Metastasis of a cecal adenocarcinoma to the prostate five years after a right hemicolectomy: a case report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>Prostatic metastasis from a primary bowel adenocarcinoma has been only rarely reported in the medical literature. The case reported here is rare in the fact that the primary tumor was from a right-sided bowel adenocarcinoma. It is unusual because initial immunostaining was not fully conclusive, and so a relatively new method of immunostaining, CDX2, was used to ascertain its histopathology.</p> <p>Case presentation</p> <p>We describe the case of a 54-year-old Caucasian man who had a right hemicolectomy for a primary cecal adenocarcinoma, which was completely excised. Following the procedure, he received adjuvant chemotherapy. Computed tomography scans showed no evidence of local recurrence or metastatic disease. Then, five years later, he presented to his general practitioner with urinary symptoms. An abnormal prostate was palpated on digital rectal examination. Trans-rectal prostatic biopsies were performed, which showed colorectal metastases within the prostate gland. This was confirmed with CDX2 immunohistochemistry. There was no further evidence of distant metastases on positron emission tomography-computed tomography scans.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This case demonstrates a rare isolated hematogenous spread to the prostate from a primary cecal adenocarcinoma, several years after definitive treatment and excision. This highlights the importance of accurate immunohistochemistry and imaging in planning further management and treatment.</p

Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P &lt; 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely

Stimulation of a non-functioning pituitary macroadenoma after administration of goserelin acetate for locally advanced prostate cancer causing a sustained elevation in PSA and testosterone

Long-acting luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists, such as goserelin, have been used for locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer for many years and are the main forms of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Acting on pituitary LHRH receptors, they initially stimulate a transient rise in serum follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and LH. Long-term administration of an LHRH analogue will eventually lead to down regulation of LHRH receptors, thus suppressing FSH and LH secretion. This in turn suppresses testosterone production hence achieving and maintaining androgen deprivation. This case highlights the potential anomaly of a sustained elevated serum testosterone in the context of newly diagnosed locally advanced prostate cancer with a co-existing pituitary macroadenoma after administration of LHRH analogues. Alternative methods of androgen deprivation must be considered in such patients

Efficacy and toxicity of rectal cancer reirradiation using IMRT for patients who have received prior pelvic radiation therapy

Purpose: Locally recurrent rectal cancer may cause significant morbidity. Prior reports of rectal cancer reirradiation following local recurrence suggest treatment efficacy, with variable rates of late toxicity. Modern techniques including intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) may improve the therapeutic index. We report outcomes for pelvic reirradiation as treatment for rectal cancer using IMRT. Methods and materials: The records of 31 patients undergoing reirradiation for rectal cancer between 2004 and 2013 were reviewed. All patients underwent IMRT using an accelerated hyperfractionation (39 Gy in 1.5-Gy fractions delivered twice daily, n=15) or once-daily fractionation technique (median dose, 30.4 Gy; range, 27-40 Gy in 15-22 fractions; n = 16). The median cumulative dose was 77 Gy (range, 59-113), and the median interval from prior pelvic radiation therapy was 39.8 months (range, 10.1-307.6). Treatment intent was palliative in 20 patients and neoadjuvant or adjuvant in 11 patients. Surgery was generally reserved for patients with an isolated local recurrence. Concurrent chemotherapy was administered for 25/31 patients, most frequently capecitabine (n=11) or continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil (n=10). Results: Median follow-up was 11.3 months. The prescribed treatment was completed in 29/31 patients (93.5%). Among 18 patients with symptoms attributable to recurrent disease, successful palliation was achieved in 10/18 (55.6%). The rate of grade 2 and grade 3 acute toxicities was 32.3% and 3.2%, respectively. Local control rates at 1 and 2 years were 61.3% and 47.3%, respectively. Median overall survival was 21.9 months, and 1-year survival was 66.7% for patients who had surgical resection versus 58.7% for those who did not (P = .0802). Conclusions: Rectal cancer reirradiation using IMRT is well-tolerated in the setting of prior pelvic radiation therapy. Given significant risk of local progression, further dose escalation may be warranted for patients with life expectancy exceeding 1 year

Report of the first seven agents in the I-SPY COVID trial: a phase 2, open label, adaptive platform randomised controlled trial

