Quality of life in non-early rectal cancer treated by neoadjuvant radio-chemotherapy and endoluminal loco-regional resection (ELRR) by transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision

Protective ileostomy creation after anterior resection of the rectum (PICARR): a decision-making exploring international survey

In our previous survey of experts, surgeon's decision-making process (DMP) about protective ileostomy (PI) creation after anterior resection was investigated. Based on our previous data, a multiple choice questionnaire has been developed. The aim is to perform a quantitative analysis of the results obtained from an international survey and to describe the clinical practice worldwide. Ten questions were related to participants' demographics and, 20 questions (of which 17 Likert scale questions) investigated the DMP regarding PI creation. To evaluate the tendency of the answers in the Likert-type questions, the mean of the answers obtained was compared with the mean point of the Likert scale. The survey was completed by 1019 physicians. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and distance of the anastomosis from the anal verge ≤ 10 cm were each considered alone sufficient to justify creation of a PI, with statistically significant differences in comparison to the mean point of the scales in (p =  < 0.0001 in both cases). Total Mesorectal Excision alone was not considered a factor sufficient to create a PI (p = 0.416). Most of the participants agree to define their approach to create a PI "tailored" to patients' risk factors (p =  < 0.0001) and "influenced by my experience" in case of patients with low/moderate risk of anastomotic leakage (p =  < 0.0001). This study provides useful insights on the worldwide clinical practice regarding creation of PI following anterior resection. Given the lack of standardization and evidence-based guidelines, this analysis may be helpful to assist surgeons' practice.

Oncological Outcomes of Transanal Endoscopic Surgery for the Surgical Management of T2 and T3 Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Transanal endoscopic surgery is an organ-sparing treatment for early rectal cancer. Patients with advanced lesions are recommended for total mesorectal excision. However, some patients have prohibitive comorbidities or refuse major surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cancer outcomes of patients with T2 or T3 rectal cancers who received transanal endoscopic surgery as their sole surgical treatment.

DESIGN

This study used a prospectively maintained database.

SETTING

A tertiary hospital in Canada.

PATIENTS

Patients who underwent transanal endoscopic surgery for pathology-confirmed T2 or T3 rectal adenocarcinomas from 2007-2020 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Disease-free survival and overall survival, stratified by tumor stage and reason for transanal endoscopic surgery.

RESULTS

Among the included 132 patients (T2, n = 96; T3, n = 36), average follow-up was 22 months. Twenty-eight decline oncologic resection, whereas 104 had preclusive comorbidities. Fifteen patients (11.4%) had disease recurrence (4 local, 11 metastatic). Three-year disease-free survival was 86.5% (95% CI, 77.1-95.9) for T2 and 67.9% (95% CI, 46.3-89.5) for T3 tumors. Mean disease-free survival was longer for T2 (75.0 mo; 95% CI, 67.8-82.1) compared to T3 cancers (50 mo; 95% CI, 37.7-62.3; p = 0.037). Three-year disease-free survival for patients who declined radical excision was 84.0% (95% CI, 67.1-100) versus 80.7% (95% CI, 69.7-91.7) in patients too comorbid for surgery. Three-year overall survival rate was 84.9% (95% CI, 73.9-95.9) for T2 and 49.0% (95% CI, 26.7-71.3) for T3 tumors. Patients who declined radical resection had similar 3-year overall survival (89.7%; 95% CI, 76.2-100) compared to patients who were unable to undergo excision because of medical comorbidities (98.1%; 95% CI, 95.6-100).

LIMITATIONS

Small sample, single institution, and surgeon experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Oncologic outcomes are compromised in patients treated by transanal endoscopic surgery for T2 and T3 rectal cancer. Transanal endoscopic surgery remains an option for informed patients who prefer to avoid radical resection. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C200 .

