Positive Circumferential Resection Margin Research Articles

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.

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.

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.

Short-term results in a population based study indicate advantage for minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery versus open

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to determine if minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for rectal cancer is non-inferior to open surgery (OPEN) regarding adequacy of cancer resection in a population based setting.MethodsAll 9,464 patients diagnosed with rectal cancer 2012–2018 who underwent curative surgery were included from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry. Primary outcomes: Positive circumferential resection margin (CRM < 1 mm) and positive resection margin (R1). Non-inferiority margins used were 2.4% and 4%. Secondary outcomes: 30- and 90-day mortality, clinical anastomotic leak, re-operation < 30 days, 30- and 90-day re-admission, length of stay (LOS), distal resection margin < 1 mm and < 12 resected lymph nodes. Analyses were performed by intention-to-treat using unweighted and weighted multiple regression analyses.ResultsThe CRM was positive in 3.8% of the MIS group and 5.4% of the OPEN group, risk difference -1.6% (95% CI -1.623, -1.622). R1 was recorded in 2.8% of patients in the MIS group and in 4.4% of patients in the OPEN group, risk difference -1.6% (95% CI -1.649, -1.633). There were no differences between the groups in adjusted unweighted and weighted analyses. All analyses demonstrated decreased mortality and re-admissions at 30 and 90 days as well as shorter LOS following MIS.ConclusionsIn this population based setting MIS for rectal cancer was non-inferior to OPEN regarding adequacy of cancer resection with favorable short-term outcomes.

Short-term outcomes of robotic vs. laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy: a meta-analysis.

The effect of robotic surgery (RS) for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy is still controversial, and a comprehensive search and analysis of the current relevant evidence is necessary. Our study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of RS for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS). Up to August 23, 2023, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies of RS for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy. Odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) was used to calculate the effect sizes using RevMan 5.3. A total of 12 studies reporting on 11,686 participants were included. Compared with LS, RS increased the operative time (MD 35.16 min; 95% CI: 16.24, 54.07), but it did significantly reduce the risk of the conversion to open surgery (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.40, 0.53) and improved the TME incomplete rate (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.17, 0.93). Moreover, there were no difference in total postoperative complications (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.84, 1.52), circumferential resection margin positivity (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.63, 1.27), distal margin positive (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.29, 1.22), blood loss (MD -11.57 ml; 95% CI: -39.09, 15.94), length of hospital stay (MD -0.08 days; 95% CI: -1.26, 1.10), mortality (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.29, 1.21), lymph node harvested (MD 0.69.; 95% CI: -0.43, 1.82), and the time of first flatus (MD -0.47 days; 95% CI: -1.19, 0.25) between the two groups. RS was associated with superiority over LS in reducing the risk of the conversion to open surgery and improving TME incomplete rate, which suggested that RS could be an effective method for treating rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=460084, PROSPERO (CRD42023460084).

Circumferential resection margin positivity due to direct or indirect tumour involvement in rectal cancer - a call for better stratification.

A positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) after rectal cancer surgery, which can be the result of direct or indirect tumour involvement, has consistently been associated with increased local recurrence and poorer survival. However, little is known of the differential impact of the mode of tumour involvement on outcomes. 1460 consecutive patients undergoing rectal cancer resection between 2003 and 2018 were retrospectively assessed. Histopathology reports for patients with a positive CRM were reviewed to determine cases of direct (R1-tumour) or indirect tumour involvement (R1-other). Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis. The role of the mode of CRM positivity was examined by univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models. Eighty-five patients had an R1 resection due to CRM involvement (5.8%). Of those, 69 were due to direct tumour involvement, while 16 were from indirect causes. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that R1-other was associated with increased OS (hazard ratio 0.40, log-rank P = 0.006) and DFS (P = 0.043). Multivariate regression confirmed that the mode of CRM positivity was an independent predictor of OS. More interestingly, the patterns of recurrence were different between the two groups, with R1-tumour leading to significantly more local recurrence (P = 0.04). Our data strongly suggests that direct tumour involvement of the CRM confers worse prognosis after rectal cancer surgery. Importantly, differences in the site and frequency of recurrences make a case for better stratification of patients with a positive CRM to guide treatment decisions.

Efficiency of the Robotic Platform in Improving the Rate of Sphincter Preservation in Patients With Mid and Low Rectal Cancer.

