The Magnitude of Global Marine Species Diversity

Background: The question of how many marine species exist is important because it provides a metric for how much we do and do not know about life in the oceans. We have compiled the first register of the marine species of the world and used this baseline to estimate how many more species, partitioned among all major eukaryotic groups, may be discovered. Results: There are ∼226,000 eukaryotic marine species described. More species were described in the past decade (∼20,000) than in any previous one. The number of authors describing new species has been increasing at a faster rate than the number of new species described in the past six decades. We report that there are ∼170,000 synonyms, that 58,000–72,000 species are collected but not yet described, and that 482,000–741,000 more species have yet to be sampled. Molecular methods may add tens of thousands of cryptic species. Thus, there may be 0.7–1.0 million marine species. Past rates of description of new species indicate there may be 0.5 ± 0.2 million marine species. On average 37% (median 31%) of species in over 100 recent field studies around the world might be new to science. Conclusions: Currently, between one-third and two-thirds of marine species may be undescribed, and previous estimates of there being well over one million marine species appear highly unlikely. More species than ever before are being described annually by an increasing number of authors. If the current trend continues, most species will be discovered this century

Transanal total mesorectal excision compared to laparoscopic TME for mid and low rectal cancer - current evidence

Background: Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is potentially the answer to refractory challenges in rectal cancer surgery. The surgical dissection in the deep pelvis is facilitated by a down to up approach with modern laparoscopic techniques. Potential benefits are decrease in short-term morbidity including anastomotic leakages, in conversion and colostomy rate, and better quality of specimens including less R1 rates. Long-term oncological outcome data is lacking and needs to be reviewed thoroughly. Initial (comparative) series show promising results, however there is a lack of audited data and comparative data between laparoscopic TME (LaTME) and TaTME. This review compares available data of LaTME and TaTME. Methods: A systematic review was performed in PubMed to identify papers reporting TaTME series with minimal 15 patients. A comparative set of recent large RCT data on LaTME was constructed. Weighted averages were derived from the extracted data. Primary endpoints were short-term morbidity, anastomotic leakage, conversion, pathological outcomes and local recurrences (LR). Results: The search yielded 1,093 papers, of which after the selection process resulted in the inclusion of 23 series on TaTME. To make a comparison, the four latest RCT’s on LaTME were identified as a referential group. The international TaTME registry paper was presented separately to make a third comparative group. Average morbidity 31.5% and 39.6% and anastomotic leakage 6.9% vs. 8.0% both in favor of TaTME. Conversion rate was 2.0% vs. 15.7% for TaTME and LaTME respectively. Complete mesorectal integrity 86.2% vs. 81.5% and CRM+ 4.6% vs. 7.9%. Five urethral injuries (0.7%) were reported. Long-term outcomes of LRs were reported in a minority of studies with heterogeneous follow-up intervals. Conclusions: This review summarizes the data and potential benefits of TaTME. Compared to LaTME, TaTME decreases short-term morbidity, conversion, suboptimal quality of the specimen and involved CRM rate. Due to concerns about underreporting of poor outcomes, a well-designed randomized controlled trial with quality assurance and report on oncological safety is needed before widespread implementation can be justified

Quality of life after rectal cancer surgery: differences between laparoscopic and transanal total mesorectal excision

Background: Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is a safe alternative to laparoscopic TME for mid and low rectal cancer. TaTME allows improved visualization of the surgical planes and margins, and may potentially improve oncological outcomes. However, functional results after total mesorectal excision (TME) are variable and there are currently only a few published studies that include functional data related to the outcomes of TaTME. Methods: Fifty-four consecutive patients were included in this study: one group included 27 patients who underwent laparoscopic low anterior and the other included 27 patients who underwent TaTME. All patients were asked to complete five questionnaires related to quality of life (QOL) and function [EQ-5D-3L, EORTC-QLQ C30, EORTC-QLQ C29, Low Anterior Resection Syndrome score (LARS), and International Prostate Symptom Score IPSS]. All TaTME patients were operated on at The Gelderse Vallei Hospital by a single surgeon and had a follow-up of at least 6.6 months. Results: The EORTC-QLQ C30 and EQ-5D-3L questionnaires showed comparable outcomes in terms of QOL between the two groups. Almost all items evaluated by the EORTC-QLQ C29, including sexual outcomes, were similar between the two groups. One item concerning fecal incontinence, however, was scored worse for TaTME. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of LARS symptoms or urinary function. Conclusions: Patients undergoing laparoscopic or transanal TME showed comparable functional and QOL outcomes. Although the TaTME technique is still evolving, this study indicates that this technique is a safe alternative to laparoscopic surgery in terms of functional outcomes for mid and low rectal cancers

Oncological Outcomes After Anastomotic Leakage After Surgery for Colon or Rectal Cancer

