A Snapshot of the International Views of the Treatment of Rectal Cancer Patients, a Multi-regional Survey: International Tendencies in Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND: Management of rectal cancer has a number of potentially appropriate alternatives for each patient. Despite acceptance of standards, practices may vary among regions. There is significant paucity of data in this area. The objective was to create a snapshot of the regional differences. DESIGN: This online survey included 10 questions. Enquiries focused on controversial topics, on surgeon and hospital volume, surgical margins, appropriateness of surgical approaches and techniques, watch-and-wait strategies, and total neoadjuvant therapy. Major colorectal surgery societies around the world were asked to invite their members to complete the survey. OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency of responses across regions within each question was compared by Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Seven hundred and fifty-three participants from 60 countries responded. Eight regions were identified, and four had sufficient representation for comparisons. Similarities and differences in the therapies among these regions were identified. Robotic surgery penetrance is higher in North America, and watch and wait is more accepted in South America. Patients in Oceania are more likely to be diverted; Europe has more usage of taTME. DISCUSSION: This online survey was practical as a mean to provide a rapid assessment of the international picture on consistency and variability of rectal cancer patients' care, and to potentially identify opportunities to standardized care to patients. Medical surveys have inherent limitations; pertinence to our study is selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: The management of rectal cancer varies among different regions. Identification of differences is important when considering global efforts to improve management and interpret data

Comparing ‘Twitter’ polls results with an online survey on surgeons perspectives for the treatment of rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION: Traditional surveys (including phone, mail and online) can be valuable tools to obtain information from specific communities. Social media apps such as Twitter are being increasingly adopted for knowledge dissemination and research purposes. Twitter polls are a unique feature which allows for a rapid response to questions posed. Nonetheless Twitter does not constitute a validated survey technique. The objective was to compare the similarities of Twitter polls in describing practice patterns for the treatment of rectal cancer. METHODS: A survey on the management of rectal cancer was designed using modified Delphi methodology. Surgeons were contacted through major colorectal societies to participate in an online survey. The same set of questions were periodically posted by influencers on Twitter polls and the results were compared. RESULTS: A total of 753 surgeons participated in the online survey. Individual participation in Twitter ranged from 162 to 463 responses. There was good and moderate agreement between the two methods for the most popular choice (9/10) and the least popular choice (5/10), respectively. DISCUSSION: It is possible that in the future polls available via social media can provide a low-cost alternative and an efficient, yet pragmatic method to describe clinical practice patterns. This is the first study comparing Twitter polls with a traditional survey method in medical research. CONCLUSIONS: There is viable opportunity to enhance the performance of research through social media, however, significant refinement is required. These results can potentially be transferable to other areas of medicine

Contemporary Management of Locally Advanced and Recurrent Rectal Cancer: Views from the PelvEx Collaborative

Pelvic exenteration is a complex operation performed for locally advanced and recurrent pelvic cancers. The goal of surgery is to achieve clear margins, therefore identifying adjacent or involved organs, bone, muscle, nerves and/or vascular structures that may need resection. While these extensive resections are potentially curative, they can be associated with substantial morbidity. Recently, there has been a move to centralize care to specialized units, as this facilitates better multi-disciplinary care input. Advancements in pelvic oncology and surgical innovation have redefined the boundaries of pelvic exenterative surgery. Combined with improved neoadjuvant therapies, advances in diagnostics, and better reconstructive techniques have provided quicker recovery and better quality of life outcomes, with improved survival This article provides highlights of the current management of advanced pelvic cancers in terms of surgical strategy and potential future developments

Induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy alone as neoadjuvant treatment for locally recurrent rectal cancer: study protocol of a multicentre, open-label, parallel-arms, randomized controlled study (PelvEx II)

