Caractérisation des récidives locales des cancers du rectum après exérèse du mésorectum

PARIS5-BU Méd.Cochin (751142101) / SudocPARIS-BIUM (751062103) / SudocSudocFranceF

Laparoscopy is not enough: full ERAS compliance is the key to improvement of short-term outcomes after colectomy for cancer

International audienceBackground: The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs and laparoscopic techniques both reduce hospital stay and postoperative morbidity in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery. Laparoscopic techniques are an integral part of the ERAS program. However, evidence showing that the implementation of a multimodal rehabilitation program in addition to laparoscopy for colonic cancer would improve postoperative outcomes is still lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of ERAS program on postoperative outcomes after elective laparoscopic colonic cancer resection.Methods: This is a single-center observational study from a prospectively maintained database. Two groups were formed from all patients undergoing laparoscopic colonic surgery for neoplasm during a defined period before (standard group) and after introduction of an ERAS program (ERAS group). The primary endpoint was postoperative 90-day morbidity. Secondary endpoints were the total length of hospital stay, readmission rate, and compliance with ERAS protocol.Results: A total of 320 patients were included in the analyses, with 160 patients in the standard group and 160 in the ERAS group. There were no differences in the baseline characteristics between the two groups. Overall morbidity was significantly lower in the ERAS group (21.25%) than that in the standard group (34.4%; OR = 0.52 [0.31-0.85], p < 0.01). This difference was not due to the reduction in major complications. Mean total hospital stay was significantly lower in the ERAS group (5.8 days) than that in the standard group (8.2 days, p < 0.01). There were no differences in readmission rates and anastomotic complications.Conclusions: The ERAS pathway reduced the overall morbidity rates and shortened the length of hospital stay, without increasing the readmission rates. A significant reduction in nonsurgical complications was evident, whereas no significant reduction was found for surgical complications

Real-world implementation of a geriatric-specific ERAS protocol in patients undergoing colonic cancer surgery

International audienceBackground: The aim of this single-center observational study was to evaluate the impact of implementing Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols, combined with systematic geriatric assessment and support, on surgical and oncological outcomes in patients aged 70 or older undergoing colonic cancer surgery. Methods: Two groups were formed from an actively maintained database from all patients undergoing laparoscopic colonic surgery for neoplasms during a defined period before (standard group) or after (ERAS group) the introduction of an ERAS program associated with systematic geriatric assessment. The primary outcome was postoperative 90-day morbidity. Secondary outcomes were total length of hospital stay, initiated and completed adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) rate, and 1-year mortality rate. Results: A total of 266 patients (135 standard and 131 ERAS) were included in the study. Overall 90-day morbidity and mean hospital stay were significantly lower in the ERAS group than in the standard group (22.1% vs. 35.6%, p ¼ 0.02; and 6.2 vs. 9.3 days, p < 0.01, respectively). There were no differences in readmission rates and anastomotic complications. AC was recommended in 114 patients. The rate of initiated treatment was comparable between the groups (66.6% vs. 77.7%, p ¼ 0.69). The rate of completed AC was significantly higher in the ERAS group (50% vs. 20%, p < 0.01) with a lower toxicity rate (57.1% vs. 87.5%, p ¼ 0.002). The 1-year mortality rate was higher in the standard group (7.4% vs. 0.8%, p < 0.01). Conclusions: The combination of ERAS protocols and geriatric assessment and support reduces the overall morbidity rate and improves 12-month oncologic outcomes

Supine bottom-up extralevator abdominoperineal excision for anorectal adenocarcinoma is not inferior to standard approach and may be thus safely performed