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate oncological outcome for patients with and without anastomotic leakage after colon or rectal cancer surgery. Summary of Background Data: The role of anastomotic leakage in oncological outcome after colorectal cancer surgery is still topic of debate and impact on follow-up and consideration for further treatment remains unclear. Methods: Patients included in the international, multicenter, non-inferior, open label, randomized, controlled trials COLOR and COLOR II, comparing laparoscopic surgery for curable colon (COLOR) and rectal (COLOR II) cancer with open surgery, were analyzed. Patients operated by abdominoperineal excision were excluded. Both univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to investigate the impact of leakage on overall survival, disease-free survival, local and distant recurrences, adjusted for possible confounders. Primary endpoints in the COLOR and COLOR II trial were disease-free survival and local recurrence at 3-year follow-up, respectively, and secondary endpoints included anastomotic leakage rate. Results: For colon cancer, anastomotic leakage was not associated with increased percentage of local recurrence or decreased disease-free-survival. For rectal cancer, an increase of local recurrences (13.3% vs 4.6%; hazard ratio 2.96; 95% confidence interval 1.38-6.34; P = 0.005) and a decrease of disease-free survival (53.6% vs 70.9%; hazard ratio 1.67; 95% confidence interval 1.16-2.41; P = 0.006) at 5-year follow-up were found in patients with anastomotic leakage. Conclusion: Short-term morbidity, mortality, and long-term oncological outcomes are negatively influenced by the occurrence of anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery. For colon cancer, no significant effect was observed; however, due to low power, no conclusions on the influence of anastomotic leakage on outcomes after colon surgery could be reached. Clinical awareness of increased risk of local recurrence after anastomotic leakage throughout the follow-up is mandatory

Oncological Outcomes After Anastomotic Leakage After Surgery for Colon or Rectal Cancer: Increased Risk of Local Recurrence

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate oncological outcome for patients with and without anastomotic leakage after colon or rectal cancer surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The role of anastomotic leakage in oncological outcome after colorectal cancer surgery is still topic of debate and impact on follow-up and consideration for further treatment remains unclear. METHODS: Patients included in the international, multicenter, non-inferior, open label, randomized, controlled trials COLOR and COLOR II, comparing laparoscopic surgery for curable colon (COLOR) and rectal (COLOR II) cancer with open surgery, were analyzed. Patients operated by abdominoperineal excision were excluded. Both univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to investigate the impact of leakage on overall survival, disease-free survival, local and distant recurrences, adjusted for possible confounders. Primary endpoints in the COLOR and COLOR II trial were disease-free survival and local recurrence at 3-year follow-up, respectively, and secondary endpoints included anastomotic leakage rate. RESULTS: For colon cancer, anastomotic leakage was not associated with increased percentage of local recurrence or decreased disease-free-survival. For rectal cancer, an increase of local recurrences (13.3% vs 4.6%; hazard ratio 2.96; 95% confidence interval 1.38-6.34; P = 0.005) and a decrease of disease-free survival (53.6% vs 70.9%; hazard ratio 1.67; 95% confidence interval 1.16-2.41; P = 0.006) at 5-year follow-up were found in patients with anastomotic leakage. CONCLUSION: Short-term morbidity, mortality, and long-term oncological outcomes are negatively influenced by the occurrence of anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery. For colon cancer, no significant effect was observed; however, due to low power, no conclusions on the influence of anastomotic leakage on outcomes after colon surgery could be reached. Clinical awareness of increased risk of local recurrence after anastomotic leakage throughout the follow-up is mandatory. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00387842 and NCT00297791

Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery with or without Completion Total Mesorectal Excision for T2 and T3 Rectal Carcinoma

Aim: Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is used for the resection of large rectal adenomas and well or moderately differentiated T1 carcinomas. Due to difficulty in preoperative staging, final pathology may reveal a carcinoma not suitable for TEM. Although completion total mesorectal excision is considered standard of care in T2 or more invasive carcinomas, this completion surgery is not always performed. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the outcome of patients after TEM-only, when completion surgery would be indicated. Methods: In this retrospective multicenter, observational cohort study, outcome after TEM-only (n = 41) and completion surgery (n = 40) following TEM for a pT2–3 rectal adenocarcinoma was compared. Results: Median follow-up was 29 months for the TEM-only group and 31 months for the completion surgery group. Local recurrence rate was 35 and 11% for the TEM-only and completion surgery groups respectively. Distant metastasis occurred in 16% of the patients in both groups. The 3-year overall survival was 63% in the TEM-only group and 91% in the completion surgery group respectively. Three-year disease-specific survival was 91 versus 93% respectively. Conclusions: Although local recurrence after TEM-only for pT2–3 rectal cancer is worse compared to the recurrence that occurs after completion surgery, disease-specific survival is comparable between both groups. The lower unadjusted overall survival in the TEM-only group indicates that TEM-only may be a valid alternative in older and frail patients, especially when high morbidity of completion surgery is taken into consideration. Nevertheless, completion surgery should always be advised when curation is intended