Positive Circumferential Resection Margin Research Articles

Transperineal minimally invasive surgery during laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer could improve short-term outcomes: A single-institution retrospective cohort study.

Transperineal minimally invasive surgery (TpMIS) during laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (APR) is an emerging approach that allows for the precise treatment of lower rectal cancer. However, evidence regarding the efficacy of TpMIS is insufficient. This study evaluated the efficacy of TpMIS during laparoscopic APR for patients with lower rectal cancer. Patients who underwent laparoscopic APR with TpMIS (TpMIS group; n = 12) and those who underwent conventional laparoscopic APR for low rectal cancer (conventional group; n = 13) were enrolled consecutively in this retrospective study. Standardized TpMIS was performed at our institution. Patient and tumor characteristics and intraoperative, postoperative, and pathological outcomes were compared between groups. The primary outcome was postoperative perineal wound infection. No patients in the TpMIS group experienced postoperative perineal wound infection; however, five (38.5%) patients in the conventional group experienced postoperative perineal wound infection (significant difference; p = 0.016). The estimated blood loss (median, 81mL vs. 463mL) and incidence of postoperative urinary dysfunction (8.3% vs. 46.1%) were significantly lower in the TpMIS group than in the conventional group. The postoperative hospital stay (median, 13 vs. 20days) of the TpMIS group was significantly shorter than that of the conventional group. Pathological outcomes did not differ between groups. The positive circumferential resection margin rates of the TpMIS and conventional groups were 8.3% and 15.4%, respectively. TpMIS during laparoscopic APR was associated with significant improvements in the postoperative outcomes of patients with low rectal cancer.

The association of preoperative radiotherapy and surgery for AJCC stage I-III rectal adenocarcinoma: a population-based study

BackgroundWith the increasing application of neoadjuvant therapy in rectal adenocarcinoma, there remain many controversies in clinical practical applications. Preoperative radiotherapy (PR) can limit the surgical plane and potentially affect the quality of surgical treatment. This study aimed to investigate the potential impact of PR on the surgical quality of rectal adenocarcinoma.MethodsThis retrospective study analyzed the clinicopathological data from 6,585 AJCC stage I-III rectal adenocarcinoma in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 2010 to 2015. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and multivariate Cox proportional were used to assess the impact of PR on survival. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to balance the baseline covariates between the PR and non-PR groups and to compare postoperative pathological differences.ResultsAfter PSM, PR did not improve overall survival (OS) in stages I (p = 0.33), II (p = 0.37), and III (p = 0.14) patients. Multivariate Cox analysis indicated that PR was not an independent prognostic factor for patients. Restricted cubic spline (RCS) analysis demonstrated a nonlinear negative correlation between OS hazard ratios and both circumferential resection margin (CRM) and lymph node evaluation (LNE). Compared to the non-PR group, patients in the PR group had lower tumor deposits (TD) (p < 0.001), positive CRM (p = 0.191), and perineural invasion (PNI) (p = 0.001).ConclusionPR is not an independent prognostic factor for rectal adenocarcinoma patients. However, PR can reduce the likelihood of TD, CRM, and PNI, thereby potentially influencing the quality of surgery.

Structured training pathway for robotic colorectal surgery: Short-term outcomes from five UK centres.

The aim of this study was to assess the short-term outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery implemented through a structured, standardized training pathway in five colorectal centres in the United Kingdom. A multicentre retrospective observational study was conducted, involving 523 consecutive patients who underwent robotic colorectal resection between 2015 and 2019. All participating centres followed the European Academy of Robotic Colorectal Surgery training pathway. Patient data, including demographics, operative details, postoperative outcomes and pathology results, were collected and analysed. The study included 447 rectal resections and 76 colonic operations. The median age of the patients was 64.7 years, with the majority of patients (70%) being men. The mean body mass index was 27.4 kg/m2, and 89.7% of the patients underwent surgery for malignancy. The overall conversion rate to open surgery was 4.2%. The median length of stay was 6 days and there was no 30-day mortality. The readmission and reoperation rates were 8.8% and 7.3%, respectively. The anastomotic leak rate was 4.1% for rectal resections and 3.9% for colonic resections. Pathological examination showed a positive circumferential resection margin rate of 2.6%. Through the implementation of a structured, standardized training pathway, the participating colorectal centres in the UK achieved safe and effective robotic colorectal surgery pathways with favourable short-term oncological and clinical outcomes. Further studies examining long-term and functional outcomes are needed to assess the broader impact of robotic surgery in colorectal procedures.