The aim of this study was to investigate whether the robotic platform can have a positive impact on the rate of sphincter preservation in patients with rectal tumors, undergoing robotic total mesorectal excision (TME), in comparison with laparoscopic or open TME. We also analyzed and compared short-term outcomes. A prospectively collected robotic database was reviewed and compared with the trust and national data. Three groups were designed according to the surgical technique: open, laparoscopic and robotic. This includes all resections for mid and low rectal cancer which were performed with the robotic platform, over a period of 4 years, versus the trust data for the same period. Two hundred ninety-seven patients with mid and low rectal cancers were analyzed. Demographics for the groups (gender, age, and body mass index) were similar but distance from anal verge was shorter in the robotic group (7 vs. 8.5 cm, P < 0.001). The percentage of abdominoperineal resection (APR) rate was significantly lower in the robotic group (13.5% vs. 39.6% vs. 52.4% for the open group, P < 0.001). Median length of stay, complication rate, and positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) rate for the robotic group were also statistically significantly lower than those for both laparoscopic and open groups. Robotic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer is safe and feasible, and could help surgeons perform ultra-low anterior resections, rather than APRs and save patients' sphincters. Positive CRM is low, which could lead to improved oncological outcomes.

Laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer: The myth of reinventing the wheel.

To review oncological outcomes of laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision (LAP-ELAPE) for low rectal cancer.In locally advanced low rectal cancer, ELAPE which is en-bloc resection of levator muscles along with the tumor in a prone position has significantly decreased the rate of having either positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) or tumor perforation. The aim of the study was to determine the oncological outcomes of laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision (LAP-ELAPE) for low rectal cancer. This retrospective study was performed at Shaukat Khanum Cancer Hospital and Research Centre Lahore. Patients who underwent ELAPE for low rectal and anal cancer from January 2014 to December 2019 were selected. Data was collected using an electronic database through a hospital information system. A total of 82 patients were included in the study having a median age of 39 years. Clinically preoperative tumor sizes were T2:2, T3:65, T4:15. Neo-adjuvant chemo radiotherapy was administered to 79 (96.3%) patients. Pathologically tumor sizes were T0:12, T2:15, T3:50, T4:5 with 79.2% (n=65) R0 resections. The mean operative time was 340.36±64.51 minutes and the mean blood loss was 99 milliliters. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 6.58±4.64 days. Seventeen (20.7%) cases had pathological circumferential resection margins positive (pCRM<1mm). However, tumor perforation was found in 8(9.8%) patients. Ninety days mortality was none while 36 patients experienced recurrence (local: 23, distant: 30, local + distant 17). The median survival time was 53.00±2.69 months. For locally advanced low rectal cancer, ELAPE has evolved as a safe oncological procedure with acceptable outcomes.

Comparing perioperative and oncological outcomes of transanal and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and prospective studies.

Meta-analysis of the results of transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) and laparoscopic TME (laTME) regarding perioperative and oncological outcomes have been conducted. Due to the lack of high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies in the included literature, the conclusions are unreliable. This study included RCTs and prospective studies for analysis to obtain more reliable conclusions. Systematic searches of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were conducted up to June 2023. To assess the quality, the Cochrane quality assessment tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were employed. The perioperative and oncological outcomes were then analyzed. The I2 statistic was used to evaluate statistical heterogeneity and sensitivity analyses was conducted. A total of 22 studies, comprising 5056 patients, were included in the analysis, of which 6 were RCTs and 16 were prospective studies. The conversion rate in the taTME group was significantly lower than that in the laTME group (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.22, P < 0.01), and the circumferential resection margin (CRM) was longer (MD 0.99mm, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.32mm, P < 0.01), with a lower rate of positive CRM involvement (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.97, P = 0.03). No statistically significant differences were found in terms of the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, complications, anastomotic leakage, uroschesis, obstruction, secondary operation, hospital stay, urethral injury, readmission, mortality rate within 30days, mesorectal resection quality, number of harvested lymph nodes, distal resection margin (DRM), positive DRM, local recurrence, and distance recurrence (P > 0.05). According to the findings of this meta-analysis, which is based on RCTs and prospective studies, taTME appears to have an advantage over laTME in terms of conversion rate and CRM involvement.

