Right colon, left colon, and rectal cancer have different oncologic and quality of life outcomes

Surgical and oncological outcomes in transverse colon carcinoma: does tumor sublocation make a difference?

BACKGROUND

Transverse colon carcinomas are often treated as a single entity in medical literature, despite differences in embryology, anatomy, physiology, genetics, and surgical treatment. We hypothesized that tumor sublocation affects demographics, oncological, surgical and quality of life outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent surgery for transverse colon carcinomas between 2000 and 2018 was conducted. Tumor localization was determined by operative, pathological and imaging reports, and procedures were defined by the extent of vascular resection.

RESULTS

The study included 273 patients aged 69 years (SD 12.3), of whom 44% were female. The BMI was 28.8 kg/m2 (SD 6.2), and 61% were ASA class 3. Carcinomas were in the proximal (22%), the mid (42%), and the distal transverse colon (36%). Mid-transverse carcinomas exhibited the highest prevalence among female patients (53% vs. 35% proximal vs. 39% distal, p < 0.03). Proximal transverse carcinomas presented with a higher proportion of pathological stage II than mid and distal transverse carcinomas (68.3% vs. proximal vs. 44.3% mid-vs. 49% distal, p = 0.006). On multivariate analysis, anemia was more likely in mid than proximal (p = 0.009) and distal (p = 0.002) transverse colon cancers. Obstruction occurred more often in proximal than mid (p = 0.003), and hematochezia in distal than in mid (p < 0.001) and proximal (p = 0.014) transverse colon carcinomas. The 30-day mortality and morbidity and 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates were similar between the tumor sublocations.

CONCLUSION

Sublocations of the transverse colon carcinomas affect the symptoms of patients. Tumor sublocation does not impact the intraoperative, postoperative, or oncological outcomes and quality of life.

The neoadjuvant immunotherapy for non-metastatic mismatch repair-deficient colorectal cancer: a systematic review

Background

Immunotherapy has become the first-line treatment for metastatic mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) colorectal cancer. The efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for the treatment of non-metastatic dMMR colorectal cancer remain unclear. In this article, we explore the clinical effect and safety of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for non-metastatic dMMR colorectal cancer.

Methods

We collected clinical data from the databases (PubMed, Wanfang Embase, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases) up to November 2024. The primary outcomes of major pathological response (MPR), pathological complete response (pCR), and other outcomes were analyzed for the final results. The secondary outcomes (pCR rates for the subgroups) were also analyzed.

Results

We included 21 articles with 628 non-metastatic dMMR colorectal cancers. A pCR was found in 320/480 (66.6%) patients [effect size (ES): 0.70, 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.74] with the fixed-effects model and little heterogeneity. A MPR was found in 388/452 (85.8%) patients (ES: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.81 to 0.91) with the fixed-effects model and little heterogeneity. In the subgroup analysis, pCR rates were similar in the T1-T3 group and T4a-T4b group in the fixed-effects model with minimal heterogeneity (OR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.22). The pCR rates were similar in the colon cancer group and rectal cancer group in the fixed-effects model with minimal heterogeneity (OR: 1.41, 95% CI: 0.39 to 5.12). Similar pCR rates were found in the immune monotherapy group and immune therapy plus chemotherapy group (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.26 to 2.10) with the fixed-effects model and little heterogeneity.

Conclusion

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy achieves high rates of pCR and MPR for non-metastatic dMMR colorectal cancer. For locally advanced T4 stage dMMR colorectal cancer, neoadjuvant immunotherapy can still achieve good pCR rates. Neoadjuvant immune monotherapy can achieve good pCRs rates, avoiding the toxic side effects caused by combined dual immunotherapy and chemo(radio)therapy. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy could be another treatment option for non-metastatic dMMR colorectal cancer.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42024594173.

Factors Affecting the Prognosis after Primary Tumor Resection for Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer with Synchronous Peritoneal Metastasis: A Multi-center, Prospective, Observational Study

Objectives

To clarify the risk factors affecting prognosis after primary tumor resection (PTR) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with synchronous peritoneal metastasis (mCRC-SPM).

Methods

Patients were enrolled prospectively in the JSCCR project "Grading of Peritoneal Seeding in Colorectal Cancer." Factors that may influence overall survival-age, sex, location of the primary tumor, lymph node metastasis, presence of liver metastasis, degree of peritoneal metastasis, peritoneal cancer index (PCI), cancer cure, and postoperative chemotherapy-in the PTR group were examined using multivariate analysis.