Oncological outcome following Hartmann's procedure compared with anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer-The type of procedure does not influence local recurrence or distant metastasis: A population-based study.

The type of surgical procedure used in rectal cancer treatment may affect cancer recurrence. The aim of this study was to determine whether the type of procedure influences oncological outcomes in rectal cancer surgery. We gathered data from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry regarding patients with TNM Stage I-III rectal cancer who underwent R0/R1 surgery from 2013 to 2017. The outcomes after Hartmann's procedure (HP), anterior resection (AR) and abdominoperineal resection (APR) were compared, and a multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed. The primary outcome of the study was the local recurrence rate. The secondary outcomes were distant metastasis, disease-free survival and overall survival at 5 years as well as risk factors for local recurrence. A total of 4741 patients were included in the study: 614 underwent HP, 3075 underwent AR and 1052 underwent APR. Multivariable Cox regression revealed no difference in local recurrence, distant metastasis or disease-free survival. Overall survival was higher following AR (OR 0.62, CI 0.54-0.72). Risk factors for local recurrence were intraoperative bowel perforation (OR 2.41, CI 1.33-4.40), a pT4 tumour (OR 1.93, CI 1.11-3.4) and a positive circumferential resection margin (OR 5.62, CI 3.28-9.61). This nationwide study showed that the type of procedure did not affect the local recurrence rate or distant metastasis. In patients who are unfit for restorative surgery, HP is a viable alternative with oncological outcomes similar to those of APR.

Outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Robotic-assisted rectal surgery (RARS) and Laparoscopic-assisted rectal surgery are the two techniques that are increasingly used for rectal cancer, and both have their advantages and disadvantages. This meta-analysis will analyze the outcomes of both techniques to determine their relative performance and suitability. An extensive search was carried out on PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Embase, and Google Scholar, followed by a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess both approaches for rectal cancer. This meta-analysis is comprised of fifteen RCTs. The conversion to open surgery (RR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.38-0.74, P = 0.0002) was significantly lower in the RARS group. The outcomes like anastomotic leak, postoperative ileus, postoperative urinary retention (POUR), surgical site infection (SSI), and intra-abdominal abscess showed no significant difference between the two groups. The reoperation rate (RR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.34-0.95, P = 0.03) was lower in the robotic group. High heterogeneity was obtained when pooling data on operative time, length of hospital stay, and blood loss. Oncological outcomes, including local recurrence, the number of harvested lymph nodes (LN) and distal resection margin showed no significant distinction among both groups, while the positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.49-0.91, P = 0.01) was lower in the RARS group. RARS demonstrated a significantly higher rate of total mesorectal excision (TME) (RR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.01-1.14, P = 0.03). RARS is safe and feasible for rectal cancer patients and may be superior or equivalent to Laparoscopic-assisted rectal surgery, but high-standard, large-scale trials are required to determine the best approach.

358. IMPLICATIONS ON OVERALL SURVIVAL FROM POSITIVE CIRCUMFERENTIAL RESECTION MARGINS IN OESOPHAGEAL CANCER PATIENTS AT A TERTIARY REFERRAL CENTRE IN ENGLAND

Abstract Background The oesophagogastric (OG) tertiary referral centre at our Trust was established in March 2009.It caters to a catchment population of approximately 1.6 million. Oesophageal cancer is a morbid disease contributing to 18% of cancer mortalities worldwide. Involvement of circumferential resection margin (CRM) is an indicator of poor prognosis. The aim was to calculate the microscopic positive resection rate in patients undergoing resections for oesophageal cancers, assess disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in this cohort. Methods Patients undergoing oesophageal resections for cancer at our OG unit who satisfied the inclusion criteria - age&amp;gt;18, operation with curative intent, adenocarcinoma and squamous cell cancer with a microscopic positive resection margin (R1) were included. Data was collected from the electronic patient record (Quadramed). Retrospective analysis was performed using MS Excel and IBM SPSS statistics Ver 27. Results A total of 640 oesophageal cancer resections performed between April 2009 - March 2023, who satisfied the inclusion criteria were included. Median age at surgery was 66 years. The R1 rate was 40% in our cohort (R0:R1 =380:260). Male to female ratio in the R1 cohort was 4:1. 98% (255 patients) had T3/T4 disease. 47.7% (124 patients developed recurrence. Of these, 83.8% (104 patients) developed distant metastasis and 16.2 %(20 patients) had locoregional metastasis. Median time to recurrence was 12 months and disease-free survival was also12 months. The OS at one year of 81% (140/260) was comparable to national data. Conclusion We conclude that locally advanced tumour staged T3 and above is the most likely cause for higher rate of CRM positivity. Other factors that could contribute is the lack of serosal layer in the oesophagus and the practise of ex situ removal of nodes from the main specimen in theatre which could potentially lead to stripping of the adventitia thus making the CRM falsely R1 during pathological staging. The R1 status however does not seem to affect the overall survival rate.