RESULTADOS ONCOLGICOS DE LA CIRUGA ENDOSCPICA TRANSANAL PARA EL MANEJO QUIRRGICO DEL CNCER DE RECTO T Y T

ANTECEDENTES:La cirugía endoscópica transanal es un tratamiento de conservación de órganos para el cáncer de recto en estadio temprano. A los pacisentes con lesiones avanzadas se les recomienda la escisión total del mesorrecto. Sin embargo, algunos pacientes tienen comorbilidades prohibitivas o rechazan una cirugía mayor.OBJETIVO:Evaluar los resultados del cáncer de pacientes con cáncer de recto T2 o T3 que recibieron cirugía endoscópica transanal como único tratamiento quirúrgico.DISEÑO:Este estudio utilizó una base de datos mantenida prospectivamente.ENTORNO CLINICO:Un hospital terciario en CanadáPACIENTES:Aquellos que se sometieron a cirugía endoscópica transanal por adenocarcinomas rectales T2 o T3 confirmados por patología de 2007-2020. Se excluyeron los pacientes cuya cirugía se realizó por recurrencia del cáncer o posteriormente fueron sometidos a resección radical.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACIÓN:Supervivencia libre de enfermedad y supervivencia global, estratificada por estadio del tumor y motivo de la cirugía endoscópica transanal.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron 132 pacientes (T2, n = 96; T3, n = 36). El seguimiento medio fue de 22 meses (DE ± 23,4). 104 pacientes tenían comorbilidades significativas, mientras que 28 rechazaron la resección oncológica. Quince pacientes (11,4%) tuvieron recurrencia de la enfermedad (4 locales, 11 metastásicos). La supervivencia libre de enfermedad a los tres años para los tumores T2 fue del 86,5 % (IC del 95%: 77,1-95,9) y del 67,9% (IC del 95%: 46,3-89,5) para los tumores T3. La supervivencia libre de enfermedad media fue más prolongada para los cánceres T2 (75,0 meses, IC del 95%: 67,8 a 82,1) en comparación con los cánceres T3 (50 meses, IC del 95%: 37,7 a 62,3, p = 0,037). La supervivencia sin enfermedad a los tres años para los pacientes que rechazaron la escisión mesorrectal total fue del 84,0% (IC del 95%: 67,1-100), mientras que los pacientes con demasiada comorbilidad médica para la cirugía tuvieron una supervivencia sin enfermedad a los tres años del 80,7% (IC del 95%: 69.7-91.7). La supervivencia general a los tres años fue del 84,9% (IC del 95%: 73,9 a 95,9) para los tumores T2 y del 49,0% (IC del 95%: 26,7 a 71,3) para los tumores T3. Los pacientes que rechazaron la resección radical tuvieron una supervivencia general similar a los tres años (89,7%, IC del 95%: 76,2-100), en comparación con los pacientes que no pudieron someterse a una escisión mesorrectal total debido a comorbilidades médicas (98,1%, IC del 95%: 95,6-100).LIMITACIONES:Muestra pequeña, institución única, experiencia del cirujano.CONCLUSIONES:Los resultados oncológicos están comprometidos en pacientes tratados con cirugía endoscópica transanal por cáncer de recto T2 y T3. Sin embargo, la cirugía endoscópica transanal sigue siendo una opción para pacientes informados que prefieren evitar la resección radical. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C200 . (Traducción-Dr. Ingrid Melo ).

Local versus radical surgery for early rectal cancer with or without neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision is the standard of care for stage I rectal cancer. Despite major advances and increasing enthusiasm for modern endoscopic local excision (LE), uncertainty remains regarding its oncologic equivalence and safety relative to radical resection (RR).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the oncologic, operative, and functional outcomes of modern endoscopic LE compared to RR surgery in adults with stage I rectal cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to present), four trial registers (ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN registry, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials database), two thesis and proceedings databases, and relevant scientific societies' publications in February 2022. We performed handsearching and reference checking and contacted study authors of ongoing trials to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in people with stage I rectal cancer comparing any modern LE techniques to any RR techniques with or without the use of neo/adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We calculated hazard ratios (HR) and standard errors for time-to-event data and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes, using generic inverse variance and random-effects methods. We regrouped surgical complications from the included studies into major and minor according to the standard Clavien-Dindo classification. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE framework.

MAIN RESULTS

Four RCTs were included in data synthesis with a combined total of 266 participants with stage I rectal cancer (T1-2N0M0), if not stated otherwise. Surgery was performed in university hospital settings. The mean age of participants was above 60, and median follow-up ranged from 17.5 months to 9.6 years. Regarding the use of co-interventions, one study used neoadjuvant CRT in all participants (T2 cancers); one study used short-course radiotherapy in the LE group (T1-T2 cancers); one study used adjuvant CRT selectively in high-risk patients undergoing RR (T1-T2 cancers); and the fourth study did not use any CRT (T1 cancers). We assessed the overall risk of bias as high for oncologic and morbidity outcomes across studies. All studies had at least one key domain with a high risk of bias. None of the studies reported separate outcomes for T1 versus T2 or for high-risk features. Low-certainty evidence suggests that RR may result in an improvement in disease-free survival compared to LE (3 trials, 212 participants; HR 1.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 4.24). This would translate into a three-year disease-recurrence risk of 27% (95% CI 14 to 50%) versus 15% after LE and RR, respectively. Regarding sphincter function, only one study provided objective results and reported short-term deterioration in stool frequency, flatulence, incontinence, abdominal pain, and embarrassment about bowel function in the RR group. At three years, the LE group had superiority in overall stool frequency, embarrassment about bowel function, and diarrhea. Local excision may have little to no effect on cancer-related survival compared to RR (3 trials, 207 participants; HR 1.42, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.33; very low-certainty evidence). We did not pool studies for local recurrence, but the included studies individually reported comparable local recurrence rates for LE and RR (low-certainty evidence). It is unclear if the risk of major postoperative complications may be lower with LE compared with RR (risk ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.28; low-certainty evidence; corresponding to 5.8% (95% CI 2.4% to 14.1%) risk for LE versus 11% for RR). Moderate-certainty evidence shows that the risk of minor postoperative complications is probably lower after LE (risk ratio 0.48, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.85); corresponding to an absolute risk of 14% (95% CI 8% to 26%) for LE compared to 30.1% for RR. One study reported an 11% rate of temporary stoma after LE versus 82% in the RR group. Another study reported a 46% rate of temporary or permanent stomas after RR and none after LE. The evidence is uncertain about the effect of LE compared with RR on quality of life. Only one study reported standard quality of life function, in favor of LE, with a 90% or greater probability of superiority in overall quality of life, role, social, and emotional functions, body image, and health anxiety. Other studies reported a significantly shorter postoperative period to oral intake, bowel movement, and off-bed activities in the LE group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low-certainty evidence, LE may decrease disease-free survival in early rectal cancer. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that LE may have little to no effect on cancer-related survival compared to RR for the treatment of stage I rectal cancer. Based on low-certainty evidence, it is unclear if LE may have a lower major complication rate, but probably causes a large reduction in minor complication rate. Limited data based on one study suggest better sphincter function, quality of life, or genitourinary function after LE. Limitations exist with respect to the applicability of these findings. We identified only four eligible studies with a low number of total participants, subjecting the results to imprecision. Risk of bias had a serious impact on the quality of evidence. More RCTs are needed to answer our review question with greater certainty and to compare local and distant metastasis rates. Data on important patient outcomes such as sphincter function and quality of life are very limited. Results of currently ongoing trials will likely impact the results of this review. Future trials should accurately report and compare outcomes according to the stage and high-risk features of rectal tumors, and evaluate quality of life, sphincter, and genitourinary outcomes. The role of neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy as an emerging co-intervention for improving oncologic outcomes after LE needs to be further defined.

