Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Cytoreductive Surgery (CRS) with or without hyperthermic IntraPEritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC): Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations — Part I: Preoperative and intraoperative management

BackgroundEnhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways have been shown to considerably reduce complications, length of stay and costs after most of surgical procedures by standardised application of best evidence-based perioperative care. The aim was to elaborate dedicated recommendations for cytoreductive surgery (CRS) ± hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in a two-part series of guidelines based on expert consensus. The present part I of the guidelines highlights preoperative and intraoperative management.MethodsThe core group assembled a multidisciplinary panel of 24 experts involved in peritoneal surface malignancy surgery representing the fields of general surgery (n = 12), gynaecological surgery (n = 6), and anaesthesia (n = 6). Experts systematically reviewed and summarized the available evidence on 72 identified perioperative care items, following the GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, evaluation) system. Final consensus (defined as ≥50%, or ≥70% of weak/strong recommendations combined) was reached by a standardised 2-round Delphi process, regarding the strength of recommendations.ResultsResponse rates were 100% for both Delphi rounds. Quality of evidence was evaluated high, moderate low and very low, for 15 (21%), 26 (36%), 29 (40%) and 2 items, respectively. Consensus was reached for 71/72(98.6%) items. Strong recommendations were defined for 37 items, No consensus could be reached regarding the preemptive use of fresh frozen plasma.ConclusionThe present ERAS recommendations for CRS±HIPEC are based on a standardised expert consensus process providing clinicians with valuable guidance. There is an urgent need to produce high quality studies for CRS±HIPEC and to prospectively evaluate recommendations in clinical practice.     

Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Cytoreductive Surgery (CRS) with or without hyperthermic IntraPEritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC): Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations — Part II: Postoperative management and special considerations

BackgroundEnhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways have been shown to considerably reduce complications, length of stay and costs after most of surgical procedures by standardised application of best evidence-based perioperative care. The aim was to elaborate dedicated recommendations for cytoreductive surgery (CRS) ± hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in a two-part series of guidelines based on expert consensus. The present part II of the guidelines highlights postoperative management and special considerations.MethodsThe core group assembled a multidisciplinary panel of 24 experts involved in peritoneal surface malignancy surgery representing the fields of general surgery (n = 12), gynaecological surgery (n = 6), and anaesthesia (n = 6). Experts systematically reviewed and summarized the available evidence on 72 identified perioperative care items, following the GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, evaluation) system. Final consensus (defined as ≥50%, or ≥70% of weak/strong recommendations combined) was reached by a standardised 2-round Delphi process, regarding the strength of recommendations.ResultsResponse rates were 100% for both Delphi rounds. Quality of evidence was evaluated high, moderate low and very low, for 15 (21%), 26 (36%), 29 (40%) and 2 items, respectively. Consensus was reached for 71/72(98.6%) items. Strong recommendations were defined for 37 items. No consensus could be reached regarding the preemptive use of fresh frozen plasma.ConclusionThe present ERAS recommendations for CRS ± HIPEC are based on a standardised expert consensus process providing clinicians with valuable guidance. There is an urgent need to produce high quality studies for CRS ± HIPEC and to prospectively evaluate recommendations in clinical practice.     

Consensus guidelines for pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy: Technical aspects and treatment protocols

BackgroundPressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is increasingly used to treat patients with peritoneal cancer. A recent survey demonstrated considerable diversification of current practice of PIPAC raising issues of concern also regarding safety and efficacy. The study aim was to reach consensus on best practice of PIPAC treatment.MethodsCurrent practice was critically discussed during an expert meeting and the available evidence was scrutinized to elaborate a 33-item closed-ended questionnaire. All active PIPAC centers were then invited to participate in an online two-round Delphi process with 3 reminders at least. Consensus was defined a priori as >70% agreement for a minimal response rate of 70%.ResultsForty-nine out of 57 invited PIPAC centers participated in Delphi 1 and 2 (86%). Overall, there was agreement for 21/33 items. Consensus was reached for important aspects like advanced OR ventilation system (91.8%), remote monitoring (95.9%), use of the PRGS (85.7%) and use of a safety checklist (98%). The drug regimens oxaliplatin (87.8%) and cisplatin/doxorubicin (81.6%) were both confirmed by the expert panel. Important controversies included number and location of Biopsies during repeated PIPAC and the combination of PIPAC with additional surgical procedures.ConclusionThis consensus statement aims to allow for safe and efficacious PIPAC treatment and to facilitate multi-center analyses of the results. Additional preclinical and clinical studies are needed to resolve the remaining controversies.     