Risk factors and treatment strategies for local recurrence of locally advanced rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by total mesorectal excision

BackgroundDespite advancements in total mesorectal excision (TME) and neoadjuvant radiotherapy, locally advanced rectal cancer remains challenging, impacting patient quality of life and mortality. This study aimed to identify the risk factors for local recurrence in locally advanced rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and assess treatment strategies for recurrence. MethodsThis retrospective analysis included 682 patients diagnosed with locally advanced rectal cancer who were treated with neoadjuvant CRT and TME at Samsung Medical Center from 2008 to 2017. The exclusion criteria ensured a homogenous cohort. Clinical staging involved colonoscopies, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and digital rectal exam. Risk factors, treatment modalities, and oncological outcomes for local recurrence were evaluated. ResultDuring a median 62-month follow-up, 47 patients (6.9 %) experienced local recurrence. The risk factors for local recurrence included a positive circumferential resection margin (CRM), venous invasion, and perineural invasion. Of the 47 patients with local recurrence, 25 (53.2 %) were considered resectable. Out of these, 23 patients underwent curative resections, and 15 (65.2 %) achieved R0 resection. Patients with R0 resections exhibited superior 5-year survival rates compared to R1-2 resection or non-surgical treatment, and there was no survival difference between R1-2 resection and non-surgical treatment. ConclusionIn locally advanced rectal cancer, positive CRM, venous invasion, and perineural invasion were associated with local recurrence. R0 resection showed favorable outcomes, emphasizing the importance of surveillance in high-risk patients. Treatment decisions should consider these factors for improved oncologic outcomes and quality of life.

Pathologic Outcomes and Survival in Patients with Rectal Cancer and Increased Body Mass Index

Introduction: We assessed the association between increased body mass index (BMI) and rectal cancer outcomes. Methods: We included patients who underwent surgery for stage I-III rectal adenocarcinoma who were divided according to BMI at diagnosis: ideal BMI (18.5–24.9 kg/m2) and increased BMI (≥25 kg/m2). Groups were compared using univariate association analyses relative to baseline characteristics, pathologic outcomes, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS). Main outcome measures involved circumferential resection margin (CRM), pathologic TNM stage, total mesorectal incision (TME) grade, OS, and DFS. Results: 243 patients (64.6% male; median age 59 years) with a median BMI of 26.3 kg/m2 were included. 62.1% had BMI ≥25 kg/m2. Increased BMI patients had similar proportions of males (66.9% vs. 60.9%; p = 0.407) and comorbidities (ASA III: 47% vs. 37.4%; p = 0.24) to ideal BMI patients. There were no significant differences in cN1-2 stage (p = 0.279) or positive CRM (p = 0.062) rates. The groups had similar complete/near-complete TME, pathologic TN stage, and survival rates. Pathologic and survival outcomes were also similar with a BMI cutoff of 30. Conclusions: There was a trend toward more nodal involvement in preoperative assessment and less CRM involvement in the final pathology of patients with increased BMI. Complete/near-complete TME and survival rates were comparable between the groups.

