Search

BackgroundThe molecular profile of early-onset colonic cancer is undefined. This study evaluated clinicopathological features and oncological outcomes of young patients with colonic cancer according to microsatellite status.MethodsAnonymized data from an international collaboration were analysed. Criteria for inclusion were patients younger than 50 years diagnosed with stage I-III colonic cancer that was surgically resected. Clinicopathological features, microsatellite status, and disease-specific outcomes were evaluated.ResultsA total of 650 patients fulfilled the criteria for inclusion. Microsatellite instability (MSI) was identified in 170 (26.2 per cent), whereas 480 had microsatellite-stable (MSS) tumours (relative risk of MSI 2.5 compared with older patients). MSI was associated with a family history of colorectal cancer and lesions in the proximal colon. The proportions with pathological node-positive disease (45.9 versus 45.6 per cent; P = 1.000) and tumour budding (20.3 versus 20.5 per cent; P = 1.000) were similar in the two groups. Patients with MSI tumours were more likely to have BRAF (22.5 versus 6.9 per cent; P < 0.001) and KRAS (40.0 versus 24.2 per cent; P = 0.006) mutations, and a hereditary cancer syndrome (30.0 versus 5.0 per cent; P < 0.001; relative risk 6). Five-year disease-free survival rates in the MSI group were 95.0, 92.0, and 80.0 per cent for patients with stage I, II, and III tumours, compared with 88.0, 88.0, and 65.0 per cent in the MSS group (P = 0.753, P = 0.487, and P = 0.105 respectively).ConclusionPatients with early-onset colonic cancer have a high risk of MSI and defined genetic conditions. Those with MSI tumours have more adverse pathology (budding, KRAS/BRAF mutations, and nodal metastases) than older patients with MSI cancers.

The unexpected global overload of the health system during COVID-19 pandemic has caused changes in management of acute appendicitis worldwide. Whereas conservative treatment was widely recommended, the appendicectomy remained standard therapy in Germany. We aimed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on treatment routine for acute appendicitis at University Hospital of Magdeburg.

BackgroundImpairment of bowel, urogenital and fertility-related function in patients treated for rectal cancer is common. While the rate of rectal cancer in the young (

ImportanceThe incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer (younger than 50 years) is rising globally, the reasons for which are unclear. It appears to represent a unique disease process with different clinical, pathological, and molecular characteristics compared with late-onset colorectal cancer. Data on oncological outcomes are limited, and sensitivity to conventional neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy regimens appear to be unknown. The purpose of this review is to summarize the available literature on early-onset colorectal cancer.ObservationsWithin the next decade, it is estimated that 1 in 10 colon cancers and 1 in 4 rectal cancers will be diagnosed in adults younger than 50 years. Potential risk factors include a Westernized diet, obesity, antibiotic usage, and alterations in the gut microbiome. Although genetic predisposition plays a role, most cases are sporadic. The full spectrum of germline and somatic sequence variations implicated remains unknown. Younger patients typically present with descending colonic or rectal cancer, advanced disease stage, and unfavorable histopathological features. Despite being more likely to receive neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy, patients with early-onset disease demonstrate comparable oncological outcomes with their older counterparts.Conclusions and relevanceThe clinicopathological features, underlying molecular profiles, and drivers of early-onset colorectal cancer differ from those of late-onset disease. Standardized, age-specific preventive, screening, diagnostic, and therapeutic strategies are required to optimize outcomes.

ImportanceThe incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer (younger than 50 years) is rising globally, the reasons for which are unclear. It appears to represent a unique disease process with different clinical, pathological, and molecular characteristics compared with late-onset colorectal cancer. Data on oncological outcomes are limited, and sensitivity to conventional neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy regimens appear to be unknown. The purpose of this review is to summarize the available literature on early-onset colorectal cancer.ObservationsWithin the next decade, it is estimated that 1 in 10 colon cancers and 1 in 4 rectal cancers will be diagnosed in adults younger than 50 years. Potential risk factors include a Westernized diet, obesity, antibiotic usage, and alterations in the gut microbiome. Although genetic predisposition plays a role, most cases are sporadic. The full spectrum of germline and somatic sequence variations implicated remains unknown. Younger patients typically present with descending colonic or rectal cancer, advanced disease stage, and unfavorable histopathological features. Despite being more likely to receive neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy, patients with early-onset disease demonstrate comparable oncological outcomes with their older counterparts.Conclusions and relevanceThe clinicopathological features, underlying molecular profiles, and drivers of early-onset colorectal cancer differ from those of late-onset disease. Standardized, age-specific preventive, screening, diagnostic, and therapeutic strategies are required to optimize outcomes.