Local Excision Versus Total Mesorectal Excision After Favourable Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy in Low Rectal Cancer: a Multi-centre Experience

The gold standard surgical management of curable rectal cancer is proctectomy with total mesorectal excision. Adding preoperative radiotherapy improved local control. The promising results of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy raised the hopes for conservative, yet oncologically safe management, probably using local excision technique. This study is a prospective comparative phase III study, where 46 rectal cancer patients were recruited from patients attending Oncology Centre of Mansoura University and Queen Alexandra Hospital Portsmouth University Hospital NHS with a median follow-up 36 months. The two recruited groups were as follows: group (A), 18 patients who underwent conventional radical surgery by TME; and group (B), 28 patients who underwent trans-anal endoscopic local excision. Patients of resectable low rectal cancer (below 10 cms from anal verge) with sphincter saving procedures were included: cT1-T3N0. The median operative time for LE was 120 min versus 300 in TME (p < 0.001), and median blood loss was 20 ml versus 100 ml in LE and TME, respectively (p < 0.001). Median hospital stay was 3.5 days versus 6.5 days (p = 0.009). No statistically significant difference in median DFS (64.2 months for LE versus 63.2 months for TME, p = 0.85) and median OS (72.9 months for LE versus 76.3 months for TME, p = 0.43). No statistically significant difference in LARS scores and QoL was observed between LE and TME (p = 0.798, p = 0.799). LE seems a good alternative to radical rectal resection in carefully selected responders to neoadjuvant therapy after thorough pre-operative evaluation, planning and patient counselling.

Surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes of local and radical resection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for early- and mid-stage rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Radical resection is typically the standard treatment for early- and mid-stage rectal cancer as local resection may result in a high rate of recurrence and risk of distant metastasis. A growing number of studies have shown that local excision after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy can significantly reduce recurrence rates and is a feasible strategy to preserve the rectum as an alternative to conventional radical resection.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare the efficacy of local resection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy with radical surgery for early- and mid-stage rectal cancer and to report the evidence-based clinical advantages of both techniques.

METHODS

Clinical trials comparing oncologic and perioperative outcomes of local and radical resection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in patients with early- to mid-stage rectal cancer were searched in PubMed, Embase, Web Of Science, and Cochrane databases, and a total of 5 randomized controlled trials and 11 cohort study trials were included.

RESULTS

In terms of oncology and perioperative outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences between the radical resection group and the local resection group in terms of OS [HR = 0.99, 95%CI (0.85, 1.15), p = 0.858], DFS [HR = 1.01, 95%CI (0.64, 1.58), p = 0.967], distant metastasis rate [RR = 0.76, 95%CI (0.36,1.59), p = 0.464], and local recurrence rate [RR = 1.30, 95%CI (0.69, 2.47), p = 0.420]. However, there were significant differences in the outcomes of complications [RR = 0.49, 95% CI (0.33, 0.72), p < 0.001], length of hospital stays [WMD =  - 5.13, 95%CI (- 6.22, - 4.05), p < 0.001], enterostomy [RR = 0.13, 95%CI (0.05, 0.37), p < 0.001], operative time [- 94.31, 95%CI (- 117.26, - 71.35), p < 0.001], and emotional functioning score [WMD = 2.34, 95% CI (0.94, 3.74), p < 0.001].

CONCLUSION

Local resection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy may be an effective alternative to radical surgery in patients with early and middle rectal cancer.

Body Image Issues in Patients With Colorectal Cancer: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Stomas in colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors lead to body image problems. Advances in treatment help reduce the rate of stoma formation, but body image distress is still frequently experienced in CRC survivors.

OBJECTIVES

This review is aimed toward mapping and describing the state of knowledge regarding body image in patients with CRC.

METHODS

A systematic literature search complying with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines was conducted. Screening and data extraction were performed by 2 reviewers independently for all potentially eligible studies.

RESULTS

A total of 56 eligible articles were selected. The majority of these studies were quantitative studies (85%). The eligible studies were classified into 4 broad categories: instruments used to assess body image, prevalence of body image distress, factors related to body image, and impact of body image distress. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-CR38) colorectal questionnaire was the most common measurement tool found among the reviewed studies (70%), and body image distress was reported by 25.5% to 86% of participants. Excluding gender, age, type of surgery, adjuvant therapy, time from diagnosis, social support, and stoma status, changes in bowel habits was identified as affecting the body image of patients with CRC.

CONCLUSION

Changing bowel habits emerged as a significant factor causing body image distress for CRC survivors.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Clinicians should raise awareness about body image distress in patients with CRC, focus on finding effective measures and interventions intended to help alleviate symptoms of bowel dysfunction, and prepare patients to adapt to altered bowel functions.