Results

Of the 133 enrolled patients with mCRC-SPM, 112 patients underwent PTR. Among them, 26 (23.2%) had mCRC-SPM of grade P1, 47 (42.0%) of P2, and 39 (34.8%) of P3. The median PCI was 4 (range, 1-28); no surgery-related deaths occurred. Postoperative complications of Clavien-Dindo classification ≥grade 2 were observed in 20 (17.9%) patients. R0 surgery became more difficult as the degree of dissemination increased, and the PTR group had a significantly better prognosis than the non-PTR group. In the multivariate analysis, age ≥75 years, rectal cancer, presence of liver metastasis, higher PCI, non-curative resection, and non-treatment with systemic chemotherapy were associated with poor prognosis in patients after PTR.

Conclusions

In patients with mCRC-SPM, postoperative complications are infrequent for P1 with localized peritoneal dissemination, and PTR may be considered as aggressive treatment. Factors including age ≥75 years, rectal cancer, presence of liver metastasis, increased PCI, non-curative resection, and non-treatment with systemic chemotherapy are associated with a reduced survival benefit from PTR.

The effect of combined head and tail approach during laparoscopic D3 lymph node dissection on pain severity and complications in patients with right colon cancer

OBJECTIVE

To examine the impact of a combined craniocaudal approach on pain and complications during laparoscopic D3 lymph node dissection in clients diagnosed with right colon cancer (RCC).

METHODS

100 RCC patients were divided into Group A and Group B. Both groups underwent laparoscopic D3 lymph node dissection, with Group A undergoing an intermediate approach and Group B undergoing a combined head and tail approach. Two groups of patients' perioperative (surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, number of lymph node dissection) indicators, postoperative recovery (postoperative exhaust time, postoperative hospital stay, drainage tube removal time) indicators, perioperative pain level (VAS scores 1, 3, and 5 days following surgery), and incidence of complications (vascular injury, intestinal obstruction, anastomotic bleeding, incision infection), and the therapeutic efficacy [CEA, CA19-9] indicators were compared.

RESULTS

Clients in the B team had substantially shorter operating times and considerably fewer intraoperative hemorrhage than those in the A team. The VAS grades of clients in the B team were considerably lower than those in the A team the day following surgery. Clients in the B team experienced vascular injury at a substantially lower rate than those in the A team. The overall incidence rate of problems did not differ statistically significantly between the A team and the B team. Following therapy, teams A and B's CEA and CA19-9 levels were considerably lower than those of the same team prior to therapy.

CONCLUSION

Combined craniocaudal technique can significantly reduce intraoperative bleeding, postoperative pain, and the risk of sequelae from vascular injuries.

Prognostic Value of Immune Scoring System for Colorectal Cancer Patients with Peritoneal Metastasis

Background and Objectives: There is no reliable immune scoring system that can help us predict the postoperative outcomes of colorectal cancer patients with peritoneal metastases after cytoreductive surgery. In this cohort, the aims were (1) to evaluate the postoperative morbidity, mortality and surgical oncological outcomes in colorectal cancer patients with peritoneal metastasis; (2) to compare oncological and postoperative outcomes of colon cancer patients with peritoneal metastasis and rectal cancer patients with peritoneal metastasis; and (3) to assess the prognostic value of the modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) and the CRP-albumin ratio (CAR). Materials and Methods: A prospectively maintained database of 258 patients who underwent cytoreductive surgery for peritoneal metastases of colorectal origin between 2007 and 2024 was analyzed. According to the anatomical location of the primary tumor, two different groups were created: rectum cancer patients with peritoneal metastasis (Group A) and colon cancer patients with peritoneal metastasis (Group B). All standard clinico-pathological characteristics, operative findings, morbi-mortality results, and final oncologic outcomes were compared between Groups A and B. We evaluated whether CAR and mGPS could predict postoperative morbi-mortality and overall survival in the two groups or not. Results: No significant difference was detected between Groups A and B in terms of clinical-demographic characteristics. In both groups, the preoperative mGPS and CAR values were statistically significantly higher in those who developed postoperative high-grade complications (C-D grade III/IV) (p < 0.001) and those who died perioperatively (p = 0.001 and p = 0.002). Conclusions: In multivariate Cox analysis, the CAR was found to be an independent prognostic factor for overall survival in this cohort. CAR and mGPS predicted high-grade complications and postoperative mortality in both groups.