International audienceBackground: Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (APE) for rectal carcinoma has been described in order to improve pathological and oncological results compared to standard APE. To obtain the same oncological advantages as extralevator APE, we have previously described a new procedure starting by a perineal approach: the supine bottom-up APE. Our objective is to compare oncological and surgical outcomes between the supine bottom-up APE and the standard APE.Methods: All patients with low rectal adenocarcinoma requiring APE were retrospectively included and divided into 2 groups: supine bottom-up APE (Group A) and standard APE (Group B).Results: From 2008 to 2016, 61 patients were divided into Groups A (n = 30) and B (n = 31). Postoperative outcomes and median length of stay were similar between groups. Patients from Group A had a significantly longer distal margin (30 [8-120] vs. 20 [1.5-60] mm, p = 0.04) and higher number of harvested lymph nodes (14.5 [0-33] vs. 11 [5-25], p = 0.03) than those from Group B. Circumferential resection margin involvement was similar between groups (28 vs. 22%, p = 0.6), whereas tumors from Group A were significantly larger and more frequently classified as T4 than those from Group B. Operative time was significantly shorter in Group A (437.5 [285-655] minutes) than in Group B (537.5 [361-721] minutes, p = 0.0009). At the end of follow-up, local recurrence occurred in 7 and 16% of patients from Groups A and B (p = 0.68). Three-year overall and disease-free survival rates were similar between groups (87 vs. 90%, p = 0.62 and 61 vs. 63%, p = 0.88, respectively).Conclusion: Our findings suggest that supine bottom-up APE doesn't impair surgical outcomes, pathological results, overall and disease-free survivals in comparison with standard APE. This new procedure may be thus safely performed and decrease the operative time. Further randomized multicentric studies are required to confirm these results

A Step Toward NOTES Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer

International audienceBackground: Previous publications have suggested that endoscopic transanalproctectomy (ETAP) is a promising technique and may be an alternative toconventional low anterior resection for rectal cancer. The aim of this studywas to evaluate the technical feasibility of ETAP, with a particular focus onpostoperative and oncological results and on functional outcomes.Methods: This study was a multicenter prospective study of unselected consecutive patients with low rectal cancer requiring proctectomy and coloanalanastomosis. All patients underwent a standardized procedure. The study endpoints were the safety and adequacy of the oncological resection criteria. Allpatients were evaluated with the Wexner Fecal Incontinence Questionnaireafter stoma closure.Results: Fifty-six consecutive patients (41 men) underwent ETAP betweenFebruary 2010 and June 2012. The median age was 65 years (39–83), andthe median body mass index was 27 (20-42). No intraoperative complicationswere encountered. There was no postoperative mortality, and the morbidityrate was 26%. The mesorectum was complete in 47 cases (84%) and nearlycomplete in 9 cases (16%). The median number of lymph nodes retrievedwas 12 (range, 7–29) per patient. The median radial and distal margins were8 mm (0–20) and 10 mm (3–40), respectively. R0 resection was achieved in53 patients (94.6%). The median Wexner score was 4 (3–12). Thirteen (28%)patients reported stool fragmentation and difficult evacuation.Conclusions: ETAP is a feasible alternative surgical option to conventionallaparoscopy for rectal resection and may represent a promising step towardrectal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES)

Is Piecemeal Endoscopic Resection Acceptable for Early Colorectal Cancers in Certain Situations? A Single-Center French Study

International audienceBackground & Aims: The use of endoscopic treatment for early colorectal cancer (ECC) is increasing. The European guidelines suggest performing piecemeal endoscopic resection (pmR) for benign lesions and en bloc resection for ECC, especially for patients with favorable lymph node involvement risk evaluations. However, en bloc resections for lesions larger than two centimeters require invasive endoscopic techniques. Our retrospective single-center study aimed to determine the clinical impact of performing pmR for ECC rather than traditional en bloc resection. Methods: A single-center study was performed between January 2012 and September 2017. All ECC patients were included. The main objective was to evaluate the number of patients who potentially underwent unnecessary surgery due to piecemeal resection. The secondary endpoints were as follows: disease-free survival (DFS), defined as the time from pmR to endoscopic failure (local recurrence not treatable by endoscopy), complication rate, number of patients who did not undergo surgery by default, and factors predictive of outcomes and complications. Results: One hundred and forty-six ECC endoscopically treated patients were included. In total, 85 patients were excluded (71 who underwent en bloc resection, 14 with pending follow-up). Data from 61 patients (33 women and 28 men) were analyzed. Two patients underwent potentially unnecessary surgery [3.28% (0.9%-11.2%)]. The DFS rate was 87% (75%-93%) at 6 months and 85% [72%-92%] at 12 months. The median followup time was 16.5 months (12.4-20.9). Three patients (4.9%) had complications. One patient did not undergo surgery by default. A Paris classification of 0-2c (HR=9.3 (2.4-35.9), p<0.001) and Vienna classification of 5 [HR=16.3 (3.3-80.4), p<0.001] were factors associated with poor DFS. Conclusion: Performing pmR in place of en bloc resection for ECC had a limited impact on patients. If the pathology (especially deep margins) is analyzable, careful monitoring could be acceptable in ECC patients who undergo pmR