Case-Matched Comparison of Functional and Quality of Life Outcomes of Local Excision and Total Mesorectal Excision Following Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by radical surgery is the standard curative treatment for mid- to low-rectal cancer. However, the combination of these treatments may affect patients' GI and genitourinary functions and their quality of life. In the cases of good clinical response to neoadjuvant treatment, local excision is a rectal sparing strategy that would limit these side effects.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to compare the effects of local excision or conventional laparoscopic total mesorectal excision after chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer.

DESIGN

The design is a retrospective study.

SETTING

The setting used is a single tertiary center.

PATIENTS

Patients with mid- to low-rectal cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy and accessible via conservative surgery at our hospital between January 2010 and December 2018 were included. Patients undergoing local excision were matched 1 to 1 with the patients undergoing total mesorectal excision by age, sex, body mass index, tumor height, and year of surgery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Quality of life and digestive and genitourinary functions were measured using validated questionnaires. The socioeconomic impact was also assessed.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients undergoing local excision agreed to participate and were matched with 44 patients undergoing total mesorectal excision. Patients who underwent local excision reported a more favorable global health status ( p < 0.01), emotional function ( p = 0.035), social function ( p = 0.04), and body image ( p = 0.04). The low anterior resection syndrome score (rate of major syndrome, 23.8% vs 54.5%; p < 0.01) and the specific fecal incontinence subscale score ( p < 0.01) were more favorable in the local excision group. Sexual and urinary outcomes were comparable between the 2 groups. Local excision had a lower impact on the professional status (35.7% vs 76.5%; p = 0.03).

LIMITATIONS

The study limitations include its retrospective design and small sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

When indicated, local excision improves the bowel function and quality of life of patients undergoing surgery for rectal cancer after chemoradiotherapy compared with total mesorectal excision. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B997 .

COMPARACIN DE CASOS EMPAREJADOS DE LOS RESULTADOS FUNCIONALES Y DE CALIDAD DE VIDA DE LA ESCISIN LOCAL Y LA ESCISIN TOTAL DE MESORECTO DESPUS DE QUIMIORRADIOTERAPIA EN CNCER DE RECTO

ANTECEDENTES:La quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante seguida de cirugía radical es el tratamiento curativo estándar para el cáncer de recto medio-bajo. Sin embargo, la combinación de estos tratamientos puede afectar las funciones gastrointestinales y genitourinarias de los pacientes y su calidad de vida. En casos de buena respuesta clínica al tratamiento neoadyuvante, la escisión local es una estrategia conservadora del recto que limitaría estos efectos secundarios.OBJETIVO:Este estudio comparó los efectos de la escisión local o escisión total de mesorecto laparoscópica convencional después de quimiorradioterapia en pacientes con cáncer de recto.DISEÑO:Estudio retrospectivo.ENTORNO CLINICO:Centro terciario único.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes con cáncer de recto medio-bajo tratados con quimiorradioterapia y accesibles mediante cirugía conservadora en nuestro hospital entre enero del 2010 y diciembre del 2018. Los pacientes sometidos a escisión local se emparejaron uno a uno con los sometidos a escisión total de mesorecto por edad, sexo, índice de masa corporal, altura del tumor y año de cirugía.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:La calidad de vida, las funciones digestivas y genitourinarias se midieron mediante cuestionarios validados. También se evaluó el impacto socioeconómico.RESULTADOS:Cuarenta y cuatro pacientes sometidos a escisión local aceptaron participar y fueron emparejados con 44 pacientes sometidos a escisión mesorrectal total. Los pacientes que se sometieron a escisión local informaron un estado de salud global más favorable ( p <0,01), función emocional ( p = 0,035), función social ( p = 0,04) e imagen corporal ( p = 0,04). La puntuación baja del síndrome de resección anterior (tasa de síndrome mayor: 23,8 % frente a 54,5 %; p <0,01) y la puntuación de la subescala de incontinencia fecal específica ( p <0,01) fueron más favorables en el grupo de escisión local. Los resultados sexuales y urinarios fueron comparables entre los dos grupos. La escisión local tuvo un menor impacto en el estatus profesional (35,7% vs 76,5%; p = 0,03).LIMITACIONES:Diseño retrospectivo, tamaño de muestra pequeño.CONCLUSIONES:Cuando está indicada, la escisión local mejora la función intestinal y la calidad de vida de los pacientes sometidos a cirugía por cáncer de recto después de quimiorradioterapia en comparación con escisión total de mesorecto. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B997 . (Traducción-Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon ).

The Quality of Life of Patients with Surgically Treated Colorectal Cancer: A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

Quality of life is a topic increasingly being addressed by researchers. Due to the increasing incidence of colorectal cancer, this issue is particularly relevant. Despite the increasing number of publications on this topic each year, it still requires further research. The aim of this study was to analyze the available literature from the past 10 years, addressing the topic of QoL in patients with colorectal cancer which has been treated surgically.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This review is based on 93 articles published between 2012 and 2022. It analyzes the impact of socioeconomic factors, the location and stage of the tumor, stoma and the method of surgical treatment on patients' QoL and sexual functioning.

RESULTS

CRC has a negative impact on patients' financial status, social functioning, pain and physical functioning. Patients with stage II or III cancer have an overall lower QoL than patients with stage I. The more proximally the lesion is located to the sphincters, the greater the negative impact on the QoL. There was a significant difference in favor of laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery. In patients with a stoma, the QoL is lower compared with patients with preserved gastrointestinal tract continuity. The more time has passed since surgery, the more the presence of a stoma has a negative impact on QoL. Surgery for CRC negatively affects patients' sex lives, especially in younger people and among men.