Study protocol for the OligoMetastatic Esophagogastric Cancer (OMEC) project: A multidisciplinary European consensus project on the definition and treatment for oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer

BackgroundA uniform definition and treatment for oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer is currently lacking. However, a comprehensive definition of oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer is necessary to initiate studies on local treatment strategies (e.g. metastasectomy or stereotactic radiotherapy) and new systemic therapy agents in this group of patients. For this purpose, the OligoMetastatic Esophagogastric Cancer (OMEC) project was established. The OMEC-project aims to develop a multidisciplinary European consensus statement on the definition, diagnosis, and treatment for oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer and provide a framework for prospective studies to improve outcomes of these patients.MethodsThe OMEC-project consists of five studies, including 1) a systematic review on definitions and outcomes of oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer; 2) real-life clinical scenario discussions in multidisciplinary expert teams to determine the variation in the definition and treatment strategies; 3) Delphi consensus process through a starting meeting, two Delphi questionnaire rounds, and a consensus meeting; 4) publication of a multidisciplinary European consensus statement; and 5) a prospective clinical trial in patients with oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer.DiscussionThe OMEC project aims to establish a multidisciplinary European consensus statement for oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer and aims to initiate a prospective clinical trial to improve outcomes for these patients. Recommendations from OMEC can be used to update the relevant guidelines on treatment for patients with (oligometastatic) esophagogastric cancer.     

A scoring system for 3D surface images of breast reconstruction developed using the Delphi consensus process

IntroductionEvaluation of aesthetics after breast reconstruction is challenging. In the absence of an objective measurement, panel assessment is widely adopted. Heterogeneity of scales and poor internal consistency make comparison difficult. Development and validation of an expert panel scale using a Delphi consensus process is described. It was designed specifically for use as the gold standard for development of an objective evaluation tool using 3-Dimensional Surface Imaging (3D-SI).Materials and methods20 items relating to aesthetic assessment were identified for consideration in the Delphi consensus process. Items were selected for inclusion in the definitive panel scale by iterative rounds of voting according to importance, consensus discussion, and a final vote. The Delphi-derived scale was tested on a clinical research series for intra- and inter-panellist, and intra-panel reliability, and correlation with Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs).Results61 surgeons participated in the Delphi process. Oncoplastic and plastic surgeons were represented. The Delphi-derived scale included symmetry, volume, shape, position of breast mound, nipple position, and a global score. Intra-panellist reliability ranged from poor to almost perfect (wκ<0to0.86), inter-rater reliability was fair (ICC range 0.4–0.5) for individual items and good (ICC0.6) for the global score, intra-panel reliability was moderate to substantial (wκ0.4–0.7), and correlation with PROMs was moderate (r = 0.5p < 0.01).ConclusionsThe Delphi-derived panel evaluation is at least as good as other scales in the literature and has been developed specifically to provide expert evaluation of aesthetics after breast reconstruction. The logistical constraints of panel assessment remain, reinforcing the need to develop an objective evaluation method.     

Pre- and post-operative antibiotics in conjunction with cytoreductive surgery and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) should be considered for pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) treatment

Pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) is a subtype of peritoneal carcinomatosis that is traditionally treated by cytoreductive surgery (CRS) followed by hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). A growing body of evidence suggests that microbes are associated with various tumor types and have been found in organs and cavities that were once considered sterile. Prior and ongoing research from our consortium of PMP researchers strongly suggests that bacteria are associated with PMP tumors. While the significance of this association is unclear, in our opinion, further research is warranted to understand whether these bacteria contribute to the development, maintenance and/or progression of PMP. Elucidation of a possible causal role for bacteria in PMP could suggest a benefit for supplementation of antibiotics to current treatment protocols.     

"When and how are peritoneal metastases of colo-rectal origin treatable"

Peritoneal metastasis (PM) of colorectal cancer (CRC) origin can be treated and cured. This article presents a practical guide for CRC surgeons facing a patient with PM and presents the different options of treatment at expert centers on peritoneal surface malignancies.The unexpected finding of PM could be overwhelming, especially during an emergency CRC surgery. Clear indications on managing these situations call for clarification to avoid any negative impact on the oncologic outcome of patients with CRC.All patients with PM of CRC origin must be evaluated by a tumor board or multidisciplinary team specialized in the management of peritoneal surface malignancies since currently there are available options of treatment for patients with resectable peritoneal disease, unresectable peritoneal disease, and even patients with synchronous liver metastases (LM) could benefit from a multimodal approach.     