Background: In this retrospective study, we evaluate the diagnostic utility of C-reactive protein (CRP) and leucocyte count within the EAES 2015 guidelines for acute appendicitis (AA) in differentiating uncomplicated (UAA) from complicated AA (CAA). Methods: Conducted at a tertiary care center in Germany, the study included 285 patients over 18 years who were diagnosed with AA from January 2019 to December 2021. Patient data included demographics, inflammatory markers, and postoperative outcomes. Results: CRP levels (Md: 60.2 mg/dL vs. 10.5 mg/dL; p < 0.001) and leucocyte count (Md: 14.4 Gpt/L vs. 13.1 Gpt/L; p = 0.016) were higher in CAA. CRP had a medium diagnostic value for detecting CAA (AUC = 0.79), with a cutoff at 44.3 mg/L, making it more likely to develop CAA. Leucocyte count showed low predictive value for CAA (AUC = 0.59). CRP ≥ 44.3 mg/L was associated with a higher risk of postoperative complications (OR: 2.9; p = 0.002) and prolonged hospitalization (OR: 3.5; p < 0.001). Conclusions: CRP, within the context of the EAES classification, presents as a valuable diagnostic marker to distinguish CAA from UAA, with a higher risk of postoperative complications and hospitalization. Leucocyte count showed low diagnostic value for the identification of CAA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Objectives: In patients diagnosed with uncomplicated acute appendicitis (UAA), the absence of calcified deposits or stones, called appendicoliths, often leads to consideration of non-operative treatment (NOT), despite the notable treatment failure rate associated with this approach. Previous research has indirectly estimated the prevalence of appendicoliths to range between 15% and 38% retrospectively by CT scan, intraoperative palpation, and pathology report, thereby potentially missing certain concrements. Our hypothesis proposes that this reported prevalence significantly underestimates the occurrence of appendicoliths, which could explain the high failure rate of 29% of patients with appendicitis observed with NOT. Methods: In our prospective study, conducted with a cohort of 56 adult patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis (AA), we employed intraoperative extracorporeal incisions of the vermiform appendix, in addition to standard diagnostic methods. Results: Our findings revealed 50% more appendicoliths by intraoperative incision (n = 36, p < 0.001) compared to preoperative imaging (n = 24). Appendicoliths were present in 71.4% (n = 40, p < 0.001) of AA patients. Conclusions: These results suggest that conventional diagnostic procedures plausibly underestimate the actual prevalence of appendicoliths, potentially elucidating the frequent treatment failures observed in NOT approaches applied to patients with UAA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: In the past, the German Cancer Society has implemented a certification program for colorectal cancer centers with the aims of standardizing oncological treatment, endorsing a multidisciplinary approach, and improving the outcomes. However, some critical views have argued that fulfilling the certification requirements alone would not necessarily enhance the treatment quality for colorectal cancer patients. In the present study, our objective was to investigate the treatment outcomes for patients with rectal cancer in hospitals of different medical care levels, before and after the certification process. The results of the present study indicate an improvement in terms of the treatment quality and outcomes after the official certification process. Further prospective clinical trials are necessary to investigate the influence of certification on the treatment of patients suffering from colorectal cancer. Introduction: The certification of oncological units as colorectal cancer centers (CrCCs) has been proposed to standardize oncological treatment and improve the outcomes for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). The proportion of patients with CRC in Germany that are treated by a certified center is around 53%. Lately, the effect of certification on the treatment outcomes has been critically discussed. Aim: Our aim was to investigate the treatment outcomes in patients with rectal carcinoma at certified CrCCs, in German hospitals of different medical care levels. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospective, multicentric database (AN Institute) of adult patients who underwent surgery for rectal carcinoma between 2002 and 2016. We included 563 patients from 13 hospitals of different medical care levels (basic, priority, and maximal care) over periods of 5 years before and after certification. Results: The certified CrCCs showed a significant increase in the use of laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer surgery (5% vs. 55%, p < 0.001). However, we observed a significantly prolonged mean duration of surgery in certified CrCCs (161 Min. vs. 192 Min., p < 0.001). The overall morbidity did not improve (32% vs. 38%, p = 0.174), but the appearance of postoperative stool fistulas decreased significantly in certified CrCCs (2% vs. 0%, p = 0.036). Concerning the overall in-hospital mortality, we registered a positive trend in certified centers during the five-year period after the certification (5% vs. 3%, p = 0.190). The length of preoperative hospitalization (preop. LOS) was shortened significantly (4.71 vs. 4.13 days, p < 0.001), while the overall length of in-hospital stays was also shorter in certified CrCCs (20.32 vs. 19.54 days, p = 0.065). We registered a clear advantage in detailed, high-quality histopathological examinations regarding the N, L, V, and M.E.R.C.U.R.Y. statuses. In the performed subgroup analysis, a significantly longer overall