The potential clinical value of platelet aggregation in colorectal tumor progression

OBJECTIVE

The present study is to examine whether platelet aggregation function, platelet count and mean platelet volume are indicators that related to clinicopathological characteristics of colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A total of 546 patients with colorectal tumors and 118 healthy controls were enrolled, and patients with colorectal tumors were grouped according to malignancy, prognosis, recurrence and metastasis. The parameters of platelet aggregation function included max aggregation ratio, average aggregation ratio and max aggregation time were detected. 546 patients were induced by arachidonic acid, meanwhile, 415 of which were additionally induced by adenosine diphosphate. Of 118 healthy controls, 60 cases were induced by arachidonic acid and 58 cases were induced by adenosine diphosphate. We evaluated the intergroup significance of these indexes by receiver operating characteristic analysis.

RESULTS

The levels of max aggregation ratio, average aggregation ratio and platelet count were related to progression including cancerization, radical operation and recurrence and metastasis (P < 0.05). Notably, max aggregation ratio-arachidonic acid is the best indicator for predicting these three progressions with the areas under receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.685, 0.652, and 0.649, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Correlations between max aggregation ratio, average aggregation ratio and colorectal tumor progression were observed with a certain clinical value.

Emergency Resection for Colonic Cancer Has an Independent and Unfavorable Effect on Long-Term Oncologic Outcome

BACKGROUND

Long-term outcomes in patients undergoing emergency versus elective resection for colorectal cancer (CRC) remain controversial. This study aims to assess short- and long-term outcomes of emergency versus elective CRC surgery.

METHODS

In this single-center retrospective cohort study, patients undergoing emergency or elective colonic resections for CRC from January 2013 to December 2017 were included. Primary outcome was long-term survival. As secondary outcomes, we sought to analyze potential differences on postoperative morbidity and concerning the oncological standard of surgical resection. The Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard model were used to compare survival between the groups.

RESULTS

Overall, 225 CRC patients were included. Of these 192 (85.3%) had an elective and 33 (14.7%) an emergency operation. Emergency indications were due to obstruction, perforation, or bleeding. Patients in the emergency group had higher ASA score (p = 0.023), higher Charlsson comorbidity index (CCI, p = 0.012), and were older than those in the elective group, with median age 70 (IQR 63-79) years and 78 (IQR 68-83) years, for elective and emergency, respectively (p = 0.020). No other preoperative differences were observed. Patients in the emergency group experienced significantly more major complications (12.1% vs. 3.6%, p = 0.037), more anastomotic leakage (12.1% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.001), need for reoperation (12.1% vs. 3.1%, p = 0.021), and postoperative mortality (2 patients vs. 0, p < 0.001). No differences in terms of final pathological stage, nor in accuracy of lymphadenectomy were observed. Overall survival was significantly worse in case of emergency operation, with estimated median 41 months vs. not reached in elective cases (p < 0.001). At the multivariate analysis, emergency operation was confirmed as independent unfavorable determinant of survival (with hazard rate HR = 1.97, p = 0.028), together with age (HR = 1.05, p < 0.001), postoperative major morbidity (HR = 3.18, p = 0.012), advanced stage (HR = 5.85, p < 0.001), and need for transfusion (HR = 2.10, p = 0.049).

CONCLUSION

Postoperative morbidity and mortality were increased in emergency versus elective CRC resections. Despite no significant differences in terms of accuracy of resection and pathological stages, overall survival was significantly worse in patients who underwent emergency procedure, and independent of other determinants of survival.

Right vs. Left colorectal cancer - Where do we draw the line?

PURPOSE

No consensus on the definition of right and left colorectal cancer (CRC) exists, nor studies offering histological or molecular basis for such categorisation. This study investigated the regional variations in the histological and molecular characteristics of CRCs, with the objective of determining an optimal division point between right and left CRCs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An observational study of consecutive patients who underwent CRC resection (1995-2022) at Concord Hospital, Sydney was performed. Clinicopathological data were extracted from a prospective database and seven permutations of right-left divisions considered. Logistic regression tested association between the right-left divisions and pathological characteristics. Receiver operating characteristic and area under the curve (AUC) analyses determined the discriminative ability of each division to predict 18 pathology characteristics.

RESULTS

3753 patients underwent a CRC resection (2120 male; mean 69.5yrs [SD12.6]). There was regional variation in tumours with respect to tumour infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR), and mutant BRAF (mBRAF). Left-sided tumours were less likely to demonstrate TILs (P < 0.001), be dMMR (P < 0.001), and express mBRAF (P < 0.001). Division at the descending-sigmoid junction yielded highest discriminative abilities: TILs - AUC 0.66, dMMR - AUC 0.76, and mBRAF - AUC 0.73.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to provide a pathological basis on which right- and left-sided cancers may be defined, and found the optimal division point between the right and left colorectum to be at the descending-sigmoid junction. Further research is needed to determine whether this can facilitate individualised patient management.

