Search

Background/Aims: The low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) severely affects quality of life (QoL) after rectal cancer surgery. Studies investigating LARS and the effect on QoL after transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) for rectal cancer are scarce. The aim of our study was to assess bowel dysfunction and QoL after TEM. Methods: Seventy-three -patients who underwent TEM for stage I rectal cancer were included in this single-centre, cross-sectional study Bowel dysfunction was assessed by the LARS-Score, QoL by the -European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and -CR29 questionnaires. Results: Fifty-five respondents (75.3%) could be included for the analyses. The median interval since treatment was 4.3 years, and the median age at the follow-up point was 72 years. "Major LARS" was observed in 29% of patients and "minor LARS" in 26%. Female gender (OR 4.00; 95% CI 1.20–13.36), neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (OR 3.63; 95% CI 1.08–12.17) and specimen thickness in millimetres (OR 1.10 for each mm increase in thickness; 95% CI 1.01–1.20) were associated with the development of major LARS. Patients with major LARS fared worse in most QoL domains. Conclusion: This is the first study demonstrating major LARS after TEM treatment for rectal cancer, with a negative effect on QoL, even years after treatment. Our data provides an adequate counselling before TEM in terms of postoperative bowel dysfunction and its effect on QoL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Persisting abdominal complaints are common after an episode of diverticulitis treated conservatively. Furthermore, some patients develop frequent recurrences. These two groups of patients suffer greatly from their disease, as shown by impaired health related quality of life and increased costs due to multiple specialist consultations, pain medication and productivity losses. Both conservative and operative management of patients with persisting abdominal complaints after an episode of diverticulitis and/or frequently recurring diverticulitis are applied. However, direct comparison by a randomised controlled trial is necessary to determine which is superior in relieving symptoms, optimising health related quality of life, minimising costs and preventing diverticulitis recurrences against acceptable morbidity and mortality associated with surgery or the occurrence of a complicated recurrence after conservative management. We, therefore, constructed a randomised clinical trial comparing these two treatment strategies. Methods/design: The DIRECT trial is a multicenter randomised clinical trial. Patients (18-75 years) presenting themselves with persisting abdominal complaints after an episode of diverticulitis and/or three or more recurrences within 2 years will be included and randomised. Patients randomised for conservative treatment are treated according to the current daily practice (antibiotics, analgetics and/or expectant management). Patients randomised for elective resection will undergo an elective resection of the affected colon segment. Preferably, a laparoscopic approach is used. The primary outcome is health related quality of life measured by the Gastro-intestinal Quality of Life Index, Short-Form 36, EQ-5D and a visual analogue scale for pain quantification. Secondary endpoints are morbidity, mortality and total costs. The total follow-up will be three years. Discussion: Considering the high incidence and the multicenter design of this study, it may be assumed that the number of patients needed for this study (n = 214), may be gathered within one and a half year. Depending on the expertise and available equipment, we prefer to perform a laparoscopic resection on patients randomised for elective surgery. Should this be impossible, an open technique may be used as this also reflects the current situation. Trial Registration: (Trial register number: NTR1478) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Primary perineal wound closure after conventional abdominoperineal resection (cAPR) for rectal cancer has been the standard of care for many years. Since the introduction of neo-adjuvant radiotherapy and the extralevator APR (eAPR), oncological outcome has been improved, but at the cost of increased rates of perineal wound healing problems and perineal hernia. This has progressively increased the use of biological meshes, although not supported by sufficient evidence. The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of pelvic floor reconstruction using a biological mesh after standardized eAPR with neo-adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy compared to primary perineal wound closure.Methods/design: In this multicentre randomized controlled trial, patients with a clinical diagnosis of primary rectal cancer who are scheduled for eAPR after neo-adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy will be considered eligible. Exclusion criteria are prior radiotherapy, sacral resection above S4/S5, allergy to pig products or polysorbate, collagen disorders, and severe systemic diseases affecting wound healing, except for diabetes. After informed consent, 104 patients will be randomized between standard care using primary wound closure of the perineum and the experimental arm consisting of suturing a biological mesh derived from porcine dermis in the pelvic floor defect, followed by perineal closure similar to the control arm. Patients will be followed for one year after the intervention and outcome assessors and patients will be blinded for the study treatment. The primary endpoint is the percentage of uncomplicated perineal wound healing, defined as a Southampton wound score of less than II on day 30. Secondary endpoints are hospital stay, incidence of perineal hernia, quality of life, and costs.Discussion: The BIOPEX-study is the first randomized controlled multicentre study to determine the additive value of using a biological mesh for perineal wound closure after eAPR with neo-adjuvant radiotherapy compared to primary perineal wound closure with regard to perineal wound healing and the occurrence of perineal hernia.Trail Registration Number: NCT01927497 (Clinicaltrial.gov). