Imagine a world without cancer

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.Abstract Background Since the War on Cancer was declared in 1971, the United States alone has expended some $300 billion on research, with a heavy focus on the role of genomics in anticancer therapy. Voluminous data have been collected and analyzed. However, in hindsight, any achievements made have not been realized in clinical practice in terms of overall survival or quality of life extended. This might be justified because cancer is not one disease but a conglomeration of multiple diseases, with widespread heterogeneity even within a single tumor type. Discussion Only a few types of cancer have been described that are associated with one major signaling pathway. This enabled the initial successful deployment of targeted therapy for such cancers. However, soon after this targeted approach was initiated, it was subverted as cancer cells learned and reacted to the initial treatments, oftentimes rendering the treatment less effective or even completely ineffective. During the past 30 plus years, the cancer classification used had, as its primary aim, the facilitation of communication and the exchange of information amongst those caring for cancer patients with the end goal of establishing a standardized approach for the diagnosis and treatment of cancers. This approach should be modified based on the recent research to affect a change from a service-based to an outcome-based approach. The vision of achieving long-term control and/or eradicating or curing cancer is far from being realized, but not impossible. In order to meet the challenges in getting there, any newly proposed anticancer strategy must integrate a personalized treatment outcome approach. This concept is predicated on tumor- and patient-associated variables, combined with an individualized response assessment strategy for therapy modification as suggested by the patients own results. As combined strategies may be outcome-orientated and integrate tumor-, patient- as well as cancer-preventive variables, this approach is likely to result in an optimized anticancer strategy. Summary Herein, we introduce such an anticancer strategy for all cancer patients, experts, and organizations: Imagine a World without Cancer

Banded Sleeve Gastrectomy Improves Weight Loss Compared to Nonbanded Sleeve: Midterm Results from a Prospective Randomized Study

Background. Weight regain after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is nowadays a growing concern. Sleeve dilatation and loss of food restriction is considered the main mechanism. The placement of a silicon ring around the gastric tube seems to give benefits in the short term. We report the results of a randomized study comparing LSG and laparoscopic banded sleeve gastrectomy (LBSG) over a 4-year follow-up. Objectives. To evaluate the efficacy of banded sleeve gastrectomy compared to standard sleeve in the midterm. Methods. Between 01/2014 and 01/2015, we randomly assigned 50 patients to receive one of the two procedures. Patients’ management was exactly the same, apart from the band placement. We analyzed differences in weight loss, operative time, complication rate, and mortality, with a median follow-up of 4 years. Results. Twenty five patients were assigned to receive LSG (Group A) and 25 LBSG (Group B). The mean preoperative BMI (body mass index) was 47.3 ± 6.58 kg/m2 and 45.95 ± 5.85 kg/m2, respectively. There was no significant difference in the operative time. No intraoperative or postoperative complications occurred. At 12-month follow-up, the mean BMI was 29.72 ± 4.40 kg/m2 in Group A and 27.42 ± 4.47 kg/m2 in Group B (p=0.186). After a median follow-up of 4 years, the mean BMI in Group B was significantly lower than Group A (24.10 ± 4.52 kg/m2 vs 28.80 ± 4.62 kg/m2; p=0.00199). Conclusions. LBSG is a safe procedure, with no impact on postoperative complications. The banded sleeve showed a significant greater weight loss in the midterm follow-up. Considering the issue of weight regain observed after LSG, the placement of a perigastric ring during the first procedure may be a strategy to improve the results. This trial is registered with NCT04228185

R0 resection in the treatment of gastric cancer: Room for improvement

Gastric carcinoma is one of the most frequent malignancies in the world and its clinical behavior especially depends on the metastatic potential of the tumor. In particular, lymphatic metastasis is one of the main predictors of tumor recurrence and survival, and current pathological staging systems reflect the concept that lymphatic spread is the most relevant prognostic factor in patients undergoing curative resection. This is compounded by the observation that two-thirds of gastric cancer in the Western world presents at an advanced stage, with lymph node metastasis at diagnosis. All current therapeutic efforts in gastric cancer are directed toward individualization of therapeutic protocols, tailoring the extent of resection and the administration of preoperative and postoperative treatment. The goals of all these strategies are to improve prognosis towards the achievement of a curative resection (R0 resection) with minimal morbidity and mortality, and better postoperative quality of life