The mode of circumferential margin involvement in rectal cancer determines its impact on outcomes: A population-based study

BackgroundThe clinical value of different modes of CRM involvement in rectal cancer patients is unclear. This study aims to determine the clinical impact of different modes of circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement in patients with a locally advanced rectal carcinoma. Patients and methodsA cohort of patients who were diagnosed with stage III rectal cancer between June 2014 and June 2020 was selected from the prospective Dutch nationwide pathology databank (PALGA). Histopathological and clinical data were analyzed according to the nature of CRM involvement (via primary tumor invasion, lymph node metastasis, tumor deposit, multiple factors) and analyses on recurrence and overall survival (OS) were performed. Results3020 patients were included, of whom 12.4 % had a positive CRM. The majority of these patients (63.2 %) had CRM involvement by primary tumor invasion and in 9 % of patients multiple factors caused the positive CRM. The rates of local recurrence and distant metastasis were related to the nature of the CRM involvement, with lowest rate for lymph node metastasis and highest rate for multiple factors. On multivariate analysis, CRM involvement by primary tumor invasion, tumor deposits and multiple factors, but not by lymph node metastasis, were associated with poor OS. ConclusionThis nationwide population based study highlights the clinical importance of reporting the nature of CRM involvement in rectal cancer patients. Lymph node metastasis involving the CRM does not bear the same risks for local recurrence, distant metastases and OS as CRM involvement by primary tumor invasion or CRM involvement by multiple factors.

Comparative Outcomes of Robotic Versus Open Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer at High Risk of Positive Circumferential Resection Margin.

Concerns persist regarding the effectiveness of robotic proctectomy compared with open proctectomy for locally advanced rectal cancer with a high risk of circumferential resection margin involvement. Comparison of surrogate cancer outcomes after robotic versus open proctectomy in this subpopulation. Retrospective cohort study. Three academic hospitals (Mayo Clinic Arizona, Florida, and Rochester) with data available through the Mayo Data Explorer platform. Patients at high risk of circumferential resection margin involvement were selected on the basis of the MRI-based definition from the MERCURY I and II trials. Rate of pathologic circumferential resection margin involvement (≤1 mm), mesorectal grading, and rate of distal margin involvement. Out of 413 patients, 125 (30%) underwent open and 288 (70%) underwent robotic proctectomy. Open proctectomy was significantly associated with a greater proportion of cT4 tumors (39.3% vs 24.8%, p = 0.021), multivisceral/concomitant resections (40.8% vs 18.4%, p < 0.001), and less frequent total neoadjuvant therapy use (17.1% vs 47.1%, p = 0.001). Robotic proctectomy was less commonly associated with pathologic circumferential resection margin involvement (7.3% vs 17.6%, p = 0.002), including after adjustment for cT stage, neoadjuvant therapy, and multivisceral resection (OR 0.326; 95% CI, 0.157-0.670, p = 0.002). Propensity score matching for 66 patients per group and related multivariable analysis no longer indicated any reduction of circumferential positive margin rate associated with robotic surgery ( p = 0.86 and p = 0.18). Mesorectal grading was comparable (incomplete mesorectum in 6% robotic proctectomy patients vs 11.8% open proctectomy patients, p = 0.327). All cases had negative distal resection margins. Retrospective design. In patients with locally advanced rectal cancer at high risk of circumferential resection margin involvement, robotic proctectomy is an effective approach and could be pursued when technically possible as an alternative to open proctectomy. See Video Abstract . ANTECEDENTES:Persisten preocupaciones con respecto a la efectividad de la proctectomía robótica en comparación con la proctectomía abierta en casos de cáncer de recto localmente avanzado con un alto riesgo de margen de resección circunferencial positivo.OBJETIVO:Comparar los resultados en la subpoblación de portadores de cáncer luego de una proctectomía robótica versus una proctectomía abierta.DISEÑO:Estudio retrospectivo de cohortes.AJUSTE:Realizado en tres hospitales académicos (Mayo Clinic de Arizona, Florida y Rochester) a través de la plataforma Mayo Data Explorer.PACIENTES:Fueron seleccionados aquellos pacientes con alto riesgo de compromiso sobre el margen de resección circunferencial, según la definición de los Estudios Mercury I-II basada en la Imágen de Resonancia Magnética.MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO PRINCIPALES Y SECUNDARIAS:La tasa de compromiso patológico sobre el margen de resección circunferencial (≤1 mm), la clasificación mesorrectal y la tasa del compromiso del margen distal.RESULTADOS:De 413 pacientes, 125 (30%) fueron sometidos a una proctectomía abierta y 288 (70%) a proctectomía robótica. La proctectomía abierta se asoció significativamente con una mayor proporción de tumores cT4 (39,3% frente a 24,8%, p = 0,021), las resecciones multiviscerales/concomitantes fueron de 40,8% frente a 18,4%, p < 0,001 y una adminstración menos frecuente de terapia neoadyuvante total (17,1). % vs 47,1%, p = 0,001).La proctectomía robótica se asoció con menos frecuencia con la presencia de una lesión sobre el margen de resección circunferencial patológico (7,3% frente a 17,6%, p = 0,002), incluso después del ajuste por estadio cT, de la terapia neoadyuvante y de resección multivisceral (OR 0,326, IC 95% 0,157-0,670, p = 0,002). El apareado de propensión por puntuación en 66 pacientes por grupo y el análisis multivariable relacionado, no mostraron ninguna reducción en la tasa de margen positivo circunferencial asociado con la cirugía robótica ( p = 0,86 y p = 0,18). La clasificación mesorrectal fue igualmente comparable (mesorrecto incompleto en el 6% de los pacientes con RP frente al 11,8% de los pacientes con OP, p = 0,327). Todos los casos tuvieron márgenes de resección distal negativos.LIMITACIÓN:Diseño retrospectivo.CONCLUSIÓN:En pacientes con cáncer de recto localmente avanzado con alto riesgo de compromiso del margen de resección circunferencial, la proctectomía robótica es un enfoque eficaz y podría realizarse cuando sea técnicamente posible como alternativa a la proctectomía abierta. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo ).