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Oncological outcome might be influenced by the type of resection in total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. The aim was to see if non-restorative LAR would have worse oncological outcome. A comparison was made between non-restorative low anterior resection (NRLAR), restorative low anterior resection (RLAR) and abdominoperineal resection (APR)., Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort included data from patients undergoing TME for rectal cancer between 2015 and 2017 in eleven Dutch hospitals. A comparison was made for each different type of procedure (APR, NRLAR or RLAR). Primary outcome was 3-year overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 3-year local recurrence (LR) rate., Results: Of 998 patients 363 underwent APR, 132 NRLAR and 503 RLAR. Three-year OS was worse after NRLAR (78.2%) compared to APR (86.3%) and RLAR (92.2%, p < 0.001). This was confirmed in a multivariable Cox regression analysis (HR 1.85 (1.07, 3.19), p = 0.03). The 3-year DFS was also worse after NRLAR (60.3%), compared to APR (70.5%) and RLAR (80.1%, p < 0.001), HR 2.05 (1.42, 2.97), p < 0.001. The LR rate was 14.6% after NRLAR, 5.2% after APR and 4.8% after RLAR (p = 0.005), HR 3.22 (1.61, 6.47), p < 0.001., Conclusion: NRLAR might be associated with worse 3-year OS, DFS and LR rate compared to RLAR and APR., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Rogier M.P.H. Crolla and Esther C.J. Consten received fees from Intuitive Surgical. Colin Sietses received surgical lecturing fees from Medtronic. For the remaining authors none were declared., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The superiority of robot-assisted over laparoscopic total mesorectal excision has not been proven. Most studies do not consider the learning curve while comparing the surgical technique., Objective: This study aims to compare laparoscopic with robot-assisted total mesorectal excision performed by surgeons who completed the learning curve of the technique., Design: This is a multicenter retrospective propensity score-matched analysis., Settings: The study was performed in 2 large, dedicated robot-assisted hospitals and 5 large, dedicated laparoscopic hospitals., Patients: Patients were included if they underwent a robot-assisted or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer with curative intent at a dedicated center for the minimally invasive technique between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017., Interventions: We compared robot-assisted with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision., Main Outcome Measures: The main outcome was conversion to laparotomy during surgery. Secondary outcomes were postoperative morbidity and positive circumferential resection margin., Results: A total of 884 patients were included and, after matching, 315 patients per treatment group remained. Conversion was similar between laparoscopic and robot-assisted total mesorectal excision (4.4% vs 2.5% (p = 0.20)). Positive circumferential resection margin was equal (3.2% vs 4.4% (p = 0.41)). Overall morbidity was comparable as well, although a lower rate of wound infections was observed in the robot-assisted group (5.7% vs 1.9% (p = 0.01)). More primary anastomoses were constructed in the robot-assisted group (50.8% vs 68.3% (p < 0.001)). Finally, more open procedures were performed in dedicated laparoscopic centers, with an overrepresentation of cT4N+ tumors in this group., Limitations: This is a retrospective multicenter cohort; however, propensity score matching was applied to control for confounding by indication., Conclusions: Robot-assisted and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision are equally safe in terms of short-term outcomes. However, with the robot-assisted approach, more primary anastomoses were constructed, and a lower wound infection rate was observed. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B677.ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL ASISTIDA POR ROBOT VERSUS ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL LAPAROSCÓPICA: UNA PUNTUACIÓN DE PROPENSIÓN RETROSPECTIVA ANÁLISIS DE COHORTES EMPAREJADAS EN CENTROS EXPERIMENTADOS., Antecedentes: No se ha demostrado la superioridad de la escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot sobre la laparoscópica. La mayoría de los estudios no tienen en cuenta la curva de aprendizaje al comparar la técnica quirúrgica., Objetivo: Este estudio tiene como objetivo comparar la escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica con la asistida por robot realizada por cirujanos que completaron la curva de aprendizaje de la técnica., Diseo: Este es un análisis multicéntrico retrospectivo emparejado por puntuación de propensión., Ajustes: El estudio se realizó en dos grandes hospitales