survival after certification was registered for maximal medical care units (p = 0.029) and in patients with UICC stage IV disease (p = 0.041). In patients with UICC stage III disease, we registered a slightly non-significant improvement in the disease-free survival (UICC III: p = 0.050). Conclusions: The results of the present study indicate an improvement in terms of the treatment quality and outcomes in certified CrCCs, which is enforced by certification-specific aspects such as a more differentiated surgical approach, a lower rate of certain postoperative complications, and a multidisciplinary approach. Further prospective clinical trials are necessary to investigate the influence of certification in the treatment of CRC patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Secondary malignant tumors of the pancreas are rare, representing 2–5% of all pancreatic malignancies. Nevertheless, the pancreas is one of the target organs in cases of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC). Additionally, recurrent metastasis may occur. Surgical resection remains the best and prognostically most favorable therapeutic option in cases of solitary pancreatic metastasis. Aim: To review retrospectively the clinical tumor registry of the University Hospital of Magdeburg, Germany, for this rare entity, performing a clinical systematic single-center observational study (design). Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis of consecutive patients who had undergone pancreatic resection for metastatic CCRC was performed in a single high-volume certified center for pancreatic surgery in Germany from 2010 to 2022. Results: All patients (n = 17) included in this study had a metachronous metastasis from a CCRCC. Surgery was performed at a median time interval of 12 (range, 9–16) years after primary resection for CCRCC. All 17 patients were asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis. Three of those patients (17.6%) presented with recurrent metastasis in a different part of the pancreas during follow-up. In a total of 17 patients, including those with recurrent disease, a surgical resection was performed; Pancreatoduodenectomy was performed in 6 patients (35%); left pancreatectomy with splenectomy was performed in 7 patients (41%). The rest of the patients underwent either a spleen-preserving pancreatic tail resection, local resection of the tumor lesion or a total pancreatectomy. The postoperative mortality rate was 6%. Concerning histopathological findings, seven patients (41%) had multifocal metastasis. An R0 resection could be achieved in all cases. The overall survival at one, three and five years was 85%, 85% and 72%, respectively, during a median follow-up of 43 months. Conclusions: CCRC pancreatic metastases can occur many years after the initial treatment of the primary tumor. Surgery for such a malignancy seems feasible and safe; it offers very good short- and long-term outcomes, as indicated. A repeated pancreatic resection can also be safely performed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: The resection margin status is one of the most relevant oncological factors in liver cancer surgery. Whether robotic liver surgery enhances R0 results in liver malignancies during minimally invasive liver surgery is not yet completely clear. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to compare robotic and laparoscopic approaches in liver surgery with particular attention to the resection margin status in liver malignancies. Background: Robotic procedures are an integral part of modern liver surgery. However, the advantages of a robotic approach in comparison to the conventional laparoscopic approach are the subject of controversial debate. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare robotic and laparoscopic liver resection with particular attention to the resection margin status in malignant cases. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed and Cochrane Library in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Only studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic liver resections were considered for this meta-analysis. Furthermore, the rate of the positive resection margin or R0 rate in malignant cases had to be clearly identifiable. We used fixed or random effects models according to heterogeneity. Results: Fourteen studies with a total number of 1530 cases were included in qualitative and quantitative synthesis. Malignancies were identified in 71.1% (n = 1088) of these cases. These included hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma, colorectal liver metastases and other malignancies of the liver. Positive resection margins were noted in 24 cases (5.3%) in the robotic group and in 54 cases (8.6%) in the laparoscopic group (OR = 0.71; 95% CI (0.42–1.18); p = 0.18). Tumor size was significantly larger in the robotic group (MD = 6.92; 95% CI (2.93–10.91); p = 0.0007). The operation time was significantly longer in the robotic procedure (MD = 28.12; 95% CI (3.66–52.57); p = 0.02). There were no significant differences between the robotic and laparoscopic approaches regarding the intra-operative blood loss, length of hospital stay, overall and severe complications and conversion rate. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the robotic and laparoscopic procedures regarding the resection margin status. Tumor size was significantly larger in the robotic group. However, randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up are needed to demonstrate the benefits of robotics in liver surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Liver failure is a crucial predictor for relevant morbidity and mortality after hepatic surgery. Hence, a good patient selection is mandatory. We use the LiMAx test for patient selection for major or minor liver resections in robotic and laparoscopic liver surgery and share our experience here. Patients and methods: We identified patients in the Magdeburg registry of minimally invasive liver surgery (MD-MILS) who underwent robotic or laparoscopic minor or major liver surgery and received a LiMAx test for preoperative evaluation of the liver function. This cohort was divided in two groups: patients with normal (LiMAx normal) and decreased (LiMAx decreased) liver function measured by the LiMAx test. Results: Forty patients were selected from the MD-MILS regarding the selection criteria (LiMAx normal, n = 22 and LiMAx decreased, n = 18). Significantly more major liver resections were performed in the LiMAx normal vs. the LiMAx decreased group (13 vs. 2; p = 0.003). Hence, the mean operation time was significantly longer in the LiMAx normal vs. the LiMAx decreased group (356.6 vs. 228.1 min; p = 0.003) and the intraoperative blood transfusion significantly higher in the LiMAx normal vs. the LiMAx decreased group (8 vs. 1; p = 0.027). There was no significant difference between the LiMAx groups regarding the length of hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, liver surgery related morbidity or mortality, and resection margin status. Conclusion: The LiMAx test is a helpful and reliable tool to precisely determine the liver function capacity. It aids in accurate patient selection for major or minor liver resections in minimally invasive liver surgery, which consequently serves to improve patients' safety. In this way, liver resections can be performed safely, even in patients with reduced liver function, without negatively affecting morbidity, mortality and the resection margin status, which is an important predictive oncological factor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Impairment of bowel, urogenital and fertility-related function in patients treated for rectal cancer is common. While the rate of rectal cancer in the young (<50 years) is rising, there is little data on functional outcomes in this group. Methods: The REACCT international collaborative database was reviewed and data on eligible patients analysed. Inclusion criteria comprised patients with a histologically confirmed rectal cancer, <50 years of age at time of diagnosis and with documented follow-up including functional outcomes. Results: A total of 1428 (n=1428) patients met the eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis. Metastatic disease was present at diagnosis in 13%. Of these, 40% received neoadjuvant therapy and 50% adjuvant chemotherapy. The incidence of post-operative major morbidity was 10%. A defunctioning stoma was placed for 621 patients (43%); 534 of these proceeded to elective restoration of bowel continuity. The median follow-up time was 42 months. Of this cohort, a total of 415 (29%) reported persistent impairment of functional outcomes, the most frequent of which was bowel dysfunction (16%), followed by bladder dysfunction (7%), sexual dysfunction (4.5%) and infertility (1%). Conclusion: A substantial proportion of patients with early-onset rectal cancer who undergo surgery report persistent impairment of functional status. Patients should be involved in the discussion regarding their treatment options and potential impact on quality of life. Functional outcomes should be routinely recorded as part of follow up alongside oncological parameters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The implementation of robotics in liver surgery offers several advantages compared to conventional open and laparoscopic techniques. One major advantage is the enhanced degree of freedom at the tip of the robotic tools compared to laparoscopic instruments. This enables excellent vessel control during inflow and outflow dissection of the liver. Parenchymal transection remains the most challenging part during robotic liver resection because currently available robotic instruments for parenchymal transection have several limitations and there is no standardized technique as of yet. We established a new strategy and share our experience. Methods: We present a novel technique for the transection of liver parenchyma during robotic surgery, using three devices (3D) simultaneously: monopolar scissors and bipolar Maryland forceps of the robot and laparoscopic-guided waterjet. We collected the perioperative data of twenty-eight patients who underwent this procedure for minor and major liver resections between February 2019 and December 2020 from the Magdeburg Registry of minimally invasive liver surgery (MD-MILS). Results: Twenty-eight patients underwent robotic-assisted 3D parenchyma dissection within the investigation period. Twelve cases of major and sixteen cases of minor hepatectomy for malignant and non-malignant cases were performed. Operative time for major liver resections (≥ 3 liver segments) was 381.7 (SD 80.6) min vs. 252.0 (70.4) min for minor resections (p < 0.01). Intraoperative measured blood loss was 495.8 (SD 508.8) ml for major and 256.3 (170.2) ml for minor liver resections (p = 0.090). The mean postoperative stay was 13.3 (SD 11.1) days for all cases. Liver surgery-related morbidity was 10.7%, no mortalities occurred. We achieved an R0 resection in all malignant cases. Conclusions: The 3D technique for parenchyma dissection in robotic liver surgery is a safe and feasible procedure. This novel method offers an advanced locally controlled preparation of intrahepatic vessels and bile ducts. The combination of precise extrahepatic vessel handling with the 3D technique of parenchyma dissection is a fundamental step forward to the standardization of robotic liver surgery for teaching purposing and the wider