CONCLUSIONS

This study may contribute to the identification of the factors that affect the QoL of patients with surgically treated colorectal cancer. This will allow even more effective and complete treatment, facilitating patients' return to normal physical, mental and social functioning.

Indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence guide for the use and indications in general surgery: recommendations based on the descriptive review of the literature and the analysis of experience

Indocyanine Green is a fluorescent substance visible in near-infrared light. It is useful for the identification of anatomical structures (biliary tract, ureters, parathyroid, thoracic duct), the tissues vascularization (anastomosis in colorectal, esophageal, gastric, bariatric surgery, for plasties and flaps in abdominal wall surgery, liver resection, in strangulated hernias and in intestinal ischemia), for tumor identification (liver, pancreas, adrenal glands, implants of peritoneal carcinomatosis, retroperitoneal tumors and lymphomas) and sentinel node identification and lymphatic mapping in malignant tumors (stomach, breast, colon, rectum, esophagus and skin cancer). The evidence is very encouraging, although standardization of its use and randomized studies with higher number of patients are required to obtain definitive conclusions on its use in general surgery. The aim of this literature review is to provide a guide for the use of ICG fluorescence in general surgery procedures.

Efficacy of Laparoscopic Radical Resection Combined with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Its Impact on Long-Term Prognosis of Patients with Colorectal Cancer

Objective

The aim of the study is to examine the efficacy of laparoscopic radical resection of colorectal cancer combined with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and its impact on the overall prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer (CC).

Methods

A total of 80 CC patients hospitalized and treated at our hospital between November 2019 and June 2021 were selected at random as research subjects and divided equally into two groups: the surgical group (n = 40) and the combination group (n = 40). Patients in the surgical group were treated with laparoscopic radical resection, while patients in the combination group received laparoscopic radical resection combined with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The two groups were compared in terms of surgery-related indicators, tumor markers (serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), glycoprotein 199 (CA199), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and matrix metalloproteinase 9 (MMP9)), postoperative complications, and 1–3 years postoperative survival rate and recurrence rate.

Results

The surgical duration of the combination group was significantly shorter than the surgical group (P < 0.05). No significant differences were found in intraoperative blood loss, time to get out of bed, exhaust time, or hospital stay between the two groups (P < 0.05). In the combination group, serum tumor markers (carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 199 (CA199), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and matrix metalloproteinase 9 (MMP9)) were markedly lower than those in the surgical group (P < 0.05). The combination group exhibited fewer postoperative complications than those in the operation group (P < 0.05). In the combination group, the 1–3 years postoperative survival rate was higher, while the 1–3 years postoperative recurrence rate was considerably lower than that in the surgical group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

CC patients benefit well from laparoscopic radical resection coupled with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The approach is efficient in lowering blood tumor markers in patients and lowering the risk of surgery-related complications. It has the potential to enhance patients' long-term prognoses, allowing them to live longer and lower their chance of recurrence.

Local resection versus radical resection for early-stage rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The optimal surgical approach for early-stage rectal cancer remains controversial. Radical resection is considered to be the gold standard for rectal cancer treatment. More and more studies show that local resection can replace traditional radical resection in the treatment of early rectal cancer. This research aimed to compare the efficacy of local excision and radical surgery for early-stage rectal cancer and report the evidence-based clinical advantages of both techniques.

METHODS

The clinical trials comparing oncological and perioperative local and radical resection outcomes for early-stage rectal cancer were searched from 7 national and international databases.

RESULTS

Finally, 3 randomized controlled trials and 14 cohort studies were included. In terms of oncology and perioperative outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences between the radical resection group and the local resection group in terms of OS (HR = 1.05, 95% CI (0.98, 1.13), DFS [HR = 1.18, 95% CI (0.93, 1.48), p = 0.168), distant metastasis rate (RR = 1.04, 95% CI (0.49, 2.20), p = 0.928), and mortality rate (RR = 1.52, 95% CI (0.80, 2.91), p = 0.200). However, there were significant differences in the outcomes of complications (RR = 2.85, 95% CI (2.07, 3.92), p < 0.001), length of hospital stays (WMD = 5.41, 95% CI (3.94, 6.87), p < 0.001), stoma rate (RR = 7.69, 95% CI (2.39, 24.77), p = 0.001), local recurrence rate (RR = 0.48, 95% CI (0.27, 0.86), p = 0.013), operative time (WMD = 74.68, 95% CI (68.00, 81.36), p < 0.001), blood loss (WMD = 156.36, 95% CI (95.48, 217.21, p < 0.001), and adverse events (RR = 1.59, 95% CI (1.05, 2.41), p = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

Local excision may be a viable alternative to radical resection for early-stage rectal cancer, but higher quality clinical studies are needed to confirm this.

Complications after bowel resection for inflammatory bowel disease associated cancer: a systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) associated colorectal cancer represents the 1-2% of all patients affected by colorectal carcinoma, but it is frequent responsible for death in these patients. Aim of this systematic review was to report the complications after bowel resection in patients with IBD associated cancer.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. The search was carried out in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science databases. A total of 54,084 articles were found. Of these 38,954 were eliminated because were duplicates between the searches. Of the remaining 15,130 articles, 14,888 were excluded after screening title and abstract.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Two-hundred-forty-two articles were fully analyzed, and 239 further articles were excluded. Finally, three articles were included for a total of 63 patients. Overall, 38 early postoperative complications (60.3%) were observed. Of these, anastomotic leakage occurred in 13 patients (20.6%). The indication for surgery was ulcerative colitis in 52 patients (82.5%), Crohn's disease in 8 patients (12.7%) and indeterminate colitis in 3 patients (4.8%). Intraoperative complications, readmission and postoperative mortality were not observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Complication rate after bowel resection for IBD associated cancer is not different from complication rate after colorectal surgery for other diseases. Given the high probability of developing a cancer and the time correlated occurrence of malignancy in IBD patients, it should be debated if a surgical resection should be performed as soon as dysplasia is detected in IBD patients or earlier in their life.