dedicados asistidos por robots y cinco grandes hospitales laparoscópicos dedicados., Pacientes: Se incluyeron pacientes que se sometieron a escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot o laparoscópica para cáncer de recto con intención curativa, en un centro dedicado a la técnica mínimamente invasiva entre el 1 de enero de 2015 y el 31 de diciembre de 2017., Intervenciones: Comparamos la escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot con la laparoscópica., Principales Medidas De Resultado: El principal resultado fue la conversión a laparotomía durante la cirugía. Los resultados secundarios fueron la morbilidad posoperatoria y el margen circunferencial positivo., Resultados: Se incluyó a un total de 884 pacientes y, después de emparejar, quedaron 315 pacientes por grupo de tratamiento. La conversión fue similar entre la escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica y asistida por robot (4,4% frente a 2,5% [p = 0,20]). El margen de resección circunferencial positivo fue igual (3,2% vs 4,4% [p = 0,41]). La morbilidad general también fue comparable, aunque se observó una menor tasa de infecciones de heridas en el grupo asistido por robot (5,7% frente a 1,9% [p = 0,01]). Se construyeron más anastomosis primarias en el grupo asistido por robot (50,8% frente a 68,3% [p < 0,001]). Finalmente, se realizaron procedimientos más abiertos en centros laparoscópicos dedicados, con una sobrerrepresentación de tumores cT4N + en este grupo., Limitaciones: Ésta es una cohorte multicéntrica retrospectiva; sin embargo, se aplicó el emparejamiento por puntuación de propensión para controlar los factores de confusión por indicación., Conclusiones: La escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot y laparoscópica son igualmente seguras en términos de resultados a corto plazo. Sin embargo, con el abordaje asistido por robot, se construyeron más anastomosis primarias y se observó una menor tasa de infección de la herida. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B677. (Traducción-Dr. Gonzalo Hagerman)., (Copyright © The ASCRS 2021.)

Aim: Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is used for the resection of large rectal adenomas and well or moderately differentiated T1 carcinomas. Due to difficulty in preoperative staging, final pathology may reveal a carcinoma not suitable for TEM. Although completion total mesorectal excision is considered standard of care in T2 or more invasive carcinomas, this completion surgery is not always performed. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the outcome of patients after TEM-only, when completion surgery would be indicated., Methods: In this retrospective multicenter, observational cohort study, outcome after TEM-only (n = 41) and completion surgery (n = 40) following TEM for a pT2-3 rectal adenocarcinoma was compared., Results: Median follow-up was 29 months for the TEM-only group and 31 months for the completion surgery group. Local recurrence rate was 35 and 11% for the TEM-only and completion surgery groups respectively. Distant metastasis occurred in 16% of the patients in both groups. The 3-year overall survival was 63% in the TEM-only group and 91% in the completion surgery group respectively. Three-year disease-specific survival was 91 versus 93% respectively., Conclusions: Although local recurrence after TEM-only for pT2-3 rectal cancer is worse compared to the recurrence that occurs after completion surgery, disease-specific survival is comparable between both groups. The lower unadjusted overall survival in the TEM-only group indicates that TEM-only may be a valid alternative in older and frail patients, especially when high morbidity of completion surgery is taken into consideration. Nevertheless, completion surgery should always be advised when curation is intended., (© 2018 The Author(s) Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: To assess whether extending the observation period in patients with a near clinical complete response (near cCR) after chemoradiation (CRT) leads to an impaired oncological outcome., Methods: Patients who had a clinical complete response (cCR) 8-10 weeks after CRT restaging with magnetic resonance imaging and endoscopy were offered a watch-and-wait strategy (W&W1), while patients with a near cCR were offered to undergo local excision or a second restaging 6-12 weeks later. Patients who achieved a cCR at the second restaging were also offered a watch-and-wait strategy (W&W2)., Results: Overall, 102 patients with a cCR at the first restaging immediately entered the W&W1, while the remaining 68 patients had a near cCR: 19 patients underwent transanal endoscopic microsurgery and 49 patients opted for a second restaging. Additionally, 44/49 (90%) patients showed a cCR at the second restaging and entered the W&W2. Patients in the W&W1 group had a 2-year local regrowth-free rate (LRFR) of 84% and 2-year overall survival (OS) of 99%, while patients in the W&W2 group had a 2-year LRFR of 73% and OS of 98% (p > 0.05). Multivariable Cox regression analyses showed that late inclusion was not a significant predictive factor for higher risk of LR or lower non-regrowth disease-free survival., Conclusions: Overall, 90% of patients with a near cCR 8-10 weeks after CRT will proceed to a cCR 6-12 weeks later; therefore, it seems logical to extend the observation period rather than to proceed to surgery. Although there is a non-significant increase in local regrowth rate in these patients, it does not seem to impact the oncological outcome.

