Search

Background: In patient with a complete or near-complete clinical response after neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer, the organ-sparing approach [watch & wait (W&W) or local excision (LE)] is a possible alternative to major rectal resection. Although, in case of local recurrence or regrowth, after these treatments, a total mesorectal excision (TME) can be operated. Method: In this retrospective study, we selected 120 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) who had a complete or near-complete clinical response after neoadjuvant treatment, from June 2011 to June 2021. Among them, 41 patients were managed by W&W approach, whereas 79 patients were managed by LE. Twenty-three patients underwent salvage TME for an unfavorable histology after LE (11 patients) or a local recurrence/regrowth (seven patients in LE group – five patients in W&W group), with a median follow-up of 42 months. Results: Following salvage TME, no patients died within 30 days; serious adverse events occurred in four patients; 8 (34.8%) patients had a definitive stoma; 8 (34.8%) patients undergone to major surgery for unfavorable histology after LE – a complete response was confirmed. Conclusion: Notably active surveillance after rectal sparing allows prompt identifying signs of regrowth or relapse leading to a radical TME. Rectal sparing is a possible strategy for LARC patients although an active surveillance is necessary.

Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is a rare cancer originating from the biliary epithelium and accounts for about 3% of all gastrointestinal malignancies. Unfortunately, the majority of patients are not eligible for surgical resection at the time of diagnosis, because of the locally advanced stage or metastatic disease. The overall survival time of unresectable CCA is generally less than 1 year, despite current chemotherapy regimens. Biliary drainage is often required as a palliative treatment for patients with unresectable CCA. Recurrent jaundice and cholangitis tend to occur because of reobstruction of the biliary stents. This not only jeopardizes the efficacy of chemotherapy, but also causes significant morbidity and mortality. Effective control of tumor growth is crucial for prolonging stent patency and consequently patient survival. Recently, endobiliary radiofrequency ablation (ERFA) has been experimented as a treatment modality to reduce tumor mass, and delay tumor growth, extending stent patency. Ablation is accomplished by means of high-frequency alternating current which is released from the active electrode of an endobiliary probe placed in a biliary stricture. It has been shown that tumor necrosis releases intracellular particles which are highly immunogenic and activate antigen-presenting cells, enhancing local immunity directed against the tumor. This immunogenic response could potentially enhance tumor suppression and be responsible for improved survival of patients with unresectable CCA who undergo ERFA. Several studies have demonstrated that ERFA is associated with an increased median survival of approximately 6 months in patients with unresectable CCA. Furthermore, recent data support the hypothesis that ERFA could ameliorate the efficacy of chemotherapy administered to patients with unresectable CCA, without increasing the risk of complications. This narrative review discusses the results of the studies published in recent years and focuses on the impact that ERFA could have on overall survival of patients with unresectable cholangiocarcinoma.

BackgroundAdequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy is crucial. Unfortunately, 25% of colonoscopies have inadequate bowel cleansing. From a patient perspective, bowel preparation is the main obstacle to colonoscopy. Several low-volume bowel preparations have been formulated to provide more tolerable purgative solutions without loss of efficacy.ObjectivesInvestigate efficacy, safety, and tolerability of Sodium Picosulphate plus Magnesium Citrate (SPMC) vs. Polyethylene Glycol plus Ascorbic Acid (PEG-ASC) solutions in patients undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy.Materials and methodsIn this phase 4, randomized, multicenter, two-arm trial, adult outpatients received either SPMC or PEG-ASC for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. The primary aims were quality of bowel cleansing (primary endpoint scored according to Boston Bowel Preparation Scale) and patient acceptance (measured with six visual analogue scales). The study was open for treatment assignment and blinded for primary endpoint assessment. This was done independently with videotaped colonoscopies reviewed by two endoscopists unaware of study arms. A sample size of 525 patients was calculated to recognize a difference of 10% in the proportion of successes between the arms with a two-sided alpha error of 0.05 and 90% statistical power.ResultsOverall 550 subjects (279 assigned to PEG-ASC and 271 assigned to SPMC) represented the analysis population. There was no statistically significant difference in success rate according to BBPS: 94.4% with PEG-ASC and 95.7% with SPMC (P = 0.49). Acceptance and willing to repeat colonoscopy were significantly better for SPMC with all the scales. Compliance was less than full in 6.6 and 9.9% of cases with PEG-ASC and SPMC, respectively (P = 0.17). Nausea and meteorism were significantly more bothersome with PEG-ASC than SPMC. There were no serious adverse events in either group.ConclusionSPMC and PEG-ASC are not different in terms of efficacy, but SPMC is better tolerated than PEG-ASC. SPMC could be an alternative to low-volume PEG based purgative solutions for bowel preparation.Clinical trial registration[ClinicalTrials.gov], Identifier [NCT01649674 and EudraCT 2011–000587–10].