BackgroundAn urgent need exists to rapidly screen potential therapeutics for severe COVID-19 or other emerging pathogens associated with high morbidity and mortality.MethodsUsing an adaptive platform design created to rapidly evaluate investigational agents, hospitalised patients with severe COVID-19 requiring ≥6&nbsp;L/min oxygen were randomised to either a backbone regimen of dexamethasone and remdesivir alone (controls) or backbone plus one open-label investigational agent. Patients were enrolled to the arms described between July 30, 2020 and June 11, 2021 in 20 medical centres in the United States. The platform contained up to four potentially available investigational agents and controls available for randomisation during a single time-period. The two primary endpoints were time-to-recovery (&lt;6&nbsp;L/min oxygen for two consecutive days) and mortality. Data were evaluated biweekly in comparison to pre-specified criteria for graduation (i.e., likely efficacy), futility, and safety, with an adaptive sample size of 40-125 individuals per agent and a Bayesian analytical approach. Criteria were designed to achieve rapid screening of agents and to identify large benefit signals. Concurrently enrolled controls were used for all analyses. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04488081.FindingsThe first 7 agents evaluated were cenicriviroc (CCR2/5 antagonist; n&nbsp;=&nbsp;92), icatibant (bradykinin antagonist; n&nbsp;=&nbsp;96), apremilast (PDE4 inhibitor; n&nbsp;=&nbsp;67), celecoxib/famotidine (COX2/histamine blockade; n&nbsp;=&nbsp;30), IC14 (anti-CD14; n&nbsp;=&nbsp;67), dornase alfa (inhaled DNase; n&nbsp;=&nbsp;39) and razuprotafib (Tie2 agonist; n&nbsp;=&nbsp;22). Razuprotafib was dropped from the trial due to feasibility issues. In the modified intention-to-treat analyses, no agent met pre-specified efficacy/graduation endpoints with posterior probabilities for the hazard ratios [HRs] for recovery ≤1.5 between 0.99 and 1.00. The data monitoring committee stopped Celecoxib/Famotidine for potential harm (median posterior HR for recovery 0.5, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.28-0.90; median posterior HR for death 1.67, 95% CrI 0.79-3.58).InterpretationNone of the first 7 agents to enter the trial met the prespecified criteria for a large efficacy signal. Celecoxib/Famotidine was stopped early for potential harm. Adaptive platform trials may provide a useful approach to rapidly screen multiple agents during a pandemic.FundingQuantum Leap Healthcare Collaborative is the trial sponsor. Funding for this trial has come from: the COVID R&amp;D Consortium, Allergan, Amgen Inc., Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Implicit Bioscience, Johnson &amp; Johnson, Pfizer Inc., Roche/Genentech, Apotex Inc., FAST Grant from Emergent Venture George Mason University, The DoD Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), The Department of Health and Human ServicesBiomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), and The Grove Foundation. Effort sponsored by the U.S. Government under Other Transaction number W15QKN-16-9-1002 between the MCDC, and the Government

Global variation in postoperative mortality and complications after cancer surgery: a multicentre, prospective cohort study in 82 countries

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licenseBackground: 80% of individuals with cancer will require a surgical procedure, yet little comparative data exist on early outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared postoperative outcomes in breast, colorectal, and gastric cancer surgery in hospitals worldwide, focusing on the effect of disease stage and complications on postoperative mortality. Methods: This was a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients undergoing surgery for primary breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer requiring a skin incision done under general or neuraxial anaesthesia. The primary outcome was death or major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested models of patients within hospitals and countries. Hospital-level infrastructure effects were explored with three-way mediation analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03471494. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019, we enrolled 15 958 patients from 428 hospitals in 82 countries (high income 9106 patients, 31 countries; upper-middle income 2721 patients, 23 countries; or lower-middle income 4131 patients, 28 countries). Patients in LMICs presented with more advanced disease compared with patients in high-income countries. 30-day mortality was higher for gastric cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 3·72, 95% CI 1·70–8·16) and for colorectal cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (4·59, 2·39–8·80) and upper-middle-income countries (2·06, 1·11–3·83). No difference in 30-day mortality was seen in breast cancer. The proportion of patients who died after a major complication was greatest in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (6·15, 3·26–11·59) and upper-middle-income countries (3·89, 2·08–7·29). Postoperative death after complications was partly explained by patient factors (60%) and partly by hospital or country (40%). The absence of consistently available postoperative care facilities was associated with seven to 10 more deaths per 100 major complications in LMICs. Cancer stage alone explained little of the early variation in mortality or postoperative complications. Interpretation: Higher levels of mortality after cancer surgery in LMICs was not fully explained by later presentation of disease. The capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention. Early death after cancer surgery might be reduced by policies focusing on strengthening perioperative care systems to detect and intervene in common complications. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit

Effects of hospital facilities on patient outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, prospective, observational study

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licenseBackground: Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide. Methods: A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study—a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3·85 [95% CI 2·58–5·75]; p<0·0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63·0% vs 82·7%; OR 0·35 [0·23–0·53]; p<0·0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer. Interpretation: Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research