Perioperative management and anaesthetic considerations in pelvic exenterations using Delphi methodology: Results from the PelvEx Collaborative

Background: The multidisciplinary perioperative and anaesthetic management of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration is essential for good surgical outcomes. No clear guidelines have been established, and there is wide variation in clinical practice internationally. This consensus statement consolidates clinical experience and best practice collectively, and systematically addresses key domains in the perioperative and anaesthetic management. Methods: The modified Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus from the PelvEx Collaborative. The process included one round of online questionnaire involving controlled feedback and structured participant response, two rounds of editing, and one round of web-based voting. It was held from December 2019 to February 2020. Consensus was defined as more than 80 per cent agreement, whereas less than 80 per cent agreement indicated low consensus. Results: The final consensus document contained 47 voted statements, across six key domains of perioperative and anaesthetic management in pelvic exenteration, comprising preoperative assessment and preparation, anaesthetic considerations, perioperative management, anticipating possible massive haemorrhage, stress response and postoperative critical care, and pain management. Consensus recommendations were developed, based on consensus agreement achieved on 34 statements. Conclusion: The perioperative and anaesthetic management of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration is best accomplished by a dedicated multidisciplinary team with relevant domain expertise in the setting of a specialized tertiary unit. This consensus statement has addressed key domains within the framework of current perioperative and anaesthetic management among patients undergoing pelvic exenteration, with an international perspective, to guide clinical practice, and has outlined areas for future clinical research

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: Thismulticentre, 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 usingMRI 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 × 1.8Gy in radiotherapy-naive patients, and 15 × 2.0Gy in previously irradiated patients. The concomitant chemotherapy agent will be capecitabine administered twice daily at a dose of 825mg/m2 on radiotherapy days. The primary endpoint of the study is the R0 resection rate. Secondary endpoints are long-termoncological 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

International consensus definition of low anterior resection syndrome

Aim: Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is pragmatically defined as disordered bowel function after rectal resection leading to a detriment in quality of life. This broad characterization does not allow for precise estimates of prevalence. The LARS score was designed as a simple tool for clinical evaluation of LARS. Although the LARS score has good clinical utility, it may not capture all important aspects that patients may experience. The aim of this collaboration was to develop an international consensus definition of LARS that encompasses all aspects of the condition and is informed by all stakeholders. Method: This international patient–provider initiative used an online Delphi survey, regional patient consultation meetings, and an international consensus meeting. Three expert groups participated: patients, surgeons and other health professionals from five regions (Australasia, Denmark, Spain, Great Britain and Ireland, and North America) and in three languages (English, Spanish, and Danish). The primary outcome measured was the priorities for the definition of LARS. Results: Three hundred twenty-five participants (156 patients) registered. The response rates for successive rounds of the Delphi survey were 86%, 96% and 99%. Eighteen priorities emerged from the Delphi survey. Patient consultation and consensus meetings refined these priorities to eight symptoms and eight consequences that capture essential aspects of the syndrome. Sampling bias may have been present, in particular, in the patient panel because social media was used extensively in recruitment. There was also dominance of the surgical panel at the final consensus meeting despite attempts to mitigate this. Conclusion: This is the first definition of LARS developed with direct input from a large international patient panel. The involvement of patients in all phases has ensured that the definition presented encompasses the vital aspects of the patient experience of LARS. The novel separation of symptoms and consequences may enable greater sensitivity to detect changes in LARS over time and with intervention

International consensus definition of low anterior resection syndrome

Aim: Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is pragmatically defined as disordered bowel function after rectal resection leading to a detriment in quality of life. This broad characterization does not allow for precise estimates of prevalence. The LARS score was designed as a simple tool for clinical evaluation of LARS. Although the LARS score has good clinical utility, it may not capture all important aspects that patients may experience. The aim of this collaboration was to develop an international consensus definition of LARS that encompasses all aspects of the condition and is informed by all stakeholders. Method: This international patient–provider initiative used an online Delphi survey, regional patient consultation meetings, and an international consensus meeting. Three expert groups participated: patients, surgeons and other health professionals from five regions (Australasia, Denmark, Spain, Great Britain and Ireland, and North America) and in three languages (English, Spanish, and Danish). The primary outcome measured was the priorities for the definition of LARS. Results: Three hundred twenty-five participants (156 patients) registered. The response rates for successive rounds of the Delphi survey were 86%, 96% and 99%. Eighteen priorities emerged from the Delphi survey. Patient consultation and consensus meetings refined these priorities to eight symptoms and eight consequences that capture essential aspects of the syndrome. Sampling bias may have been present, in particular, in the patient panel because social media was used extensively in recruitment. There was also dominance of the surgical panel at the final consensus meeting despite attempts to mitigate this. Conclusion: This is the first definition of LARS developed with direct input from a large international patient panel. The involvement of patients in all phases has ensured that the definition presented encompasses the vital aspects of the patient experience of LARS. The novel separation of symptoms and consequences may enable greater sensitivity to detect changes in LARS over time and with intervention

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

Oil-in-water microemulsions as hosts for benzothiophene-based cytotoxic compounds: An effective combination