Ostomy closure rate during COVID-19 pandemic: an Italian multicentre observational study

During the corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, most of the surgical procedures were performed for emergencies or oncologic reasons to the detriment of the remaining elective procedures for benign conditions. Ileostomy or colostomy creation are sequelae of oncologic or emergency colorectal surgery, but their closure does not fall within the definition of oncologic or emergency surgery. The aim of this retrospective multicentre observational study is to report the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the ostomy closure rate in Italy. Data regarding ileostomy and colostomy creation and closure from 24 Italian centres, during the study period (March 2020-February 2021) and during the control period (March 2019-February 2020) were collected. Three hospitals (12.5%) were COVID free. The number of colostomies and ileostomies created and closed in the same period was lower ( -18.8% and -30%, respectively) in the study period in comparison to the control period (p = 0.1915 and p = 0.0001, respectively), such as the ostomies closed in the analysed periods but created before (colostomy -36.2% and ileostomy -7.4%, p = 0.2211 and p = 0.1319, respectively). Overall, a 19.5% reduction in ostomies closed occurred in the study period. Based on the present study, a reduction in ostomy closure rate occurred in Italy between March 2020 and February 2021. During the pandemic, the need to change the clinical practice probably prolonged deterioration of quality of life in patients with ostomies, increasing number of stomas that will never be closed, and related management costs, even if these issues have not been investigated in this study.

Multidisciplinary management of elderly patients with rectal cancer: recommendations from the SICG (Italian Society of Geriatric Surgery), SIFIPAC (Italian Society of Surgical Pathophysiology), SICE (Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery and new technologies), and the WSES (World Society of Emergency Surgery) International Consensus Project

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although rectal cancer is predominantly a disease of older patients, current guidelines do not incorporate optimal treatment recommendations for the elderly and address only partially the associated specific challenges encountered in this population. This results in a wide variation and disparity in delivering a standard of care to this subset of patients. As the burden of rectal cancer in the elderly population continues to increase, it is crucial to assess whether current recommendations on treatment strategies for the general population can be adopted for the older adults, with the same beneficial oncological and functional outcomes. This multidisciplinary experts' consensus aims to refine current rectal cancer-specific guidelines for the elderly population in order to help to maximize rectal cancer therapeutic strategies while minimizing adverse impacts on functional outcomes and quality of life for these patients.

METHODS

The discussion among the steering group of clinical experts and methodologists from the societies' expert panel involved clinicians practicing in general surgery, colorectal surgery, surgical oncology, geriatric oncology, geriatrics, gastroenterologists, radiologists, oncologists, radiation oncologists, and endoscopists. Research topics and questions were formulated, revised, and unanimously approved by all experts in two subsequent modified Delphi rounds in December 2020-January 2021. The steering committee was divided into nine teams following the main research field of members. Each conducted their literature search and drafted statements and recommendations on their research question. Literature search has been updated up to 2020 and statements and recommendations have been developed according to the GRADE methodology. A modified Delphi methodology was implemented to reach agreement among the experts on all statements and recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2021 SICG-SIFIPAC-SICE-WSES consensus for the multidisciplinary management of elderly patients with rectal cancer aims to provide updated evidence-based statements and recommendations on each of the following topics: epidemiology, pre-intervention strategies, diagnosis and staging, neoadjuvant chemoradiation, surgery, watch and wait strategy, adjuvant chemotherapy, synchronous liver metastases, and emergency presentation of rectal cancer.

Local excision following chemoradiotherapy in T2-T3 rectal cancer: current status and critical appraisal

Local excision following chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer is an organ-preserving procedure which aims at reducing morbidity and functional disorders associated with total mesorectal excision (TME) in selected patients. Although TME after chemoradiotherapy remains the gold standard for locally advanced mid and low rectal cancer, in the last years multicenter research trials have offered encouraging oncologic results which have allowed to preserve the rectum in patients with a pathologic complete response after chemoradiotherapy. A review of the available literature on this topic was conducted to define the state of the art of this conservative approach and to focus on the most controversial aspects concerning local excision performed after chemoradiotherapy, in particular tumor scatter and lymph node status, completion and salvage surgery, morbidity and quality of life. The analysis of these topics should be considered, in trial setting or in current practice, for their clinical implications. Oncologic outcomes of recent trials are encouraging for part of the patients presenting T2 rectal cancer; however, TME still remains the standard treatment in clinical practice. In such cases, local excision should include a surgical safety margin of at least 1 cm from the resection margin to achieve a true negative margin from residual tumor cells. The selection of the patients should be carefully performed and their consensus extremely detailed because TME is necessary in about 30% of cases. Failing that, morbidity and quality of life are negatively affected. However, about half of these patients refuse radical surgery (45%), thus undergoing only palliative care.