Impact of trans-anal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision on the surgical and pathologic outcomes of patients with rectal cancer: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Despite its profound impact on the oncologic outcomes of rectal cancer, the most optimal surgical approach to total mesorectal excision (TME) has not been identified yet. All previous meta-analyses on this subject have been based on observational studies. This meta-analysis was conducted to assess the surgical and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic TME (LaTME) compared to trans-anal TME (TaTME), utilizing only randomized controlled trials. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Clinicaltials.gov) from 2010 onwards, for all published clinical trials comparing TaTME to LaTME. Results are presented as risk ratios, with 95% CI, and pooled using the random effects model. A total of 1691 patients, from 6 eligible randomized controlled trials, were included for analysis. Analyzed data showed no significant difference in morbidity (RR: 0.85, p = 0.15), mortality (RR: 0.50, p = 0.44), conversion to open (RR: 0.40, p = 0.07), or anastomotic leakage (RR: 0.73, p = 0.10) between TaTME and LaTME. There was also no difference in the rate of positive distal resection margin (DRM) (RR: 0.55, p = 0.10) or positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) (RR: 0.67, p = 0.30). Patients undergoing TaTME were more likely to have a complete TME (RR: 1.06, p = 0.002) and shorter hospital stays (RR: - 0.97, p < 0.00001). Patients undergoing TaTME for rectal cancer were more likely to have a complete TME when compared to LaTME, though this did not translate into improved distal or circumferential resection margin. Additionally, TaTME and LaTME had similar surgical outcomes except for shorter length of stay with TaTME.

Reporting of Circumferential Resection Margin in Rectal Cancer Surgery

Circumferential resection margin (CRM) in rectal cancer surgery is a major prognostic indicator associated with local recurrence and overall survival. Facility rates of CRM positivity have recently been established as a new quality measure by the Commission on Cancer (CoC); however, the completeness of CRM status reporting is not well characterized. To describe the changes in CRM reporting and factors associated with low rates of reporting. A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from the National Cancer Database between January 2010 and December 2019. Data were analyzed between October 1, 2021, and February 1, 2022. Data from the National Cancer Database included patients diagnosed with nonmetastatic rectal adenocarcinoma receiving surgical treatment at CoC-accredited facilities throughout the US. Patient, tumor, and facility-level factors. Facilities were divided by surgical volume, safety-net status, and CoC facility type. Circumferential resection margin missingness rates. A total of 110 571 patients (59.3% men) with rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent curative-intent surgery at 1307 CoC-accredited hospitals were included for analysis. Reporting of CRM improved over the study period, with a mean (SE) missing 12.0% (0.32%) decreased from 16.3% (0.36%). Academic facilities had a higher missingness than other facility types (14.3% vs 10.5%-12.7%; P < .001). Mean (SE) rates of missingness were similar between hospitals of varying volume (lowest quartile: 12.2% [0.93%] vs highest quartile: 12.4% [0.53%]; P = .96). Cases in which fewer than 12 lymph nodes were removed had higher rates of missingness (18.1% vs 11.4%; P < .001). Increased odds of CRM missingness were noted with T category (odds ratio [OR], 1.50; 95% CI, 1.35-1.65) and N category (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.82-2.20). Black race was associated with missingness (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.06-1.14). Although CRM positivity reporting has improved over the last decade, the findings of this study suggest there is substantial room for improvement as it becomes a quality standard. Missingness appears to be associated with poor performance on other quality metrics and facility type. This measure appears to be ideal for targeted institution-level feedback to improve quality of care nationally.

Multimodal assessment after total neoadjuvant therapy versus standard neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer accurately predicts complete responders.

This study aimed to compare local regrowth rates after total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) versus standard neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (SNCRT) in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) patients that were strictly selected and assessed with a multimodal approach. Secondary outcomes were 4-year disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates. Locally advanced rectal cancer patients without distant metastases treated at Koç Healthcare Group between January 2014 and January 2021 were included. Patients were assessed for complete response with a combination of digital rectal exam, endoscopy, and magnetic resonance imaging with a dedicated rectum protocol. The systemic evaluation was performed with an upper abdomen MRI using intravenous hepatobiliary contrast agent and a thorax CT. Of the 270 patients with LARC, 182 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Ninety-seven (53.3%) underwent TNT, while 85 (46.7%) underwent SNCRT. A cumulative combination of pathological and sustained clinical complete response was significantly higher in the TNT group than in the SNCRT (45.4% vs. 20.0%, p < 0.0001). After a median follow-up of 48months, seven patients in the W&W group had regrowth [TNT: 4 (10.8%) vs. SNCRT: 3 (23.1%), p = 0.357]. Based on pathological examination, complete/near complete mesorectum rates (p = 1.000) and circumferential resection margin positivity rates (p = 1.000) were similar between the groups. The 4-year DFS and OS rates were comparable. The patients with clinical or pathological complete response had significantly longer overall survival (p = 0.017) regardless of the type of neoadjuvant treatment. Multimodal assessment after TNT effectively detects complete responders, resulting in low local recurrence and increased cumulative complete response rates. However, these outcomes did not translate into a survival advantage.