Prognostic factors and survival disparities in right-sided versus left-sided colon cancer

Right-sided colon cancer (RCC) and left-sided colon cancer (LCC) differ in features and outcomes because of variations in embryology, epidemiology, pathology, and prognosis. This study sought to identify significant factors impacting patient survival through Bayesian modelling. Data was retrospectively analysed from a colorectal neoplasia database. Data on demographics, perioperative risks, treatment, mortality, and survival was analysed from patients who underwent colon cancer surgery from January 2010 to December 2021. This study involved 2475 patients, with 58.7% having RCC and 41.3% having LCC. RCC patients had a notably higher mortality rate, and their overall survival (OS) rates were slightly lower than those with LCC (P < 0.05). RCC stages I-IV consistently exhibited worse OS and relapse-free survival (RFS) than LCC (P < 0.05). Factors like age, BMI, ASA score, cancer stage, and comorbidities had significant associations with OS and RFS. Poor and moderate differentiation, lower lymph node yield, and organ resection were linked to lower survival while receiving chemotherapy; higher BMI levels and elective surgery were associated with better survival (all P < 0.05). Our study reveals key differences between RCC and LCC, emphasising the impact of age, BMI, ASA score, cancer stage, and comorbidities on patient survival. These findings could inform personalised treatment strategies for colon cancer patients.

Short- and Long-Term Survival among Elderly Colorectal Cancer Patients in Finland, 2006-2015: A Nationwide Population-Based Registry Study

This population-based registry study aimed to report 30-day and one-year postoperative survival, five-year overall survival (OS), and disease-specific survival (DSS) among elderly (≥75 years old) colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. All new colorectal cancer cases from 2006-2015 were included and followed until death or the end of follow-up (end of 2016). Among 27,088 CRC patients, 11,306 patients were ≥75 years old. Among patients ≥ 75 years, 36.8% (n = 4160) had right-sided colon cancer, 21.9% (n = 2478) left-sided colon cancer, and 32.3% (n = 3650) rectal cancer. In this study population, 932 patients were aged ≥ 90. The 30-day postoperative OS for patients aged 75-79 was 96.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 95.3-96.9) falling to 93.2% (95% CI 92.0-94.4) for patients aged 80-84. The one-year postoperative OS among patients aged 75-79 was 86.3% (95% CI 84.7-87.9) compared with 80.5% (95% CI 78.7-82.3) among patients aged 80-84. Five-year OS among patients aged 75-79 was 47.6% (95% CI 46.0-49.2) and 36.6% (95% CI 34.8-38.4) among patients aged 80-84, compared with 61.7% (95% CI 60.9-62.5) among younger patients (<75 years old). Survival among elderly CRC patients (≥75 years old) was in general fairly good when compared with younger patients, especially among patients aged 75-79 and 80-84 with localized or locally advanced disease.

Perioperative and Oncological Outcomes of Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Peritoneal Metastasis of Rectal Origin

BACKGROUND

The peritoneum is a common metastatic site of colorectal cancer (CRC) and associated with worse oncological outcomes. Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) has been shown to improve outcomes in selected patients. Studies have demonstrated significant difference in survival of patients with primary colon and rectal tumors both in local and in metastatic setting; but only few assessed outcomes of CRS/HIPEC for rectal and colon tumors. We studied the perioperative and oncological outcomes of patients undergoing CRS/HIPEC for rectal cancer.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database between 2009 and 2021 was performed.

RESULTS

199 patients underwent CRS/HIPEC for CRC. 172 patients had primary colon tumors and 27 had primary rectal tumors. Primary rectal location was associated with longer surgery (mean 4.32, hours vs 5.26 h, p = 0.0013), increased blood loss (mean 441cc vs 602cc, p = 0.021), more blood transfusions (mean 0.77 vs 1.37units, p = 0.026) and longer hospitalizations (mean 10 days vs 13 days, p = 0.02). Median disease-free survival (DFS) was shorter in rectal primary group; 7.03 months vs 10.9 months for colon primaries (p = 0.036). Overall survival was not statistically significant; 53.2 months for rectal and 60.8 months for colon primary tumors. Multivariate analysis indicated origin (colon vs rectum) and Peritoneal Cancer Index to be independently associated with DFS.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with rectal carcinoma undergoing CRS/HIPEC for peritoneal metastasis had worse peri-operative and oncological outcomes. Overall survival was excellent in both groups. This data may be used for risk stratification when considering CRS/HIPEC for patients with rectal primary.