Comparison of Short-Term Clinical and Pathological Outcomes after Transanal versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision for Low Anterior Rectal Resection Due to Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Background: Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is a new technique that is designed to overcome the limits of the open and laparoscopic approach for rectal resections. Objective: This study is designed to compare TaTME with standard laparoscopic TME (LaTME). Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases covering a up to October 2018. Inclusion criteria for study enrolment: (1) study comparing laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer vs. TaTME for rectal malignancy, (2) reporting of overall morbidity, operative time, or major complications. Results: Eleven non-randomized studies were eligible with a total of 778 patients. We found statistical significant differences in regard to major complications in favour of TaTME (RR = 0.55; 95% CI 0.31–0.97; p = 0.04). We did not found significant differences regarding overall complications intraoperative adverse effects, operative time, anastomotic leakage, intra-abdominal abscess occurrence, Surgical Site Infection, reoperations, Length of stay, completeness of mesorectal excision, R0 resection rate, number of harvested lymph nodes, circumferential resection margin, and distal resection margin. Conclusions: This meta-analysis shows benefits of TaTME technique regarding major postoperative complications. Regarding clinicopathological features transanal approach is not superior to LaTME. Currently, the quality of the evidence on benefits of TaTME is low due to lack of randomized controlled trials, which needs to be taken into consideration in further evaluation of the technique. Further evaluation of TaTME require conducting large randomized control trials.

Quality of life in patients with loco-regional rectal cancer after ELRR by TEM versus VLS TME after nChRT: long-term results

BACKGROUND

Endoluminal loco-regional resection (ELRR) by transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) may be an alternative treatment option to Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME), in selected patients with N0 rectal cancer. Post-operative quality of life (QoL) evaluation is an important parameter of outcomes related to high percentage of functional sequelae. We reported, in a previous paper, the short and medium term results of QoL in patients who underwent ELRR or LTME. The aim is to evaluate the 3 year QoL in patients with iT2-T3 N0/+ rectal cancer who underwent ELRR by TEM or LTME after neoadjuvant radio-chemotherapy (nChRT) in a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data.

METHODS

We enrolled in this study, 39 patients with iT2-T3 rectal cancer who underwent ELRR (n = 19) or LTME (n = 20), according to predefined criteria. QoL was evaluated by EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR38 questionnaires at admission, after n-RCT and 1, 6, 12, and 36 months after surgery.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences in QoL evaluation were observed between the two groups, both at admission and after n-RCT. In short term (1-6 months) period, significantly better results were observed in ELRR group by QLQ-C30 in global health status (p = 0.03), physical functioning (p = 0.026), role functioning (p = 0.04), emotional functioning (p = 0.04), cognitive functioning, fatigue (p < 0.05), dyspnoea (p < 0.001), insomnia (p < 0.05), appetite loss (p < 0.05), constipation (≤ 0.05), and by QLQ-CR38 in: body image (p = 0.03) and defecation (p = 0.025). At 1 year, the two groups were homogenous as assessed by QLQ-C30, whereas the QLQCR38 still showed better results of ELRR versus LTME in body image (p = 0.006), defecation problems (p = 0.01), and weight loss (p = 0.005). At 3 years, no statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients with rectal cancer, who underwent ELRR by TEM or LTME, QoL tests at 3 years do not show any statistical differences on examined items.

The application of transanal total mesorectal excision for patients with middle and low rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recently, in order to overcome the shortcomings of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of low rectal cancer, a new kind of surgical procedure, transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME), has rapidly become a research hotspot in the field of rectal cancer surgery study. Our study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for the patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

Relevant studies were searched from the databases of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Web of science. All relevant studies were collected to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TaTME for patients with rectal cancer. The quality of the included studies was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) and Cochrane Library Handbook 5.1.0. Data analysis was conducted using the Review Manager 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies including 859 patients were included in our analysis. In terms of efficacy, compared with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME), meta-analysis showed that the rate of complete tumor resection increased and the risk of positive circumferential margins decreased in the TaTME group. For complete tumor resection and positive circumferential margins in the TaTME group, the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were 1.93 and 1.09 to 3.42 (P = .02) and 0.43 and 0.22 to 0.82 (P = .01), respectively. Concerning safety, results showed that the rates of postoperative complications were similar in the 2 groups, and differences in the risk of ileus and anastomotic leakage were not statistically significant (OR = 0.75, 95%CI = 0.51-1.09, P = .13; OR = 0.91, 95%CI = 0.46-1.78, P = .78; OR = 0.79, 95%CI = 0.45-1.38, P = .40).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this meta-analysis show that TaTME is associated with a reduced positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) rate, and could achieve complete tumor resection and improved the long-term survival in patients with mid- and low-rectal cancer.

Neoadjuvant therapy and subsequent treatment in rectal cancer: balance between oncological and functional outcomes

Current practice of neoadjuvant therapy and total mesorectal excision (TME) in rectal cancer bears the weakness in systemic disease control and long-term functional outcomes. With increasing concerns of the balance between cure and quality of life, new strategies are developed to better oncological outcomes at least cost of function damage. Attractive options to adjust neoadjuvant modality include escalation of radiotherapy, intensification of chemotherapy, and chemoradiotherapy with consolidation or full-course chemotherapy. Subsequently, organ-preserving strategies have gained the popularity. Surgical or nonsurgical approaches that spare the rectum are used as possible alternatives for radical surgery, though high-quality TME remains the last resort to offer reliable local disease control. This review discusses new strategies of neoadjuvant therapy and subsequent management, with a specific focus on the balance between oncological and functional outcomes.