Purpose: This phase I/II study sought to determine the safety and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the combination of rapamycin, an mTOR inhibitor, with short-course radiotherapy in rectal cancer patients. Antitumor activity, changes in metabolic activity and perfusion on imaging, and changes in phosphorylation status of the mTOR pathway were also assessed., Materials and Methods: Patients with primary resectable rectal cancer were treated with short-course hypofractionated radiotherapy (5×5 Gy) combined with oral rapamycin 1 week before and during radiotherapy, followed by surgical resection., Results: Thirteen patients were entered in phase I. One patient developed a dose-limiting toxicity, consisting of a grade 4 leak and grade 4 bleeding. Because of an unexpected high rate of grade 3 postoperative toxicity, it was decided to treat patients with delayed surgery in phase II. Primary endpoint for phase II was tumor blood flow (K(trans)) assessed by perfusion CT. Thirty-one patients were treated with the MTD of 6 mg rapamycin daily. One patient (3%) developed a pathological complete response (pCR) and 3 patients (10%) had a ypT1N0 tumor at the time of resection. No change in tumor perfusion was observed on perfusion CT, but a significant decrease of metabolic activity was found on PET-scan., Conclusions: The combination of short-course radiotherapy and rapamycin turned out to be feasible, provided that the interval between neo-adjuvant treatment and surgical resection is at least 6 weeks. Although from this cohort no clear increase in pCR could be observed, a clear metabolic response after rapamycin run-in was observed, indicating a biological activity of this drug in rectal cancer., (Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

A 70-year old woman came to the emergency department with dyspnea and syncope. Hemoglobin level was 2,9 mmol/l (reference: 7,6-9,9 mmol/l). Gastroscopy was negative, CT-abdomen showed a hypervascular jejunal tumour. Laparoscopic jejunal segment resection was performed with resection of the tumour, after which the hemoglobin level improved. Pathological examination showed a gastrointestinal stromal tumour.

Background: The CARTS study is a multicenter feasibility study, investigating the role of rectum saving surgery for distal rectal cancer., Methods/design: Patients with a clinical T1-3 N0 M0 rectal adenocarcinoma below 10 cm from the anal verge will receive neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (25 fractions of 2 Gy with concurrent capecitabine). Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM) will be performed 8 - 10 weeks after the end of the preoperative treatment depending on the clinical response.Primary objective is to determine the number of patients with a (near) complete pathological response after chemoradiation therapy and TEM. Secondary objectives are the local recurrence rate and quality of life after this combined therapeutic modality. A three-step analysis will be performed after 20, 33 and 55 patients to ensure the feasibility of this treatment protocol., Discussion: The CARTS-study is one of the first prospective multicentre trials to investigate the role of a rectum saving treatment modality using chemoradiation therapy and local excision. The CARTS study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01273051).

Background: Persisting abdominal complaints are common after an episode of diverticulitis treated conservatively. Furthermore, some patients develop frequent recurrences. These two groups of patients suffer greatly from their disease, as shown by impaired health related quality of life and increased costs due to multiple specialist consultations, pain medication and productivity losses.Both conservative and operative management of patients with persisting abdominal complaints after an episode of diverticulitis and/or frequently recurring diverticulitis are applied. However, direct comparison by a randomised controlled trial is necessary to determine which is superior in relieving symptoms, optimising health related quality of life, minimising costs and preventing diverticulitis recurrences against acceptable morbidity and mortality associated with surgery or the occurrence of a complicated recurrence after conservative management.We, therefore, constructed a randomised clinical trial comparing these two treatment strategies., Methods/design: The DIRECT trial is a multicenter randomised clinical trial. Patients (18-75 years) presenting themselves with persisting abdominal complaints after an episode of diverticulitis and/or three or more recurrences within 2 years will be included and randomised. Patients randomised for conservative treatment are treated according to the current daily practice (antibiotics, analgetics and/or expectant management). Patients randomised for elective resection will undergo an elective resection of the affected colon segment. Preferably, a laparoscopic approach is used.The primary outcome is health related quality of life measured by the Gastro-intestinal Quality of Life Index, Short-Form 36, EQ-5D and a visual analogue scale for pain quantification. Secondary endpoints are morbidity, mortality and total costs. The total follow-up will be three years., Discussion: Considering the high incidence and the multicenter design of this study, it may be assumed that the number of patients needed for this study (n = 214), may be gathered within one and a half year.Depending on the expertise and available equipment, we prefer to perform a laparoscopic resection on patients randomised for elective surgery. Should this be impossible, an open technique may be used as this also reflects the current situation., Trial Registration: (Trial register number: NTR1478).