Prolonged interval to surgery following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BackgroundLong-course neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT), followed by surgery after an interval of 6–8 weeks, represents standard of care for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Increasing this interval may improve rates of complete pathological response (pCR) and tumour downstaging. We performed a meta-analysis comparing standard (SI, within 8 weeks) versus longer (LI, after 8 weeks) interval from NCRT to surgery. MethodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched up to 31 August 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SI with LI after NCRT for LARC were included. The primary endpoint was pCR rate. Secondary endpoints included rates of R0 resection, circumferential resection margin positivity (+CRM), TME completeness, lymph node yield (LNY), operative duration, tumour downstaging (TD), sphincter preservation, mortality, postoperative complications, surgical site infection (SSI) and anastomotic leak (AL). Random effects models were used to calculate pooled effect size estimates. ResultsFour RCTs encompassing 867 patients were included. There were 539 males (62.1%). LI was associated with a higher pCR rate (OR 0.61, 95%CI ​= ​0.39–0.95, p ​= ​0.03), and more TD (OR 0.60, 95%CI ​= ​0.37–0.97, p ​= ​0.04) compared to SI. However, there was no difference in rates of R0 resection (p ​= ​0.87), +CRM (p ​= ​0.66), sphincter preservation (p ​= ​0.26), incomplete TME (p ​= ​0.49), LNY (p ​= ​0.55), SSI (p ​= ​0.33), AL (p ​= ​0.20), operative duration (p ​= ​0.07), mortality (p ​= ​0.89) or any surgical complication (p ​= ​0.91). ConclusionsA LI to surgery after NCRT for LARC increases pCR and TD rates. Local recurrence or survival were not assessed due to unavailable data. We recommend deferring TME until after an interval of 8 weeks following completion of NCRT.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer (REAL): Primary outcome of a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

3617 Background: Robotic surgery for rectal cancer is gaining popularity, but persuasive evidence on long-term oncological outcomes is lacking. This multicenter randomized controlled trial compared robotic and conventional laparoscopic surgery regarding surgical quality and long-term oncological outcomes among patients with middle and low rectal cancer. Previously the short-term outcomes of this trial had been reported that robotic surgery had significantly lower circumferential resection margin positivity rate, lower postoperative complication rate, and better postoperative recovery. Now the long-term oncological outcomes were reported. Methods: This superiority trial was undertaken at 11 hospitals in 8 Chinese provinces. Patients with middle (&gt; 5–10 cm from anal verge) or low (0–5 cm from anal verge) rectal adenocarcinoma, cT1–T3 N0–1 or ycT1–T3 Nx after preoperative radio-/chemoradiotherapy, and no evidence of distant metastasis were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive robotic or conventional laparoscopic surgery. The 3-year locoregional recurrence rate was the primary outcome and was compared using modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis. Secondary outcomes included disease-free survival and overall survival. All time-to-event outcomes were calculated using Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02817126). Results: Between July 2016 and December 2020, 1240 patients were enrolled, and 1171 were included in the mITT analysis (586 in robotic and 585 in laparoscopic group). The pathological TNM stage of the mITT population was 73 (6.2%) patients with complete response, 346 (29.5%) with stage I, 368 (31.4%) with stage II, 384 (32.8%) with stage III. And the median follow-up time was 43.0 months (interquartile range = 36.7 to 60.0), with 34 (2.9%) patients lost to follow-up. The 3-year locoregional recurrence rate in robotic group (1.5%) was significantly lower than in laparoscopic group (4.0%, log-rank p=0.025, hazard ratio = 0.451, 95% confidence interval = 0.221 to 0.921). Robotic group also had significantly higher 3-year disease-free survival rate (87.3% vs. 83.6%, log-rank p=0.035). No significant difference was observed in 3-year overall survival rate (94.8% vs. 93.1%, log-rank p=0.155). Conclusions: Robotic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer significantly reduced locoregional recurrence and improved disease-free survival, compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery. Clinical trial information: NCT02817126 .