Comparison of transanal endoscopic microsurgery with or without neoadjuvant therapy and standard total mesorectal excision in the treatment of clinical T2 low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

Some clinical trials demonstrated local resection for clinical T1 rectal cancer was safe and effective. But for clinical T2 rectal cancer, the results were controversial. Neoadjuvant therapy (NT) is proven to reduce the opportunity of advanced rectal cancer recurrence in various researches. The objective of this Meta-Analysis was to evaluate the oncological outcomes of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) with or without NT comparing with conventional total mesorectal excision (TME) for the treatment of clinical T2 rectal cancer.To search for the relevant studies, an electronic search was done from the databases of Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library in this meta-analysis. We compared the effectiveness of transanal endoscopic microsurgery with or without NT and standard total mesorectal excision in the treatment of T2 Rectal Cancer. 1RCT and 3nRCTs including 121 TEM patients (TEM + NT: 59, TEM: 62) and 174 TME patients with T2 rectal cancer were retrieved. Compared with TME, there were no significant differences in the outcomes of local recurrence, overall recurrence, overall survival between TEM + NT group. However in compassion with TME, TEM without NT was associated with an increased local recurrence, overall recurrence, and a shorter overall survival, with individual ORs being 3.04 (95% Cl: 1.17-7.90; I2 = 0%), 5.67 (95% Cl: 1.58-20.38; I2 = 0%) and 0.12 (95% Cl: 0.02-0.65; I2 = 0%), respectively. Compared with TME, TEM after NT may be a feasible and safe organ preservative approach for patients with clinical T2 low rectal cancer. But for those without NT, TEM always seem be associated with worse oncological outcomes.

Chemoradiation and Local Excision for T2N0 Rectal Cancer Offers Equivalent Overall Survival Compared to Standard Resection: a National Cancer Database Analysis

BACKGROUND

Local excision (LE) alone is associated with worse survival compared to radical surgery (RS) for T2 rectal cancer, but LE with additional chemoradiation (CRT) may improve outcomes. The objective of this study was to compare combined CRT and LE versus RS for T2 rectal cancer.

METHODS

The 2004-2014 National Cancer Database was queried for patients with T2N0M0 rectal cancer undergoing LE with neoadjuvant(NA-CRT + LE) or adjuvant(LE + Adj-CRT) CRT, or RS. The main outcome was 5-year overall survival (OS). Cox proportional hazards was used to determine the independent effect of treatment on OS.

RESULTS

A total of 4822 patients were included (4367 RS, 242 CRT + LE, 213 LE + Adj-CRT). Mean follow-up was 48.6 (SD28.5) months. There were no differences in patient characteristics, but more high-risk features in the LE + Adj-CRT group. There were no differences in 90-day mortality. Five-year OS was similar (RS 77.4% vs. CRT + LE 76.1% vs. LE + Adj-CRT 79.7%, p = 0.786). Older age, male gender, and higher Charlson score were independently associated with worse OS, whereas treatment type was not. If 90-day mortality was excluded, LE + Adj-CRT was independently associated with worse OS compared to RS.

CONCLUSIONS

CRT with LE for T2N0M0 rectal cancer was not associated with worse OS compared to RS, and may be a viable treatment modality.

Health-Related Quality of Life of Cancer Patients with Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter: A Pilot Study

Introduction

This pilot exploratory study aimed to compare the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among patients diagnosed with different types of cancer receiving peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs).

Methods

A multicenter cross-section study of cancer patients with PICCs was performed from February 1, 2013 to April 24, 2014. The primary objective of this study was to compare HRQOL in different cancer type patients with PICC. HRQOL was examined based on European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). Multiple linear regression models were conducted for coping with potential confounding variables. We also examined PICC-related quality of daily life with a self-made questionnaire.

Results

Three hundred and fifty-seven cancer patients with PICC completed the survey in nine teaching hospitals. Lung cancer patients with PICC reported the worst dyspnea. Digestive tract cancer patients reported the worst appetite loss. Patients with hematologic malignancy reported the worst emotional, social function, fatigue and financial impact. Breast cancer patients reported better HRQOL. Baseline variables were proven not significant predictors of EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status. In self-made survey, pain after PICC insertion was null or a little in 98.6% of cancer patients. Limitation of upper extremity activity was null or a little in 94.1% of patients.

Conclusions

HRQOL varies in different types of cancer patients with PICC. PICC may have a low impact on cancer patients’ HRQOL. Further large sample studies are needed.

Synthetic Versus Biological Mesh-Related Erosion After Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

This review reports the incidence of mesh-related erosion after ventral mesh rectopexy to determine whether any difference exists in the erosion rate between synthetic and biological mesh.

METHODS

A systematic search of the MEDLINE and the Ovid databases was conducted to identify suitable articles published between 2004 and 2015. The search strategy capture terms were laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy, laparoscopic anterior rectopexy, robotic ventral rectopexy, and robotic anterior rectopexy.

RESULTS

Eight studies (3,956 patients) were included in this review. Of those patients, 3,517 patients underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) using synthetic mesh and 439 using biological mesh. Sixty-six erosions were observed with synthetic mesh (26 rectal, 32 vaginal, 8 recto-vaginal fistulae) and one (perineal erosion) with biological mesh. The synthetic and the biological mesh-related erosion rates were 1.87% and 0.22%, respectively. The time between rectopexy and diagnosis of mesh erosion ranged from 1.7 to 124 months. No mesh-related mortalities were reported.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of mesh-related erosion after LVR is low and is more common after the placement of synthetic mesh. The use of biological mesh for LVR seems to be a safer option; however, large, multicenter, randomized, control trials with long follow-ups are required if a definitive answer is to be obtained.