The absence of benefit of perioperative chemotherapy in initially resectable peritoneal metastases of colorectal cancer origin treated with complete cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: A retrospective analysis

IntroductionThe aim of this study was to compare the outcome of patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM) of colorectal origin treated with complete cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) with or without perioperative systemic chemotherapy (PCT+/PCT-).Patients and methodsRetrospective analysis of 125 patients treated with complete CRS (R0/R1) and HIPEC for PM from colorectal origin in two Belgian academic centers between 2008 and 2017. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed with regard to PCT. Statistical analyses were adjusted for non-balanced survival risk factors.ResultsThe PCT+ group (n = 67) received at least 5 cycles of PCT and the PCT-group (n = 56) did not receive PCT. The groups were well balanced for all prognostic factors except presentation of synchronous disease (more in PCT+). Survival analysis was adjusted to peritoneal cancer index and presentation of synchronous disease. After a median follow-up of 54±5-months, the 1, 3, 5-years OS in the PCT+ group were 98%, 59% and 35% compared to 97%, 77% and 56% in the PCT-group (HR = 1.46; 95% CI:0.87–2.47; p = 0.155). The 1,3 and 5 years DFS in the PCT+ group were 47%, 13% and 6% compared to 58%, 29% and 26% respectively in the PCT- (HR = 1.22; 95% CI:0.78–1.92; p = 0.376).ConclusionThis study does not show any clear benefit of PCT in carefully selected patients undergoing R0/R1 CRS and HIPEC for colorectal PM. The ongoing CAIRO6 trial randomizing CRS/HIPEC versus CRS/HIPEC and PCT will probably clarify the role of PCT in patients with resectable PM.     

Incidence and risk factors for Chyle leak after pancreatic surgery for cancer: A comprehensive systematic review

BackgroundChyle leak (CL) is a clinically relevant complication after pancreatectomy. Its incidence and the associated risk factors are ill defined, and various treatments options have been described. There is no consensus, however, regarding optimal management. The present study aims to systematically review the literature on CL after pancreatectomy.MethodsA systematic review from PubMed, Scopus and Embase database was performed. Studies using a clear definition for CL and published from January 2000 to January 2021 were included. The PRISMA guidelines were followed during all stages of this systematic review. The MINORS score was used to assess methodological quality.ResultsLiterature search found 361 reports, 99 of which were duplicates. The titles and abstracts of 262 articles were finally screened. The references from the remaining 181 articles were manually assessed. After the exclusions, 43 articles were thoroughly assessed. A total of 23 articles were ultimately included for this review. The number of patients varied from 54 to 3532. Incidence of post pancreatectomy CL varied from 1.3% to 22.1%. Main risk factors were the extent of the surgery and early oral or enteral feeding. CL dried up spontaneously or after conservative management within 14 days in 53% to 100% of the cases.ConclusionsThe extent of surgery is the most common predictor of risk of CL. Conservative treatment has been shown to be effective in most cases and can be considered the treatment of choice. We propose a management algorithm based on the current available evidence.     

Does laparoscopy increase the risk of peritoneal recurrence after resection for pT4 colon cancer? Results of a propensity score-matched analysis from an international cohort

BackgroundPeritoneal metastases (PM) occur in 15–20% of surgically resected pT4 colon cancer (CC) and strongly affect prognosis. Since no standard treatment has been established, efforts should be addressed toward its prevention. Some literature suggests a detrimental effect of laparoscopy in pT4 CC, hence we aimed to determine its impact on the development of PM after potentially curative resection.MethodsInternational multicenter retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients undergoing surgery for pT4a and pT4b CC (2014–2018) at 5 referral centers. The inclusion criteria were absence of distant metastasis, elective surgery, curative-intent resection (R0-1), and a minimum follow-up of 24 months (median, IQR: 35, 25.8–50.5 months).Results276 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were selected for analysis. After 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM), 63 patients in the laparoscopic group (LapGroup) were compared with 63 patients in the open surgery group (OpenGroup). The two groups were comparable in terms of demographic and clinical parameters, operative data, and specimen characteristics. The OpenGroup presented a higher estimated intraoperative blood loss (P < .001) and postoperative length of stay (P < .001). Overall survival, cancer-specific survival, and disease-free survival resulted comparable. The 5-year probability of developing PM was 16.2% after laparoscopy and 19.5% after open surgery (P = .686). Multivariate analysis confirmed laparoscopy not to be an independent risk factor for PM.ConclusionsElective laparoscopic surgery for pT4 CC does not seem to increase the risk of metachronous PM after potentially curative surgery. Long-term outcomes after laparoscopy are not inferior to conventional open resections.     