Robotic vs laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: A propensity score matching cohort study and meta-analysis.

Robotic surgery (RS) is gaining popularity; however, evidence for abdominoperineal resection (APR) of rectal cancer (RC) is scarce. To compare the efficacy of RS and laparoscopic surgery (LS) in APR for RC. We retrospectively identified patients with RC who underwent APR by RS or LS from April 2016 to June 2022. Data regarding short-term surgical outcomes were compared between the two groups. To reduce the effect of potential confounding factors, propensity score matching was used, with a 1:1 ratio between the RS and LS groups. A meta-analysis of seven trials was performed to compare the efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic APR for RC surgery. Of 133 patients, after propensity score matching, there were 42 patients in each group. The postoperative complication rate was significantly lower in the RS group (17/42, 40.5%) than in the LS group (27/42, 64.3%) (P = 0.029). There was no significant difference in operative time (P = 0.564), intraoperative transfusion (P = 0.314), reoperation rate (P = 0.314), lymph nodes harvested (P = 0.309), or circumferential resection margin (CRM) positive rate (P = 0.314) between the two groups. The meta-analysis showed patients in the RS group had fewer positive CRMs (P = 0.04), lesser estimated blood loss (P < 0.00001), shorter postoperative hospital stays (P = 0.02), and fewer postoperative complications (P = 0.002) than patients in the LS group. Our study shows that RS is a safe and effective approach for APR in RC and offers better short-term outcomes than LS.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomised controlled trials.

Robotic surgery (RS) is gaining prominence in colorectal procedures owing to advantages like three-dimensional vision and enhanced dexterity, particularly in rectal surgery. Although recent reviews report similar outcomes between laparoscopic surgery (LS) and RS, this study investigates the evolving trends in outcomes over time, paralleling the increasing experience in RS. A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression were conducted of randomised controlled trials exploring postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing RS or LS for colorectal pathology. The primary outcome measure was postoperative complications. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's assessment tool. Randomised controlled trials were identified from the PubMed®, Embase® and CINAHL® (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) databases via the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Of 491 articles screened, 13 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of postoperative complications revealed no significant difference between RS and LS (relative risk [RR]: 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79 to 1.18, p=0.72). Meta-regression analysis of postoperative complications demonstrated a significant trend favouring RS over time (yearly change in Ln(RR): -0.0620, 95% CI: -0.1057 to -0.0183, p=0.005). Secondary outcome measures included operative time, length of stay, blood loss, conversion to open surgery, positive circumferential resection margins and lymph nodes retrieved. The only significant findings were shorter operative time favouring LS (mean difference: 41.48 minutes, 95% CI: 22.15 to 60.81 minutes, p<0.001) and fewer conversions favouring RS (RR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.85, p=0.007). As experience in RS grows, evidence suggests an increasing safety profile for patients. Meta-regression revealed a significant temporal trend with complication rates favouring RS over LS. Heterogeneous reporting of complications hindered subgroup analysis of minor and major complications. LS remains quicker. Rising adoption of RS coupled with emerging evidence is expected to further elucidate its clinical efficacy.

Feasibility of robotic-assisted surgery in advanced rectal cancer: a multicentre prospective phase II study (VITRUVIANO trial).