High-dose-rate vs. low-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy boost for anal canal cancers

International audienceThe purpose of this study was to analyze and compare clinical outcomes of low-dose-rate (LDR) and high-dose-rate (HDR) interstitial brachytherapy boost (ISBT) after EBRT or radio chemotherapy for the treatment of anal canal cancers

A multicentre randomised controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy, morbidity and functional outcome of endoscopic transanal proctectomy versus laparoscopic proctectomy for low-lying rectal cancer (ETAP-GRECCAR 11 TRIAL): rationale and design

Abstract Background Total mesorectal excision is the standard surgical treatment for mid- and low-rectal cancer. Laparoscopy represents a clear leap forward in the management of rectal cancer patients, offering significant improvements in post-operative measures such as pain, first bowel movement, and hospital length of stay. However, there are still some limits to its applications, especially in difficult cases. Such cases may entail either conversion to an open procedure or positive resection margins. Transanal endoscopic proctectomy (ETAP) was recently described and could address the difficulties of approaching the lower third of the rectum. Early series and case-control studies have shown favourable short-term results, such as a low conversion rate, reduced hospital length of stay and oncological outcomes comparable to laparoscopic surgery. The aim of the proposed study is to compare the rate of positive resection margins (R1 resection) with ETAP versus laparoscopic proctectomy (LAP), with patients randomly assigned to each arm. Methods/design The proposed study is a multicentre randomised trial using two parallel groups to compare ETAP and LAP. Patients with T3 lower-third rectal adenocarcinomas for whom conservative surgery with manual coloanal anastomosis is planned will be recruited. Randomisation will be performed immediately prior to surgery after ensuring that the patient meets the inclusion criteria and completing the baseline functional and quality of life tests. The study is designed as a non-inferiority trial with a main criterion of R0/R1 resection. Secondary endpoints will include the conversion rate, the minimal invasiveness of the abdominal approach, postoperative morbidity, the length of hospital stay, mesorectal macroscopic assessment, functional urologic and sexual results, faecal continence, global quality of life, stoma-free survival, and disease-free survival at 3 years. The inclusion period will be 3 years, and every patient will be followed for 3 years. The number of patients needed is 226. Discussion There is a strong need for optimal evaluation of the ETAP because of substancial changes in the operative technique. Assessment of oncological safety and septic risk, as well as digestive and urological functional results, is particularily mandatory. Moreover, benefits of the ETAP technique could be demonstrated  in post-operative outcome. Trial registration ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT02584985 . Date and version identifier: Version n°2 – 2015 July 6

Piecemeal Resection for Large Colorectal Adenomas Remains Essential in 2022: A Single-Center Experience in a Tertiary French Center

International audienceBackground and aims: Colorectal lesions measuring greater than 20 mm are unsuitable for en bloc endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR): piecemeal EMR (PM-EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are needed. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) recommends ESD only for microinfiltrative lesions, although Japanese teams perform en bloc ESD for all lesions. We report the outcomes obtained in our endoscopy unit for these lesions and assess the hybrid "knife-assisted piecemeal EMR" (KAPM-EMR) technique. The main aim was to assess the short-term outcomes (C1). The secondary objectives were to evaluate the long-term results (C2), adverse event rate and management of recurrence.Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from patients treated by PM-EMR, KAPM-EMR and ESD for a colorectal lesion measuring greater than 20 millimeters using prospective inclusion over four years.Results: Data from 167 patients (median age: 70) with a median follow-up of 15.1 months were analyzed after excluding 95 patients. A total of 131 lesions were removed by PM-EMR, 24 by KAPM-EMR and 12 by ESD; 146/167 (87.4%) patients were considered in remission at C1. Recurrence was treated by endoscopy in 20/21 patients (95%); 86/89 (96.6%) were in remission at C2. A total of 16/167 patients developed adverse events, all of whom except one were endoscopically managed. KAPM-EMR was associated with a higher perforation risk (p=0.037). No differences in postoperative bleeding were found among the three groups (p=0.576).Conclusions: Piecemeal resection remains an effective and safe technique for large colorectal adenomas. KAPM-EMR may be useful but should be applied with caution due to the risk of perforation