposits (TD) are currently factored within the N1c category of the TNM classification in the absence of lymph node metastases. However, studies have shown that presence of TDs can affect patients' survival regardless of LNM. Moreover, evidence suggest that presence of TDs should not be evaluated as dichotomic but rather as a quantitative variable. Extranodal extension (ENE) has been shown to correlate with presence of other adverse prognostic features and to impact survival of colorectal cancer patients. In this review we will describe current staging systems and prognostic/predictive factors in colorectal cancer and elaborate on available evidence supporting the implementation of LNR/LODDS, TDs and ENE evaluation in existing classification to improve prognosis estimation and patient selection for adjuvant treatment.

One-year effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab in ulcerative colitis: a multicenter real-world study from Italy.

BACKGROUND: Efficacy and safety of ustekinumab for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC) has been demonstrated in clinical trials, but few real-world data are available so far. The aim of this study was to assess effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab in a cohort of refractory UC patients. METHODS: Data of patients with moderate to severe UC treated with ustekinumab were retrospectively collected. Primary endpoint was steroid-free clinical remission at weeks 24 and 52 of therapy. Secondary endpoints were treatment response, endoscopic remission, treatment persistence at 12 months and safety. RESULTS: A total of 68 patients [males 63%; median (range) age 42 (16-72) years] were included. Almost all patients (97%) were biologics experienced. At weeks 24 and 52, 31% and 50% of patients achieved steroid-free clinical remission, 84% and 82% had clinical response, respectively. At the end of follow-up, there was a significant reduction of pMS from baseline (p < 0.001) and of steroid use (p < 0.001). At week 52, 22% of the available endoscopies (18/38) showed mucosal healing. The probability to persist in therapy at week 52 was 87%. Only one adverse event occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Data from our real-life cohort of refractory UC patients suggest satisfactory effectiveness and a good safety of ustekinumab.

Head-to-head comparison of biological drugs for inflammatory bowel disease: from randomized controlled trials to real-world experience.

During past years, the increasing knowledge of molecular mechanisms of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have led to the development of several targeted biological therapies. This great expansion of available medical options has prompted the need for comparative data between drugs. For years, given that most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were performed only versus placebo, this demand has clashed with the absence of head-to-head trials comparing two or more treatments. The quality of evidence coming from real-world experience was low overall, so it was extremely difficult to clarify the correct positioning of the biologicals inside the therapeutic algorithms for IBD. Fortunately, times are changing: head-to-head comparative RCTs have been conducted or are ongoing, and the methodological quality of real-world studies is gradually increasing, mainly thanks to a higher rate of application of statistical methods capable of reducing the selection bias, such as the propensity score. In this evolving scenario, the increasing number of comparative RCTs is providing high-quality data for a correct drug positioning in IBD. In parallel, real-world observational studies are supporting the data coming from RCTs, and covering those comparisons not performed in the RCT setting. We believe that there is moderate evidence already available to support clinicians in the correct choice between different biologicals, and data will certainly be more robust in the near future.