Risk factors for esophago-jejunal anastomosis leakage after total gastrectomy for cancer. A multicenter retrospective study of the Italian research group for gastric cancer

Background: Many Eastern reports attempted to identify predictive variables for esophago-jejunal anastomosis leakage (EJAL) after total gastrectomy for cancer. There are no definitive answers about reliable risk factors for EJAL. This retrospective study shows the largest Western series focused on this topic.Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective study analyzing patients' datasets collected by 18 Italian referral Centres of the Italian Research Group for Gastric Cancer (GIRCG) from 2000 to 2018. The inclusion criteria were pathological diagnosis of gastric and esophageal (Siewert III) carcinoma requiring total gastrectomy. The primary end point of risk analysis was the occurrence of EJAL; secondary end points were post-operative (30-day) morbidity and mortality, length of stay (LoS), and survival.Results: Data of 1750 patients submitted to total gastrectomy were collected. EJAL developed in 116 (6.6%) patients and represented the 26.3% of all the 441 observed post-operative surgical complications. EJAL diagnosis was followed by a reoperation in 39 (33.6%) patients and by an endoscopic/radiological procedure in 30 cases (25.9%). In 47 patients (40.5%) EJAL was managed with conservative approach. Post-operative LoS and mortality were significantly higher after EJAL occurrence (27 days versus 12 days and 8.6% versus 1.6%, respectively). At risk analysis, comorbidities (particularly, if respiratory), minimally invasive surgery, extended lymphadenectomy, and anastomotic technique resulted significant predictive factors for EJAL. EJAL did not significantly affect survival.Conclusions: These results were consistent with Asian experiences: the frequency of EJAL and its higher rate observed in patients with comorbidities or after minimally invasive approach were confirmed. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd, BASO similar to The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved

Segmental transverse colectomy. Minimally invasive versus open approach: results from a multicenter collaborative study

The role of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of transverse colon cancer is still controversial. The aim of this study is to investigate the advantages of a totally laparoscopic technique comparing open versus laparoscopic/robotic approach. Three hundred and eighty-eight patients with transverse colon cancer, treated with a segmental colon resection, were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic data, tumor stage, operative time, intraoperative complications, number of harvested lymph nodes and recovery outcomes were recorded. Recurrences and death were also evaluated during the follow-up. No differences were found between conventional and minimally invasive surgery, both for oncological long-term outcomes (recurrence rate p = 0.28; mortality p = 0.62) and postoperative complications (overall rate p = 0.43; anemia p = 0.78; nausea p = 0.68; infections p = 0.91; bleeding p = 0.62; anastomotic leak p = 0.55; ileus p = 0.75). Nevertheless, recovery outcomes showed statistically significant differences in favor of minimally invasive surgery in terms of time to first flatus (p = 0.001), tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.017), time to first mobilization (p = 0.001) and hospital stay (p = 0.004). Compared with laparoscopic approach, robotic surgery showed significantly better results for time to first flatus (p = 0.001), to first mobilization (p = 0.005) and tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.001). Finally, anastomosis evaluation confirmed the superiority of intracorporeal approach which showed significantly better results for time to first flatus (p = 0.001), to first mobilization (p = 0.003) and tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.001); moreover, we recorded a statistical difference in favor of intracorporeal approach for infection rate (p = 0.04), bleeding (p = 0.001) and anastomotic leak (p = 0.03). Minimally invasive approach is safe and effective as the conventional open surgery, with comparable oncological results but not negligible advantages in terms of recovery outcomes. Moreover, we demonstrated that robotic approach may be considered a valid option and an intracorporeal anastomosis should always be preferred

The Italian version of the LARS score: cross-cultural adaptation and validation. An Italian Society of Surgical Oncology-Colorectal Cancer Network (SICO-CCN) collaborative study

Purpose: The LARS score is an internationally well-accepted questionnaire to assess low anterior resection syndrome, but currently there is no formally validated Italian version. The purpose of this study was to test the reliability and validity of the Italian version among Italian patients submitted to sphincter-sparing surgery for rectal cancer. Methods: The English version of the LARS score was translated into Italian following the forward-and-back translation process. A total of 147 patients filled out our version. Among them, 40 patients answered the questionnaire twice for the test-retest reliability phase. The validity of the LARS score was tested using convergent and discriminant validity indicators by correlating the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29 questionnaires. The LARS score capability to differentiate groups of patients with different demographic or clinical features was also assessed. Results: The test-retest reliability was excellent in 87.5% of patients, remained in the same LARS category in both tests. The convergent validity phase showed a relevant relationship of the LARS score with the EORTC domains, which was significant for 7 of 15 EORTC QLQ-C30 subscales, and for 14 of 29 EORTC QLQ-CR29 subscales. The LARS score was able to discriminate patients who received radiotherapy (p = 0.0026), TME vs. PME (p = 0.0060), tumour site at < 10 cm from the anal verge (p = 0.0030) and history of protective stoma (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: The Italian version of the LARS score is a valid and reliable tool for measuring LARS in Italian patients after SSS for rectal cancer

Safety and efficacy of totally minimally invasive right colectomy in the obese patients: a multicenter propensity score-matched analysis

Despite the well-known benefits of the minimally invasive approach for the right colon cancer treatment, less is known about its feasibility and advantages in morbid obese patients. The aim of this study is to compare the postoperative outcomes after totally minimally invasive right colectomy between the obese and non-obese population. Data derived from a prospectively maintained multicenter colorectal database were analysed, dividing the enrolled patients into two groups: obese (BMI > 29.99) patient group and non-obese patient group. Data about gender, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Score, tumor characteristics, operative time, anastomosis time, extraction site, incision length, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, postoperative recovery, specimen length and retrieved nodes were taken to assess the achievement of the oncologic standards. After a propensity score matching, a total of 184 patients was included, 92 in each group. No differences were found in terms of demographic data and tumor characteristics. Intraoperative data showed a significant difference in terms of anastomosis time in favour of non-obese group (p < 0.0001). No intraoperative complications were recorded and no conversion was needed in both groups. No differences were found in terms of postoperative complications. There were no differences in terms of first mobilization (p = 0.745), time to first flatus (p = 0.241) time to tolerance to liquid and solid diet (p = 0.241 and p = 0.06) and length of hospital stay (p = 0.817). The analysis of oncologic outcomes demonstrated adequate results in both groups. The results obtained by our study confirmed the feasibility and safety of the totally minimally invasive approach even in obese population

Structured and shared CT radiological report of gastric cancer: a consensus proposal by the Italian Research Group for Gastric Cancer (GIRCG) and the Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM)

Objectives Written radiological report remains the most important means of communication between radiologist and referring medical/surgical doctor, even though CT reports are frequently just descriptive, unclear, and unstructured. The Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM) and the Italian Research Group for Gastric Cancer (GIRCG) promoted a critical shared discussion between 10 skilled radiologists and 10 surgical oncologists, by means of multi-round consensus-building Delphi survey, to develop a structured reporting template for CT of GC patients. Methods Twenty-four items were organized according to the broad categories of a structured report as suggested by the European Society of Radiology (clinical referral, technique, findings, conclusion, and advice) and grouped into three "CT report sections" depending on the diagnostic phase of the radiological assessment for the oncologic patient (staging, restaging, and follow-up). Results In the final round, 23 out of 24 items obtained agreement ( >= 8) and consensus ( 0.05). Conclusions The structured report obtained, shared by surgical and medical oncologists and radiologists, allows an appropriate, clearer, and focused CT report essential to high-quality patient care in GC, avoiding the exclusion of key radiological information useful for multidisciplinary decision-making