Lateral Lymph Nodes in Rectal Cancer: Do we all Think the Same? A Review of Multidisciplinary Obstacles and Treatment Recommendations

Lateral lymph nodes in low, locally advanced, rectal cancer have proven implications for local recurrence rates, which increase drastically in the presence of persistently enlarged lateral lymph nodes. These clinical implications warrant a thorough understanding of lateral nodal disease with awareness and knowledge from all three specialties involved – radiology, radiation oncology, and surgery – to ensure proper treatment. Relevant literature for each specialty, including all current guidelines and perspectives, were examined. Variations in definitions and treatment paradigms were evaluated. There is still no consensus for the standardized treatment of lateral nodal disease. Each discipline works according to their own available evidence, but relevant data are scarce. Current international guidelines and standard recommendations for the diagnostics and treatment of lateral lymph nodes are lacking. This results in differing perspectives and interpretations between the disciplines which can lead to challenging communication in an area where multidisciplinary collaboration is essential. This review addresses this by presenting the current evidence, perspectives and practices of each specialty and makes suggestions for each phase of the diagnostic and treatment process for patients with lateral nodal disease. By doing this, steps are taken toward achieving international consensus, and multidisciplinary collaboration.     

Standardizing training for Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy

BackgroundPIPAC is a novel mode of intraperitoneal drug delivery for patients with peritoneal cancer (PC). PIPAC is a safe treatment with promising oncological results. Therefore, a structured training program is needed to maintain high standards and to guarantee safe implementation.MethodsAn international panel of PIPAC experts created by means of a consensus meeting a structured 2-day training course including essential theoretical content and practical exercises. For every module, learning objectives were defined and structured presentations were elaborated. This structured PIPAC training program was then tested in five courses.ResultsThe panel consisted of 12 experts from 11 different centres totalling a cumulative experience of 23 PIPAC courses and 1880 PIPAC procedures. The final program was approved by all members of the panel and includes 12 theoretical units (45 min each) and 6 practical units including dry-lab and live surgeries. The panel finalized and approved 21 structured presentations including the latest evidence on PIPAC and covering all mandatory topics. These were organized in 8 modules with clear learning objectives to be tested by 12 multiple-choice questions. Lastly, a structured quantifiable (Likert scale 1–5) course evaluation was created.The new course was successfully tested in five courses with 85 participants. Mean overall satisfaction with the content was rated at 4.79 (±0.5) with at 4.71 (±0.5) and at 4.61 (±0.7), respectively for course length and the balance between theory and practice.ConclusionsThe proposed PIPAC training program contains essential theoretical background and practical training enabling the participants to safely implement PIPAC.     

The sigmoid take-off as a landmark to distinguish rectal from sigmoid tumours on MRI: Reproducibility,pitfalls and potential impact on treatment stratification

PurposeThe sigmoid take-off (STO) was recently introduced as a preferred landmark, agreed upon by expert consensus recommendation, to discern rectal from sigmoid cancer on imaging. Aim of this study was to assess the reproducibility of the STO, explore its potential treatment impact and identify its main interpretation pitfalls.MethodsEleven international radiologists (with varying expertise) retrospectively assessed n = 155 patients with previously clinically staged upper rectal/rectosigmoid tumours and re-classified them using the STO as completely below (rectum), straddling the STO (rectosigmoid) or completely above (sigmoid), after which scores were dichotomized as rectum (below/straddling STO) and sigmoid (above STO), being the clinically most relevant distinction. A random subset of n = 48 was assessed likewise by 6 colorectal surgeons. .ResultsInterobserver agreement (IOA) for the 3-category score ranged from κ0.19–0.82 (radiologists) and κ0.32–0.72 (surgeons), with highest scores for the most experienced radiologists (κ0.69–0.76). Of the 155 cases, 44 (28%) were re-classified by ≥ 80% of radiologists as sigmoid cancers; 36 of these originally received neoadjuvant treatment which in retrospect might have been omitted if the STO had been applied. Main interpretation pitfalls were related to anatomical variations, borderline cases near the STO and angulation of axial imaging planes.ConclusionsGood agreement was reached for experienced radiologists. Despite considerable variation among less-expert readers, use of the STO could have changed treatment in ±1/4 of patients in our cohort. Identified interpretation pitfalls may serve as a basis for teaching and to further optimize MR protocols.     

Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy with one minute of electrostatic precipitation (ePIPAC) is feasible,but the histological tumor response in peritoneal metastasis is insufficient

IntroductionElectrostatic precipitation Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (ePIPAC) has shown superior penetration depth and tissue uptake compared to standard PIPAC. We investigated the feasibility and objective tumor response to ePIPAC with 1 min of precipitation in patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM).Materials and methodsPatients with PM from various abdominal cancers were included in an amendment to the ongoing prospective PIPAC-OPC2 trial. Colorectal and appendiceal PM were treated with oxaliplatin, patients with PM from other primaries were treated with a combination of cisplatin and doxorubicin. Three ePIPAC procedures were planned in each patient including repeated peritoneal biopsies for response evaluation. After emission to the peritoneal cavity, the aerosolized chemotherapeutics were precipitated for 1 min followed by immediate exsufflation and abdominal closure. Histological regression from the first to the third ePIPAC was evaluated according to the Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS) and compared to data from the PIPAC-OPC1 trial. Complications and toxicities were recorded according to Dindo-Clavien and CTCAE.ResultsSixty-five ePIPAC procedures were performed in 33 patients (median 2, range 1–6). Ten patients were eligible for response evaluation based on biopsies from the first and third ePIPAC procedure. Four patients had disease progression, four patients had regressive disease, and two patients had stable disease according to PRGS. No life threatening adverse reactions and no mortality was observed following ePIPAC.ConclusionOne minute ePIPAC was feasible and safe, but the histological tumor response was insufficient compared to standard PIPAC directed therapy with 30 min passive diffusion time.     

The effects of uterine manipulators in minimally invasive hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundMinimally invasive surgery has achieved great success in the surgical treatment of many kinds of cancer. This study aimed to systematically review the available evidence evaluating the effects of the use of uterine manipulators in minimally hysterectomies for endometrial cancer patients.MethodsWe searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov databases to Sep. 12, 2019 to identify relevant prospective or retrospective studies, using the intersection of “endometrial neoplasms”, “endometrial carcinoma”, “endometrial cancer”; “uterine manipulator”, and “intrauterine manipulator”. The initial search identified 251 items in total. The main outcomes of interest were the presence of LVSI (lymphovascular space invasion), the incidence of positive peritoneal cytology, and the presence of recurrence during follow-up.ResultsAfter screening for eligibility, 11 studies were included in the meta-analysis finally. The timing of uterine manipulators insertion during MIS for endometrial cancer was not associated with an increased risk of positive peritoneal cytology (RR: 1.21, 95% CI, 0.68 to 2.16). Moreover, there was no significant difference for the rate of positive peritoneal cytology (RR: 1.53, 95% CI, 0.85 to 2.77), LVSI (RR: 1.18, 95% CI, 0.66 to 2.11) or the rate of recurrence (RR: 1.25, 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.74) regarding the use of uterine manipulators for laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of endometrial cancer patients.ConclusionWe found that the use of uterine manipulators is not associated with an increased incidence of positive peritoneal cytology, LVSI, or recurrence among patients with endometrial cancer.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO, CRD42020147111.     

Diagnosis,pathophysiology, and treatment of SIRT-induced gastroduodenal ulcers: A systematic literature review

BackgroundSelective Internal Radiation Therapy (SIRT) is a therapeutic modality in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma or liver metastases. Complications due to SIRT-induced gastric ulcers are seen in less than 5% of patients but there is no consensus for management of this rare side effect. We conducted a systematic review to analyze the efficacy of medical treatment of SIRT-induced ulcers.MethodsThis systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. We developed the research question following the population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and study design (PICOS) format. We identified studies and cases reporting patients with gastric and/or duodenal (=population) ulcers treated with medical therapy with proton pump inhibitor (PPI), antacid, or sucralfate, alone or in combination (=intervention). We did not require that studies include a control group. We included studies reporting the evaluation of the medical and/or surgical treatment (=outcomes).ResultsOut of 219 articles, 29 articles were included, resulting in analysis of data for a total of 51 patients who had a SIRT-induced gastric and/or duodenal ulcer treated with medication, surgery, or both. Twenty-eight patients (55%) were reported to have SIRT-induced ulcers that improved after initiation of PPI, antacid, or sucralfate treatment (alone or in combination). Twenty-three patients (45%) were reported to be refractory to medical treatment and surgery was performed in 7 out of 23 patients (30%).ConclusionsAbout 45% of SIRT-induced gastroduodenal ulcers are refractory to medical treatment with PPI, antacid, or sucralfate, alone or in combination. Surgery is an effective treatment in patients who are refractory to medical treatment and who have intense symptoms.     