Background A resection with clear margins (R0 resection) is the most important prognostic factor in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). However, this is achieved in only 60 per cent of patients. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the addition of induction chemotherapy to neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation improves the R0 resection rate in LRRC. Methods This multicentre, international, open-label, phase III, parallel-arms study will enrol 364 patients with resectable LRRC after previous partial or total mesorectal resection without synchronous distant metastases or recent chemo- and/or radiotherapy treatment. Patients will be randomized to receive either induction chemotherapy (three 3-week cycles of CAPOX (capecitabine, oxaliplatin), four 2-week cycles of FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin) or FOLFORI (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan)) followed by neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery (experimental arm) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery alone (control arm). Tumours will be restaged using MRI and, in the experimental arm, a further cycle of CAPOX or two cycles of FOLFOX/FOLFIRI will be administered before chemoradiotherapy in case of stable or responsive disease. The radiotherapy dose will be 25 × 2.0 Gy or 28 × 1.8 Gy in radiotherapy-naive patients, and 15 × 2.0 Gy in previously irradiated patients. The concomitant chemotherapy agent will be capecitabine administered twice daily at a dose of 825 mg/m2 on radiotherapy days. The primary endpoint of the study is the R0 resection rate. Secondary endpoints are long-term oncological outcomes, radiological and pathological response, toxicity, postoperative complications, costs, and quality of life. Discussion This trial protocol describes the PelvEx II study. PelvEx II, designed as a multicentre, open-label, phase III, parallel-arms study, is the first randomized study to compare induction chemotherapy followed by neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation and surgery with neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation and surgery alone in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer, with the aim of improving the number of R0 resections

Transperineal minimally invasive APE: preliminary outcomes in a multicenter cohort

Background: Abdominoperineal excision (APE) for rectal cancer is associated with a relatively high risk of positive margins and postoperative morbidity, particularly related to perineal wound healing problems. It is unknown whether the use of a minimally invasive approach for the perineal part of these procedures can improve postoperative outcomes without oncological compromise. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of minimally invasive transperineal abdominoperineal excision (TpAPE) Methods: This multicenter retrospective cohort study included all patients having TpAPE for primary low rectal cancer. The primary endpoint was the intraoperative complication rate. Secondary endpoints included major morbidity (Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3), histopathology results, and perineal wound healing. Results: A total of 32 TpAPE procedures were performed in five centers. A bilateral extralevator APE (ELAPE) was performed in 17 patients (53%), a unilateral ELAPE in 7 (22%), and an APE in 8 (25%). Intraoperative complications occurred in five cases (16%) and severe postoperative morbidity in three cases (9%). There were no perioperative deaths. A positive margin (R1) was observed in four patients (13%) and specimen perforation occurred in two (6%). The unilateral extralevator TpAPE group had worse specimen quality and a higher proportion of R1 resections than the bilateral ELAPE or standard APE groups. The rate of uncomplicated perineal wound healing was 53% (n = 17) and three patients (9%) required surgical reintervention. Conclusions: TpAPE seems to be feasible with acceptable perioperative morbidity and a relatively low rate of perineal wound dehiscence, while histopathological outcomes remain suboptimal. Additional evaluation of the viability of this technique is needed in the form of a prospective trial with standardization of the procedure, indication, audit of outcomes and performed by surgeons with vast experience in transanal total mesorectal excision

A Snapshot of the International Views of the Treatment of Rectal Cancer Patients, a Multi-regional Survey:International Tendencies in Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND: Management of rectal cancer has a number of potentially appropriate alternatives for each patient. Despite acceptance of standards, practices may vary among regions. There is significant paucity of data in this area. The objective was to create a snapshot of the regional differences. DESIGN: This online survey included 10 questions. Enquiries focused on controversial topics, on surgeon and hospital volume, surgical margins, appropriateness of surgical approaches and techniques, watch-and-wait strategies, and total neoadjuvant therapy. Major colorectal surgery societies around the world were asked to invite their members to complete the survey. OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency of responses across regions within each question was compared by Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Seven hundred and fifty-three participants from 60 countries responded. Eight regions were identified, and four had sufficient representation for comparisons. Similarities and differences in the therapies among these regions were identified. Robotic surgery penetrance is higher in North America, and watch and wait is more accepted in South America. Patients in Oceania are more likely to be diverted; Europe has more usage of taTME. DISCUSSION: This online survey was practical as a mean to provide a rapid assessment of the international picture on consistency and variability of rectal cancer patients' care, and to potentially identify opportunities to standardized care to patients. Medical surveys have inherent limitations; pertinence to our study is selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: The management of rectal cancer varies among different regions. Identification of differences is important when considering global efforts to improve management and interpret data