Sex difference and intra-operative tidal volume: Insights from the LAS VEGAS study

BACKGROUND: One key element of lung-protective ventilation is the use of a low tidal volume (VT). A sex difference in use of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) has been described in critically ill ICU patients.OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether a sex difference in use of LTVV also exists in operating room patients, and if present what factors drive this difference.DESIGN, PATIENTS AND SETTING: This is a posthoc analysis of LAS VEGAS, a 1-week worldwide observational study in adults requiring intra-operative ventilation during general anaesthesia for surgery in 146 hospitals in 29 countries.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Women and men were compared with respect to use of LTVV, defined as VT of 8 ml kg-1 or less predicted bodyweight (PBW). A VT was deemed 'default' if the set VT was a round number. A mediation analysis assessed which factors may explain the sex difference in use of LTVV during intra-operative ventilation.RESULTS: This analysis includes 9864 patients, of whom 5425 (55%) were women. A default VT was often set, both in women and men; mode VT was 500 ml. Median [IQR] VT was higher in women than in men (8.6 [7.7 to 9.6] vs. 7.6 [6.8 to 8.4] ml kg-1 PBW, P < 0.001). Compared with men, women were twice as likely not to receive LTVV [68.8 vs. 36.0%; relative risk ratio 2.1 (95% CI 1.9 to 2.1), P < 0.001]. In the mediation analysis, patients' height and actual body weight (ABW) explained 81 and 18% of the sex difference in use of LTVV, respectively; it was not explained by the use of a default VT.CONCLUSION: In this worldwide cohort of patients receiving intra-operative ventilation during general anaesthesia for surgery, women received a higher VT than men during intra-operative ventilation. The risk for a female not to receive LTVV during surgery was double that of males. Height and ABW were the two mediators of the sex difference in use of LTVV.TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01601223

Neoadjuvant treatment in locally advanced rectal cancer

The optimal treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer remains an issue of debate. The surgery with total mesorectal excision (TME) still is the standard of care. In contrast to TME, the addition of adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy is necessary in terms of local disease control and to increase of survival time. Here, we will review neoadjuvant treatment approach in rectal carcinoma

Neoadjuvant treatment in locally advanced rectal cancer

The optimal treatment for locally advanced rectal cancerremains an issue of debate. The surgery with total mesorectalexcision (TME) still is the standard of care. In contrast toTME, the addition of adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy isnecessary in terms of local disease control and to increase ofsurvival time. Here, we will review neoadjuvant treatmentapproach in rectal carcinoma.Keywords: Rectal neoplasms, Neoadjuvant therapy,Radiotherapy, Chemotherap

Outcomes of patients with anal cancer treated with volumetric-modulated arc therapy or intensity-modulated radiotherapy and concurrent chemotherapy

Aims: To evaluate the results of chemoradiation with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for the treatment of anal canal cancer patients at three institutions that had advanced devices. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed for patients treated with 5-fluorouracil and mitomycin-based chemotherapy and IMRT or VMAT for anal cancer from 2011 to 2013. Complete response (CR) rates, colostomy-free survival (CFS), disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicities were investigated. Toxicities were evaluated with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, Version 3.0. Results: Fifteen patients were included in the analysis. The majority of patients had T2 (53.3%) and N0 (40%) disease according to the staging system that was developed by the American Joint Committee on Cancer. CR was observed in 14 patients (93%), and the median follow-up was 26 months (13-42 months). The 3-year CFS, DFS, and OS were 86%, 86%, and 88%, respectively. Acute Grade 3 toxicities were observed as 6% of hematological, 26% of gastrointestinal, and 26% of dermatological. Conclusion: Early results confirm that IMRT or VMAT for anal cancer treatment reduces acute toxicities while maintaining high control rates