Integrated Approaches for the Management of Staple Line Leaks following Sleeve Gastrectomy

Introduction. Aim of the study was trying to draw a final flow chart for the management of gastric leaks after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, based on the review of our cases over 10 years’ experience. Material and Methods. We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent LSG as a primary operation at the Bariatric Unit of Tor Vergata University Hospital in Rome from 2007 to 2015. Results. Patients included in the study were 418. There were 6 staple line leaks (1.44%). All patients with diagnosis of a leak were initially discharged home in good clinical conditions and then returned to A&E because of the complication. The mean interval between surgery and readmission for leak was 13,4 days (range 6–34 days, SD ± 11.85). We recorded one death (16.67%) due to sepsis. The remaining five cases were successfully treated with a mean healing time of the gastric leak of 55,5 days (range 26–83 days; SD ± 25.44). Conclusion. Choosing the proper treatment depends on clinical stability and on the presence or not of collected abscess. Our treatment protocol showed being associated with low complication rate and minor discomfort to the patients, reducing the need for more invasive procedures

Beyond the Guidelines: The Grey Zones of the Management of Gastric Cancer. Consensus Statements from the Gastric Cancer Italian Network (GAIN)

Background: Management of gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma remains challenging, because of the heterogeneity in tumor biology within the upper gastrointestinal tract. Daily clinical practice is full of grey areas regarding the complexity of diagnostic, staging, and therapeutic procedures. The aim of this paper is to provide a guide for clinicians facing challenging situations in routine practice, taking a multidisciplinary consensus approach based on available literature. Methods: The GAIN (GAstric cancer Italian Network) group was established with the aims of reviewing literature evidence, discussing key issues in prevention, diagnosis, and management of gastric and GEJ adenocarcinoma, and offering a summary of statements. A Delphi consensus method was used to obtain opinions from the expert panel of specialists. Results: Forty-nine clinical questions were identified in six areas of interest: role of multidisciplinary team; risk factors; diagnosis; management of early gastric cancer and multimodal approach to localized gastric cancer; treatment of elderly patients with locally advanced resectable disease; and treatment of locally advanced and metastatic cancer. Conclusions: The statements presented may guide clinicians in practical management of this disease

NutriCatt Protocol Improves Body Composition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients Undergoing Colorectal Surgery in ERAS Program: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: A poor body composition, often found in elderly patients, negatively impacts perioperative outcomes. We evaluated the effect of a perioperative nutritional protocol (NutriCatt) on body composition and clinical outcomes in a cohort of elderly patients undergoing colorectal surgery in a high-volume center adopting the ERAS program. Methods: 302 out of 332 elderly (>75 years) patients from 2015 to 2020 were identified. Patients were divided according to their adherence, into “NutriCatt + ERAS” (n = 166) or “standard ERAS” patients (n = 136). Anthropometric and bioelectrical impedance analysis data were evaluated for NutriCatt + ERAS patients. Complications, length of hospital stay (LOS), and other postoperative outcomes were compared between both groups. Results: In NutriCatt + ERAS patients, significant improvements of phase angle (pre-admission vs. admission 4.61 ± 0.79 vs. 4.84 ± 0.85; p = 0.001; pre-admission vs. discharge 4.61 ± 0.79 vs. 5.85 ± 0.73; p = 0.0002) and body cell mass (pre-admission vs. admission 22.4 ± 5.6 vs. 23.2 ± 5.7; p = 0.03; pre-admission vs. discharge 22.4 ± 5.6 vs. 23.1 ± 5.8; p = 0.02) were shown. NutriCatt + ERAS patients reported reduced LOS (p = 0.03) and severe complications (p = 0.03) compared to standard ERAS patients. A regression analysis confirmed the protective effect of the NutriCatt protocol on severe complications (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01–0.56; p = 0.009). Conclusions: The NutriCatt protocol improves clinical outcomes in elderly patients and should be recommended in ERAS colorectal surgery