Comparative analyses of the prognosis, tumor immune microenvironment, and drug treatment response between left-sided and right-sided colon cancer by integrating scRNA-seq and bulk RNA-seq data

BACKGROUND

In this study, we compared the prognosis, tumor immune microenvironment (TIM), and drug treatment response between left-sided (LCC) and right-sided (RCC) colon cancer to predict outcomes in patients with LCC and RCC.

METHODS

Based on identified differentially expressed genes and using single-cell RNA sequencing data, we constructed and validated a prognostic model for LCC and RCC patients in the TCGA-COAD cohort and GSE103479 cohort. Moreover, we compared the differences of TIM characteristics and drug treatment response between LCC and RCC patients.

RESULTS

We constructed and validated a five-gene prognostic model for LCC patients and a four-gene prognostic model for RCC patients, and both showed excellent performance. The RCC patients with higher risk scores were significantly associated with greater metastasis (P = 2.6×10-5), N stage (P = 0.012), advanced pathological stage (P = 1.4×10-4), and more stable microsatellite status (P = 0.007) but not T stage (P = 0.200). For LCC patients, the risk scores were not significantly associated with tumor stage and microsatellite status (P > 0.05). Additionally, immune infiltration by CD8 and regulatory T cells and M0, M1, and M2 macrophages differed significantly between LCC and RCC patients (P < 0.05). APC and TP53 mutations were significantly more common in LCC patients (P < 0.05). In contrast, KRAS, SYNE1, and MUC16 mutations were significantly more common in RCC patients (P < 0.05). In addition, tumor mutation burden values were significantly higher in RCC patients than in LCC patients (P = 5.9×10-8). Moreover, the expression of immune checkpoint targets was significantly higher in RCC patients than in LCC patients (P < 0.05), indicating that RCC patients maybe more sensitive to immunotherapy. However, LCC and RCC patients did not differ significantly in their sensitivity to eight selected chemicals or target drugs (P > 0.05). The average half-maximal inhibitory concentrations for camptothecin, teniposide, vinorelbine, and mitoxantrone were significantly lower in low-risk than in high-risk RCC patients (P < 0.05), indicating that the lower risk score of RCC patients, the more sensitive they were to these four drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

We investigated the differences in prognosis, TIM, and drug treatment response between LCC and RCC patients, which may contribute to accurate colon cancer prognosis and treatment of colon cancer.

Poorer Survival in Patients with Cecum Cancer Compared with Sigmoid Colon Cancer

Background and Objectives: An increasing number of studies have shown the influence of primary tumor location of colon cancer on prognosis, but the prognostic difference between colon cancers at different locations remains controversial. After comparing the prognostic differences between left-sided and right-sided colon cancer, the study subdivided left-sided and right-sided colon cancer into three parts, respectively, and explored which parts had the most significant prognostic differences, with the aim to further analyze the prognostic significance of primary locations of colon cancer. Materials and Methods: Clinicopathological data of patients with colon cancer who underwent radical surgery from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program database were analyzed. The data was divided into two groups (2004−2009 and 2010−2015) based on time intervals. Two tumor locations with the most significant survival difference were explored by using Cox regression analyses. The prognostic difference of the two locations was further verified in survival analyses after propensity score matching. Results: Patients with right-sided colon cancer had worse cancer-specific and overall survival compared to left-sided colon cancer. Survival difference between cecum cancer and sigmoid colon cancer was found to be the most significant among six tumor locations in both 2004−2009 and 2010−2015 time periods. After propensity score matching, multivariate analyses showed that cecum cancer was an independent unfavorable factor for cancer specific survival (HR [95% CI]: 1.11 [1.04−1.17], p = 0.001 for 2004−2009; HR [95% CI]: 1.23 [1.13−1.33], p < 0.001 for 2010−2015) and overall survival (HR [95% CI]: 1.09 [1.04−1.14], p < 0.001 for 2004−2009; HR [95% CI]: 1.09 [1.04−1.14], p < 0.001 for 2010−2015) compared to sigmoid colon cancer. Conclusions: The study indicates the prognosis of cecum cancer is worse than that of sigmoid colon. The current dichotomy model (right-sided vs. left-sided colon) may be inappropriate for the study of colon cancer.