Targeted delivery of chemotherapeutics in order to overcome side effects and enhance chemosensitivity remains a major issue in cancer research. In this context, biocompatible oil-in-water (O/W) microemulsions were developed as matrices for the encapsulation of DPS-2 a benzothiophene analogue, exhibiting high cytotoxicity in various cancer cell lines, among them the MW 164 skin melanoma and Caco-2 human epithelial colorectal adenocarcinoma cell lines. The microemulsion delivery system was structurally characterized by dynamic light scattering (DLS) and electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy. The effective release of a lipophilic encapsulated compound was evaluated via confocal microscopy. The cytotoxic effect, in the presence and absence of DPS-2, was examined through the thiazolyl blue tetrazolium bromide (MTT) cell proliferation assay. When encapsulated, DPS-2 was as cytotoxic as when dissolved in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO). Hence, the oil cores of O/W microemulsions were proven effective biocompatible carriers of lipophilic bioactive molecules in biological assessment experiments. Further investigation through fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) analysis, comet assay, and Western blotting, revealed that DPS-2, although non-genotoxic, induced S phase delay accompanied by cdc25A degradation and a nonapoptotic cell death in both cell lines, which implies that this benzothiophene analogue is a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) replication inhibitor. © 2018 by the authors

Addendum: Oil-In-Water microemulsions as hosts for benzothiophene-based cytotoxic compounds: An effective combination. [Biomimetics, 3, 13, (2018)] DOI: 10.3390/biomimetics3040033

It was brought to our attention that due to recent changes in the regulation that governs the Ph.D. program at the University of Thessaly, it is mandatory to state the academic institution the Ph.D. student is affiliated with. This was omitted in [1], and we would like to add the following information to the affiliation line for the first author, Ioanna Theochari: "Department of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, School of Health Sciences, University of Thessaly, Viopolis, 41500 Larissa, Greece". Line numbers within the affiliation section have been rearranged and changed as follows: Ioanna Theochari 1, Vassiliki Papadimitriou 1, Demetris Papahatjis 1, Nikos Assimomytis 1, Efthimia Pappou 1, Harris Pratsinis 2, Aristotelis Xenakis 1 and Vasiliki Pletsa 1,* 1 Institute of Biology, Medicinal Chemistry & Biotechnology, National Hellenic Research Foundation, 48 Vassileos Constantinou Avenue, 11635 Athens, Greece; [email protected] (I.T.); [email protected] (V.Pa.); [email protected] (D.P.); [email protected] (N.A.); [email protected] (E.P.); [email protected] (A.X.) 2 Laboratory of Cell Proliferation and Ageing, Institute of Biosciences and Applications, National Centre of Scientific Research "Demokritos", 11635 Athens, Greece; [email protected] * Correspodence: [email protected]; Tel.: +302-107-273-7541 has been corrected to Ioanna Theochari 1,2, Vassiliki Papadimitriou 1, Demetris Papahatjis 1, Nikos Assimomytis 1, Efthimia Pappou 1, Harris Pratsinis 3, Aristotelis Xenakis 1 and Vasiliki Pletsa 1,* 1 Institute of Biology, Medicinal Chemistry & Biotechnology, National Hellenic Research Foundation, 48 Vassileos Constantinou Avenue, 11635 Athens, Greece; [email protected] (I.T.); [email protected] (V.Pa.); [email protected] (D.P.); [email protected] (N.A.); [email protected] (E.P.); [email protected] (A.X.) 2 Department of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, School of Health Sciences, University of Thessaly, Viopolis, 41500 Larissa, Greece 3 Laboratory of Cell Proliferation and Ageing, Institute of Biosciences and Applications, National Centre of Scientific Research "Demokritos", 11635 Athens, Greece; [email protected] * Correspodence: [email protected]; Tel.: +302-107-273-7541. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. The change does not affect the scientific results. The manuscript will be updated and the original will remain online on the article website, with a reference to this addendum. © 2018 by the authors

Lionfish Diet Composition at Three Study Sites in the Aegean Sea: An Invasive Generalist?

The diet of the lionfish (Pterois miles), an invasive species in the Aegean Sea, was examined by collecting stomach content data from fish collected in three study sites in the Aegean Sea (southern Crete, Kastellorizo, and Nysiros islands). Prey composition in terms of numerical abundance and frequency of occurrence was used to compare lionfish’s diet between these sites. Lionfish largely preyed upon teleosts (4% to 83% numerical abundance and 16% to 58% frequency of occurrence, depending on the site) and decapods (12% to 95% numerical abundance and 11% to 81% frequency of occurrence). The most important teleost families in lionfish’s diet were Gobiidae, Labridae, and Scorpaenidae, while decapods and especially the family Scyllaridae and the genus Plesionika were the dominant decapod prey items. The lionfish was found to be an especially successful generalist across the study sites, an opportunistic, predatory species overall, and at the same time, at a local level, it seems to be an equally successful specialist that could increase the predation mortality of already stressed prey populations and can be a serious threat to endemic, critically endangered, and/or commercially important species