The potential benefits of robotic-assisted compared with laparoscopic surgery for locally advanced cancer have not been sufficiently proven by prospective studies. One factor is speculated to be the lack of strict surgeon criteria. The aim of this study was to assess outcomes for robotic surgery in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer with strict surgeon experience criteria. A criterion was set requiring surgeons to have performed more than 40 robotically assisted operations for rectal cancer. Between March 2020 and May 2022, patients with rectal cancer (distance from the anal verge of 12 cm or less, cT2-T4a, cN0-N3, cM0, or cT1-T4a, cN1-N3, cM0) were registered. The primary endpoint was the rate positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) from the pathological specimen. Secondary endpoints were surgical outcomes, pathological results, postoperative complications, and longterm outcomes. Of the 321 registered patients, 303 were analysed, excluding 18 that were ineligible. At diagnosis: stage I (n = 68), stage II (n = 84) and stage III (n = 151). Neoadjuvant therapy was used in 56 patients. There were no conversions to open surgery. The median console time to rectal resection was 170 min, and the median blood loss was 5 ml. Fourteen patients had a positive CRM (4.6%). Grade III-IV postoperative complications were observed in 13 patients (4.3%). Robotic-assisted surgery is feasible for locally advanced rectal cancer when strict surgeon criteria are used.

Changes in clinical guidelines for the treatment of colorectal cancer in 2024

Aim. The ensuring that changes to clinical guidelines can be discussed more widely before they are formally introduced into clinical practice.Materials and methods. A brief review of the literature and rationale for each proposed major change in the treatment section is presented. The refusal to carry out preoperative radiation therapy for cancer of the upper ampullary rectum, the narrowing of indications for preoperative radiation therapy for cancer of the mid-ampullary rectum, as well as the expansion of indications for total non-adjuvant chemotherapy for rectal cancer with damage to the circular resection margin are discussed. Changes to the drug treatment section are discussed.Results. This article presents planned changes to clinical guidelines for the treatment of non-metastatic colorectal cancer in 2024. The most significant alterations concerned neoadjuvant treatment of rectal cancer and adjuvant treatment of colon cancer. A new algorithm was proposed for choosing rectal cancer neoadjuvant therapy, considering individual treatment decisions.Conclusion. A consensus was achieved concerning the necessity to expand indications for neoadjuvant rectal cancer chemotherapy, but only in patients with good functional status. The most benefit can be achieved in patients, for whom complete clinical response is the aim of the treatment and in patients with positive circumferential resection margin.

Predicting survival in locally advanced rectal cancer with effective chemoradiotherapy response

BackgroundLocally advanced rectal cancer patients often display favorable responses and favorable oncologic outcomes. Due to the low recurrence rate, there is scarcity of studies investigating the prognostic factors influencing their survival. Therefore, our study sought to assess the prognostic factors associated with survival in rectal cancer patients who achieved either a pathologic complete response or a pathologic stage I after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy combined with radical resection. MethodsIn this retrospective study, we analyzed data from cohort of 1394 patients diagnosed with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision from January 2008 to April 2017. Finally, we selected 474 (34.2 %) who exhibited either a pathologic complete response or attained pathologic stage I following the treatment. Subsequently, we analyzed the prognostic factors influencing disease-free and overall survival. ResultsA total of 161 (34 %) achieved a pathologic complete response. Our analysis revealed that circumferential resection margin and the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy were prognostic factors for disease-free survival (p = 0.011, p = 0.022). Furthermore, factors influencing overall survival included the clinical N stage and administration of adjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.035, p = 0.015). ConclusionIn conclusion, the circumferential resection margin, clinical N stage, and administration of adjuvant chemotherapy were prognostic factors for survival in patients showing good response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer. For patients with a positive circumferential resection margin and clinical N (+) stage, intensive follow-up might be needed to achieve favorable oncologic outcomes. Also, we recommend considering adjuvant chemotherapy as a beneficial treatment approach for these patients.

Precision Identification of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer in Denoised CT Scans Using EfficientNet and Voting System Algorithms.