What is the impact of hospital and surgeon volumes on outcomes in rectal cancer surgery?

Evidence for a positive volume-outcome relationship for rectal cancer surgery is unclear. This study aims to evaluate the volume-outcome relationship for rectal cancer surgery at hospital and surgeon level in the English National Health Service (NHS). All patients undergoing a rectal cancer resection in the English NHS between 2015 and 2019 were included. Multilevel multivariable logistic regression was used to model relationships between outcomes and mean annual hospital and surgeon volumes (using a linear plus a quadratic term for volume) with adjustment for patient characteristics. A total of 13 858 patients treated in 166 hospitals were included. Six hospitals (3.6%) performed fewer than 10 rectal cancer resections per year, and 381 surgeons (45.0%) performed fewer than five such resections per year. Patients treated by high-volume surgeons had a reduced length of stay (p = 0.016). No statistically significant volume-outcome relationships were demonstrated for 90-day mortality, 30-day unplanned readmission, unplanned return to theatre, stoma at 18 months following anterior resection, positive circumferential resection margin and 2-year all-cause mortality at either hospital or surgeon level (p values > 0.05). Almost half of colorectal surgeons in England do not meet national guidelines for rectal cancer surgeons to perform a minimum of five major resections annually. However, our results suggest that centralizing rectal cancer surgery with the main focus of increasing operative volume may have limited impact on NHS surgical outcomes. Therefore, quality improvement initiatives should address a wider range of evidence-based process measures, across the multidisciplinary care pathway, to enhance outcomes for patients with rectal cancer.

The prognostic role of positive circumferential resection margins after curative intent surgery for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma

The prognostic role of positive circumferential resection margins after curative intent surgery for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma

Does robotic TME bring difference in lymph node yield and quality of TME?

Oncological outcomes of the robotic low anterior rectal resection with total mesorectal excision (TME) are still under discussion. Few studies have proven that robotic TME (rTME) is a safe and equivalent method for treatment of rectal carcinoma. But there is almost no comparison between the rTME and conventional TME in terms of the number of lymph nodes obtained and the quality of the TME. A single institution retrospective study was designed in a cohort of 261 patients. Cohort was divided into two groups depending on the type of surgery (rTME versus TME) and within these two groups, patients were divided according to whether they underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCHRT) or did not. The primary objective of the study was to compare obtained number of the lymph nodes in specimen. Secondary objectives were comparison of the quality of the TME and the number of positive circumferential resection margins. Results of the study have shown no significant difference in number of the lymph nodes obtained by the rTME and TME. There was no difference in the quality of the TME, neither in the group with the previous nCHRT nor in the group without a nCHRT. With results from the study we consider the rTME to be non-inferior to the conventional TME. Therefore, at least identical oncological results can be expected in patients treated by the rTME.

SP10.6 Comparison of clinicopathological features of colorectal cancer during and after lockdown

Abstract Aims When the UK entered the lockdown, the cancer pathways changed in order to deal with the pandemic and protect cancer patients who are at high risk from the virus. The objective of our study is to compare the clinicopathological features of colorectal cancer (CRC) during and after lockdown. Methods Patients who underwent colorectal surgeries for CRC between Feb-2020 to Aug-2022 were included in the study. All patient related and disease specific details were obtained from the prospectively collected database. Patients were divided in to two groups: Surgeries before (group-A: during lockdown) and after 22/2/21 (group-B: after lockdown). Patient demographics and pathological details were collected and analysed using standard statistical tests. Results A total of 528 patients underwent surgeries during this period, of which 422 had cancer resections. During lockdown 187 patients had cancer resections (Group-A) and 235 patients had surgery for cancer after lockdown (Group-B). The median age of patients is 72 and 73 years in group-A and B respectively (p-value:0.29). There is no difference between the two groups with respect to tumour, nodal staging and extramural vascular invasion. The median lymphnode yield is 20 (range:0-80) in group-A compared to group-B where the yield was 21 (range:0-102) (p-value:0.720). There were 44 patients with rectal cancer in group-A of which 4.55% had circumferential resection margin positivity (CRM) and 6.77% (4 of 59) of rectal cancers patients in group-B had CRM positivity (p-value:0.229). Conclusions There was no difference in clinicopathological features of patients having colorectal surgery during and after lockdown.