Clinical Updates for Colon Cancer Care in 2022

Colon cancer needs better screening and treatment options. Its incidence in the young population is rising. Recent changes in guidelines recommend beginning screening for colon cancer at the age of 45. Circulating tumor DNA presents an opportunity to select patients for administration of adjuvant chemotherapy. Immunotherapy is an option for patients with a deficiency in mismatch repair proteins. However, its efficacy outside of this group of patients remains a challenge. Targeted therapies such as BRAF inhibitors are an option for patients with poor prognosis, for whom cytotoxic chemotherapy is not as effective. This review presents the recently published evidence regarding screening and treating patients with colon cancer.     

Does the difficulty grade of laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal liver metastases correlate with long-term outcomes?

IntroductionPrognosis of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) is strongly correlated with the oncological outcome after liver resection. The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) difficulty score (IMM difficulty score) on the oncological results in patients treated for CRLM.MethodsAll patients who underwent LLRs for CRLM from 2000 to 2016 in our department, were retrospectively reviewed. Data regarding difficulty classification, -according to the Institute Mutualiste Montsouris score (IMM)-, recurrence rate, recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS) and data regarding margin status were analyzed.ResultsA total of 520 patients were included. Patients were allocated into 3 groups based on IMM difficulty score of the LLR they underwent: there were 227 (43,6%), 84 (16,2%) and 209 (40,2%) patients in groups I, II and III, respectively. The R₁ resection rate in group I, II and III were 8,8% (20/227), 11,9% (10/84) and 12,4% (26/209) respectively (p = 0.841). Three- and 5-year RFS rates were 77% and 73% in group I, 58% and 51% in group II, 61% and 53% in group III, respectively (p = 0.038). Three and 5-year OS rates were 87% and 80% for group I, 77% and 66% for group II, 80% and 69% for group III respectively (p = 0.022).ConclusionThe higher LLR difficulty score correlates with significant morbidity and worse RFS and OS, although the more technically demanding and difficult cases are not associated with increased rates of positive resection margins and recurrence.     

Survival of surgical and non-surgical older patients with non-metastatic colorectal cancer: A population-based study in the Netherlands

BackgroundSurgery is the primary treatment for non-metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) but is omitted in a proportion of older patients. Characteristics and prognosis of non-surgical patients are largely unknown.ObjectiveTo examine the characteristics and survival of surgical and non-surgical older patients with non-metastatic CRC in the Netherlands.MethodsAll patients aged ≥70 years and diagnosed with non-metastatic CRC between 2014 and 2018 were identified in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were divided based on whether they underwent surgery or not. Three-year overall survival (OS) and relative survival (RS) were calculated for both groups separately. Relative survival and relative excess risks (RER) of death were used as measures for cancer-related survival.ResultsIn total, 987/20.423 (5%) colon cancer patients and 1.459/7.335 (20%) rectal cancer patients did not undergo surgery. Non-surgical treatment increased over time from 3.7% in 2014 to 4.8% in 2018 in colon cancer patients (P = 0.01) and from 17.1% to 20.2% in rectal cancer patients (P = 0.03). 3 year RS was 91% and 9% for surgical and non-surgical patients with colon cancer, respectively. For rectal cancer patients this was 93% and 37%, respectively. In surgical patients, advanced age (≥80 years) did not decrease RS (colon; RER 0.9 (0.7–1.0), rectum; RER 0.9 (0.7–1.1)). In non-surgical rectal cancer patients, higher survival rates were observed in patients treated with chemoradiotherapy (OS 56%, RS 65%), or radiotherapy (OS 19%, RS 27%), compared to no treatment (OS 9%, RS 10%).ConclusionNon-surgical treatment in older Dutch CRC patients has increased over time. Because survival of patients with colon cancer is very poor in the absence of surgery, this treatment decision must be carefully weighed. (Chemo-)radiotherapy may be a good alternative for rectal cancer surgery in older frail patients.