Trends and outcome of neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer: A retrospective analysis and critical assessment of a 10-year prospective national registry on behalf of the Spanish Rectal Cancer Project

Introduction: Preoperative treatment and adequate surgery increase local control in rectal cancer. However, modalities and indications for neoadjuvant treatment may be controversial. Aim of this study was to assess the trends of preoperative treatment and outcomes in patients with rectal cancer included in the Rectal Cancer Registry of the Spanish Associations of Surgeons. Method: This is a STROBE-compliant retrospective analysis of a prospective database. All patients operated on with curative intention included in the Rectal Cancer Registry were included. Analyses were performed to compare the use of neoadjuvant/adjuvant treatment in three timeframes: I)2006–2009; II)2010–2013; III)2014–2017. Survival analyses were run for 3-year survival in timeframes I-II. Results: Out of 14, 391 patients, 8871 (61.6%) received neoadjuvant treatment. Long-course chemo/radiotherapy was the most used approach (79.9%), followed by short-course radiotherapy ± chemotherapy (7.6%). The use of neoadjuvant treatment for cancer of the upper third (15-11 cm) increased over time (31.5%vs 34.5%vs 38.6%, p = 0.0018). The complete regression rate slightly increased over time (15.6% vs 16% vs 18.5%; p = 0.0093); the proportion of patients with involved circumferential resection margins (CRM) went down from 8.2% to 7.3%and 5.5% (p = 0.0004). Neoadjuvant treatment significantly decreased positive CRM in lower third tumors (OR 0.71, 0.59–0.87, Cochrane-Mantel-Haenszel P = 0.0008). Most ypN0 patients also received adjuvant therapy. In MR-defined stage III patients, preoperative treatment was associated with significantly longer local-recurrence-free survival (p < 0.0001), and cancer-specific survival (p < 0.0001). The survival benefit was smaller in upper third cancers. Conclusion: There was an increasing trend and a potential overuse of neoadjuvant treatment in cancer of the upper rectum. Most ypN0 patients received postoperative treatment. Involvement of CRM in lower third tumors was reduced after neoadjuvant treatment. Stage III and MRcN + benefited the most

Photography-based taxonomy is inadequate, unnecessary, and potentially harmful for biological sciences

The question whether taxonomic descriptions naming new animal species without type specimen(s) deposited in collections should be accepted for publication by scientific journals and allowed by the Code has already been discussed in Zootaxa (Dubois & Nemésio 2007; Donegan 2008, 2009; Nemésio 2009a–b; Dubois 2009; Gentile & Snell 2009; Minelli 2009; Cianferoni & Bartolozzi 2016; Amorim et al. 2016). This question was again raised in a letter supported by 35 signatories published in the journal Nature (Pape et al. 2016) on 15 September 2016. On 25 September 2016, the following rebuttal (strictly limited to 300 words as per the editorial rules of Nature) was submitted to Nature, which on 18 October 2016 refused to publish it. As we think this problem is a very important one for zoological taxonomy, this text is published here exactly as submitted to Nature, followed by the list of the 493 taxonomists and collection-based researchers who signed it in the short time span from 20 September to 6 October 2016

Translation and international validation of the Colostomy Impact score.

AIM: Optimal oncological resection in cancers of the lower rectum often requires a permanent colostomy. However, in some patients a colostomy may have a negative impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The Colostomy Impact (CI) score is a simple questionnaire that identifies patients with stoma dysfunction that impairs HRQoL by dividing patients into 'minor' and 'major' CI groups. This aim of this study is to evaluate construct and discriminative validity, sensitivity, specificity and reliability of the CI score internationally, making it applicable for screening and identification of patients with stoma-related impaired HRQoL. METHOD: The CI score was translated in agreement with WHO recommendations. Cross-sectional cohorts of rectal cancer survivors with a colostomy in Australia, China, Denmark, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden were asked to complete the CI score, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life 30-item core questionnaire, the stoma-specific items of the EORTC quality of life 29-item colorectal-specific questionnaire and five anchor questions assessing the impact of colostomy on HRQoL. RESULTS: A total of 2470 patients participated (response rate 51%-93%). CI scores were significantly higher in patients reporting reduced HRQoL due to their colostomy than in patients reporting no reduction. Differences in EORTC scale scores between patients with minor and major CI were significant and clinically relevant. Sensitivity was high regarding dissatisfaction with a colostomy. Regarding evaluation of discriminative validity, the CI score relevantly identified groups with differences in HRQoL. The CI score proved reliable, with equal CI scores between test and retest and an intraclass correlation coefficient in the moderate to excellent range. CONCLUSION: The CI score is internationally valid and reliable. We encourage its use in clinical practice to identify patients with stoma dysfunction who require further attention.RD&E staff can access the full-text of this article by clicking on the 'Additional Link' above and logging in with NHS OpenAthens if prompted.Accepted version (12 month embargo

Use of failure-to-rescue after emergency surgery as a dynamic indicator of hospital resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic. A multicenter retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study

10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106890INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGERY106complete