Standard (8 weeks) vs long (12 weeks) timing to minimally-invasive surgery after NeoAdjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer: a multicenter randomized controlled parallel group trial (TiMiSNAR)

Effect of delaying surgery by more than 10 weeks after neoadjuvant therapy in rectal cancer: a single institution experience

The optimal timing of surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in locally advanced rectal cancer is still controversial. Aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of increasing time interval between the end of CRT and surgery on pathological outcomes. This is a retrospective analysis on 114 patients treated with long-course neoadjuvant RT with or without chemotherapy between January 2005 and September 2020. 43 patients underwent surgery within 10 weeks from the end of CRT (1st group), whereas 71 patients underwent total mesorectal excision with a time interval equal or greater than 10 weeks (2nd group). Primary endpoint was pCR (pathological complete response). Secondary endpoints were near pCR (ypT0-1 N0), tumor downstaging (ypT less than cT), nodal downstaging (ypN less than cN), and overall response comparing clinical with pathological TN stage. Overall, the pCR rate was 8.8%, whereas we observed no significantly difference in primary endpoint between the two groups. Considering near pCR, a trend toward significant difference in favor of 2nd group was seen (p = 0.072). Tumor and nodal downstaging rates were 39.5%, 41.9%, 59.2%, and 56.3% in the 1st and 2nd group, respectively, with a statistically significant difference for T category (p = 0.042). Overall response rates (TN stage) showed a trend toward significant difference in favor of patients of the ≥ 10 week group (p = 0.059). Our study suggests that a prolonged time interval between the end of CRT and surgery (≥ 10 weeks) increases pathological response rates.

Watch and wait in locally advance rectal cancer: Past, present and future

In rectal cancer, a complete pathological response after neoadjuvant therapy means better rates survival and better rates of local recurrence. Nevertheless, these patients suffer from complications following surgery such as low anterior resection syndrome, sexual dysfunction or colostomy for the rest of their lives. Due to this, several groups are working in an organ preservation strategy when a clinical response is diagnosed. This strategy is known as watch and wait. In this editorial, we review the past, present and future perspectives for this conservative management.

Multidisciplinary management of elderly patients with rectal cancer: recommendations from the SICG (Italian Society of Geriatric Surgery), SIFIPAC (Italian Society of Surgical Pathophysiology), SICE (Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery and new technologies), and the WSES (World Society of Emergency Surgery) International Consensus Project

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although rectal cancer is predominantly a disease of older patients, current guidelines do not incorporate optimal treatment recommendations for the elderly and address only partially the associated specific challenges encountered in this population. This results in a wide variation and disparity in delivering a standard of care to this subset of patients. As the burden of rectal cancer in the elderly population continues to increase, it is crucial to assess whether current recommendations on treatment strategies for the general population can be adopted for the older adults, with the same beneficial oncological and functional outcomes. This multidisciplinary experts' consensus aims to refine current rectal cancer-specific guidelines for the elderly population in order to help to maximize rectal cancer therapeutic strategies while minimizing adverse impacts on functional outcomes and quality of life for these patients.

METHODS

The discussion among the steering group of clinical experts and methodologists from the societies' expert panel involved clinicians practicing in general surgery, colorectal surgery, surgical oncology, geriatric oncology, geriatrics, gastroenterologists, radiologists, oncologists, radiation oncologists, and endoscopists. Research topics and questions were formulated, revised, and unanimously approved by all experts in two subsequent modified Delphi rounds in December 2020-January 2021. The steering committee was divided into nine teams following the main research field of members. Each conducted their literature search and drafted statements and recommendations on their research question. Literature search has been updated up to 2020 and statements and recommendations have been developed according to the GRADE methodology. A modified Delphi methodology was implemented to reach agreement among the experts on all statements and recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2021 SICG-SIFIPAC-SICE-WSES consensus for the multidisciplinary management of elderly patients with rectal cancer aims to provide updated evidence-based statements and recommendations on each of the following topics: epidemiology, pre-intervention strategies, diagnosis and staging, neoadjuvant chemoradiation, surgery, watch and wait strategy, adjuvant chemotherapy, synchronous liver metastases, and emergency presentation of rectal cancer.

Impact of the Interval Between Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Gastrectomy on Short- and Long-Term Outcomes for Patients with Advanced Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

The optimal time between neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and gastrectomy for gastric cancer (GC) remains unknown. This study aimed to investigate the association between the time-to-surgery (TTS) interval and the major pathologic response (mPR).

METHODS

In this study, 280 consecutive GC patients who underwent NAC followed by gastrectomy between 2014 and 2018 were retrospectively analyzed by the use of prospectively collected databases from three major GC treatment centers in Lithuania and Estonia. Based on TTS, they were grouped into three interval categories: the early-surgery group (ESG: ≤ 30 days; n = 70), the standard-surgery group (SSG: 31-43 days; n = 138), and the delayed-surgery group (DSG: ≥ 44 days, n = 72). The primary outcome of the study was the mPR rate. The secondary end points were postoperative morbidity, mortality, oncologic safety (measured as the number of resected lymph nodes and radicality), and long-term outcomes.

RESULTS

The mPR rate for the ESG group (32.9%) was significantly higher than for the SSG group (20.3%) or the DSG group (16.7%) (p = 0.047). Furthermore, after adjustment for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics, the odds for achievement of mPR were twofold higher for the patients undergoing early surgery (odds ratio [OR] 2.09; 95% conflidence interval [CI] 1.01-4.34; p = 0.047). Overall morbidity, severe complications, 30-day mortality, R0 resection, and retrieval of at least 15 lymph nodes rates were similar across the study groups. In addition, the long-term outcomes did not differ between the study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that an interval of more than 30 days between the end of NAC and gastrectomy is associated with a higher mPR rate, the same oncologic safety of surgery, and similar morbidity and mortality.