Local advanced rectal cancer (LARC) poses significant treatment challenges due to its location and high recurrence rates. Accurate early detection is vital for treatment planning. With magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) being resource-intensive, this study explores using artificial intelligence (AI) to interpret computed tomography (CT) scans as an alternative, providing a quicker, more accessible diagnostic tool for LARC. In this retrospective study, CT images of 1070 T3-4 rectal cancer patients from 2010 to 2022 were analyzed. AI models, trained on 739 cases, were validated using two test sets of 134 and 197 cases. By utilizing techniques such as nonlocal mean filtering, dynamic histogram equalization, and the EfficientNetB0 algorithm, we identified images featuring characteristics of a positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) for the diagnosis of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Importantly, this study employs an innovative approach by using both hard and soft voting systems in the second stage to ascertain the LARC status of cases, thus emphasizing the novelty of the soft voting system for improved case identification accuracy. The local recurrence rates and overall survival of the cases predicted by our model were assessed to underscore its clinical value. The AI model exhibited high accuracy in identifying CRM-positive images, achieving an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.89 in the first test set and 0.86 in the second. In a patient-based analysis, the model reached AUCs of 0.84 and 0.79 using a hard voting system. Employing a soft voting system, the model attained AUCs of 0.93 and 0.88, respectively. Notably, AI-identified LARC cases exhibited a significantly higher five-year local recurrence rate and displayed a trend towards increased mortality across various thresholds. Furthermore, the model's capability to predict adverse clinical outcomes was superior to those of traditional assessments. AI can precisely identify CRM-positive LARC cases from CT images, signaling an increased local recurrence and mortality rate. Our study presents a swifter and more reliable method for detecting LARC compared to traditional CT or MRI techniques.

Evaluation of racial/ethnic disparities in surgical outcomes after rectal cancer resection: An ACS-NSQIP analysis

BackgroundDisparities exist the management of rectal cancer. We sought to evaluate short-term surgical outcomes among different racial/ethnic groups following rectal cancer resection. Materials and MethodsNational Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database (2016–2019) was queried. Patients undergoing rectal cancer resection were categorized by race/ethnicity. Circumferential resection margin positivity rate and postoperative outcomes were evaluated. 1:1 Propensity score matching (PSM) was used. ResultsOf 1,753 patients, 80.2 % were White, 7.6 % Black, 8.5 % Asian and 3.7 % Hispanic. On unadjusted analysis, Hispanic patients presented longer operative time(p = 0.029), and Black patients higher postoperative ileus(p = 0.003) and readmission(p = 0.023) rates. After PSM, Hispanics had a significantly higher circumferential resection margin positivity rate(p = 0.032), Black patients higher postoperative ileus rate(p = 0.014) and longer LOS(p = 0.0118) when compared to White counterparts. ConclusionRacial disparities were found in short-term postoperative outcomes. Hispanic patients presented higher margin positivity rate and Black patients worst 30-day postoperative outcomes. Comparative studies evaluating trends and a higher number of minority patients included in databases are warranted.

Pelvic Diameter is not Associated with Positive Circumferential Resection Margin in Rectal Cancer: Retrospective Analysis of 78 Cases

Abstract Objective To identify if there is an association between pelvic entry and pelvic outlet diameters with increased positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) in rectal cancer. Introduction Positive CRM in rectal cancer is a major predictor for local and distant recurrence. Pelvic diameters may be related to the difficulty of dissection, as well as intrinsic tumor characteristics such as tumor size, location, distance from the anal margin, and T stage, which may compromise the integrity of the mesorectum and circumferential margin involvement. Methods A retrospective review of the patient's medical records who underwent surgical resection of rectal adenocarcinoma from January 2012 to June 2022 was performed. The patient's preoperative staging, operative characteristics, and histopathologic outcomes were gathered from the medical records. Preoperative MRI scanning was done in all patients. MRI pelvimetry was done by two observers. CRM involvement was recorded as stated in the pathology report. Pelvimetry variables were dichotomized according to their mean values for correlation analysis. The odds ratio (OR) was calculated from a binary logistics regression model to assess the relation between the positive CRM and the independent variables. Results A total of 78 patients were included in this study. A positive CRM was reported in 10 patients (12.8%). BMI &gt;27.4 + 6.6 (p = 0.02), positive extramural vascular invasion (p = 0.027), positive CRM by MRI scanning (p = 0.004), and anal sphincter involvement (p = 0.03) were associated with positive CRM. Pelvimetry values were not associated with a positive CRM. Conclusion No association was found between the pelvic diameters measured by MRI pelvimetry with a positive CRM.