adoption of robotic hepatectomy into routine patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The surgical-oncological treatment of pelvic and perineal malignancies is associated with a high complication rate and morbidity for patients. Modern multimodal treatment modalities, such as neoadjuvant radio-chemotherapy for anal or rectal cancer, increase the long-term survival rate while reducing the risk of local recurrence. Simultaneously, the increasing surgical radicality and higher oncological safety with wide resection margins is inevitably associated with larger and, due to radiation, more complex tissue defects in the perineal and sacral parts of the pelvic floor. Therefore, the plastic-surgical reconstruction of complex pelvic-perineal defects following oncological resection remains challenging. The reconstructive armamentarium, and thus the treatment of such defects, is broad and ranges from local, regional and muscle-based flaps to microvascular and perforator-based procedures. While the use of flaps is associated with a significant, well-documented reduction in postoperative complications compared to primary closure, there is still a lack of reliable data directly comparing the postoperative results of different reconstructive approaches. Additionaly, the current data shows that the quality of life of these patients is rarely recorded in a standardised manner. In a consensus workshop at the 44 th annual meeting of the German-speaking Association for Microsurgery on the topic of "Reconstruction of oncological defects in the pelvic-perineal area", the current literature was discussed and recommendations for the reconstruction of complex defects in this area were developed. The aim of this workshop was to identify knowledge gaps and establish an expert consensus to ensure and continuously improve the quality of reconstruction in this challenging area. In addition, the importance of the "patient-reported outcome measures" in pelvic reconstruction was highlighted, and the commitment to its widespread use in the era of value-based healthcare was affirmed., Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background: Robotic procedures are gaining more and more importance in visceral surgery and seem to develop into an indispensable tool in minimally invasive visceral surgery. In 2020 the COVID-19 pandemic caused unexpected changes in daily surgical routines with still ongoing challenges. We evaluated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on robotic visceral procedures and the associated training provided in Germany., Material and Methods: We performed a thorough evaluation of German hospitals and identified 89 surgical departments performing robotic visceral procedures. After extensive topic-related literature search an online questionnaire was developed. It included 35 questions referring to all relevant topics on robotic surgery, such as training programs and influence of the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey was sent via email three times to each department. Descriptive and subgroup analysis were performed., Results: We reported a response to our questionnaire from 22 (24.7%) surgical departments and17 questionnaires were analyzable. The vast majority of them weresurgical departments of university hospitals (58.8%), 17.6% maximum care clinics and 23.5% main care clinics. Robotic procedures were performed for the upper gastrointestinal tract (UGI 88.2%), the hepatopancreaticobiliary system (HPB 82.4%), in the colorectal region (94.1%) and for hernias (35.3%). The relative proportion of robotic operations in comparison to all visceral procedures was between 0.3% and 15.4%. The average conversion rate was 4.6 ± 3.2% referring to 2020. All participating clinics used the robotic DaVinci® system (Intuitive Surgical Inc., CA, USA). In summary 22 robotic systems were used mainly in an interdisciplinary setting (82.4%). For teaching purposes, 7 departments (41.2%) provided a second robotic console. On average 13.2 ± 6.5% of surgeons per clinic were involved in robotic procedures. Defined operating room (OR) teams (82.4%) consisted of consultants, specialists and residents. Team training for surgeons and OR nurses was mainly (52.9%) based on clinic-specific programs. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic the number of robotic procedures decreased in 70.0% of the participating departments compared to 2019 with the highest decline reported during the second quarter of 2020 (64.7%). Referring to this, staff shortage of non-surgical disciplines (anesthesiologists 35.3%, OR nurses 35.3%, intensive care medics 17.6%), COVID-19-specific regulations (58.8%) and limited capacities of intensive and intermediate care (47.1%) were specified as underlying causes. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, caused by a decline in numbers of robotic procedures, robotic training was paused completely in assistance at the operating table in 23.5% and at the second console in 42.9%., Conclusion: Robotic visceral surgery is already implemented with a broad spectrum of operations in many German clinics of different care levels; however, the relative proportion of robotic procedures is low, when compared to the overall caseload of each clinic. Training concepts are heterogeneous and focused on experts. In surgeons with growing experience in robotic surgery, conversion rates are recorded to be very low. There was a negative impact on robotic case numbers and training provided in 2020 caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, a further endorsement of robotic training programs and an improvement of training designs seem to be essential tools in order to enforce robotic procedures in visceral surgery., (© 2022. The Author(s).)