Teaching robotic cystectomy: prospective pilot clinical validation of the ERUS training curriculum

OBJECTIVE

To provide the first clinical validation of the European Association of Urology Robotic Urology Section (ERUS) curriculum for training in robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion (iRARC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The ERUS proposed a structured curriculum, divided into 11 steps, to train novice surgeons and help overcome the steep learning curve associated with iRARC. In this study, one trainee completed the curriculum under the mentorship of an expert. Twenty-one patients were operated on by the trainee following the proposed iRARC curriculum [(t)iRARC group] and were compared with 42 patients treated with the standard of care by the mentor [(m)iRARC group]. To evaluate curriculum safety, peri-operative outcomes, surgical margins and complications were assessed. Propensity-score matching (1:2) was used to identify comparable (t)iRARC and (m)iRARC cases. Matched variables included age, body mass index, neoadjuvant therapy, American Society of Anesthesiologists score and cT stage. Mann-Whitney and chi-squared tests were used to compare peri- and postoperative outcomes between the two cohorts. To evaluate curriculum efficacy, steps attempted and completed by the trainee were assessed and studied as a function of growing surgical experience of the trainee.

RESULTS

The trainee progressed in proficiency-based training through steps of increasing difficulty. No differences in estimated blood loss, positive soft tissue margins, number of resected lymph nodes, overall and high-grade complications, or 90-day readmissions between the (t)iRARC and (m)iRARC groups were observed (all P > 0.05). However, operating time was significantly longer in the (t)iRARC group (P = 0.01). Of the 209 available steps, the trainee attempted 168 (80%) and successfully performed 125 (60%). Increasing experience was associated with more steps being successfully performed (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed ERUS curriculum assists naïve surgeons during the learning curve for iRARC and should be encouraged in order to guarantee optimal outcomes during the learning phase of this procedure.

A model based on endorectal ultrasonography predicts lateral lymph node metastasis in low and middle rectal cancer

PURPOSE

To investigate the risk factors for lymph node (LN) metastasis in low and middle rectal tumors, construct a predictive model and test the model's diagnostic efficacy.

METHODS

The clinical and pathological data of 172 patients with rectal cancer confirmed by surgery were retrospectively evaluated, among whom 61 patients were finally included in this study. Patients were divided into positive groups and negative groups based on LN metastasis, and risk factors that might affect LN metastasis were analyzed. Finally, a risk predictive model was constructed based on the weights of each risk factor.

RESULTS

Compared with pathology, the efficacy of diagnosing LN metastasis only according to conventional endorectal ultrasonography (ERUS) features of LN was not high, with sensitivity 67%, specificity 86%, positive predictive value 76%, negative predictive value 80%, and accuracy 79%. Univariate analysis showed that circumferential angle of the tumor, ultrasonic T- stage (UT stage), conventional ultrasound features diagnosis of LN metastasis, strain ratio (SR) of tumor were risk factors for LN metastasis, while vascular resistance index of rectal tumor was protective factor. Multivariate analysis showed that UT stage (OR = 7.188, p = 0.049), conventional ultrasound features diagnosis of LN metastasis (OR = 8.010, p = 0.025) and SR (OR = 5.022, p = 0.031) were independent risk factors for LN metastasis. These risk factors were included in logistic regression analysis and the model was established, Y = -7.3 + 1.9 X10 + 2.1 X11 + 1.6 X13 (Y = Logit[P], P: LN metastasis rate, X10: UT stage, X11: conventional ultrasound features diagnosis of LN metastasis, X13: SR). The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to test the model's predictive efficacy, the area under the curve was 0.95, sensitivity: 95%, specificity: 87%. Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test showed X2 = 6.015, p = 0.65 (p > 0.05), indicating that the model had a high predictive value.

CONCLUSION

Evaluation of perirectal LN metastasis only based on conventional ERUS features of LN was not effective enough. UT stage of tumor, conventional ultrasound features diagnosis of LN metastasis and SR were independent risk factors for LN metastasis. The predictive model had good assessment efficacy and had certain clinical application value.

Optimal Imaging Strategies for Rectal Cancer Staging and Ongoing Management

Imaging determines the optimal treatment for rectal cancer patients. High-resolution magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) overcomes many of the known limitations of previous methods. When performed in accordance with the recommended standards, MRI enables accurate staging of both early and advanced rectal cancer, accurate response assessment, the delineation of recurrent disease and planning surgical treatment in a safe and effective manner. Tumour-related high-risk features with known adverse outcomes can be preoperatively identified and treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Further, MRI post-treatment tumour response assessment using TRG grading system also predicts the likely survival outcomes and in the future will be used to modify treatment further by stratification into good and poor responders. There is a paucity of literature with validated outcome data concerning use of diffusion-weighted imaging and positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT), and in the absence of any validated methods and outcome data, their use in the initial assessment and restaging after treatment is limited to research protocols. Combination MRI and CT is essential for distant spread assessment and recurrent disease, and currently PET-CT is sometimes used in the workup of patients with recurrent and metastatic disease.

Current approaches and challenges for monitoring treatment response in colon and rectal cancer

Introduction: With the advent of multidisciplinary and multimodality approaches to the management of colorectal cancer patients, there is an increasing need to define how we monitor response to novel therapies in these patients. Several factors ranging from the type of therapy used to the intrinsic biology of the tumor play a role in tumor response. All of these can aid in determining the ideal course of treatment, and may fluctuate over time, pending down-staging or progression of disease. Therefore, monitoring how disease responds to therapy requires standardization in order to ultimately optimize patient outcomes. Unfortunately, how best to do this remains a topic of debate among oncologists, pathologists, and colorectal surgeons. There may not be one single best approach. The goal of the present article is to shed some light on current approaches and challenges to monitoring treatment response for colorectal cancer.

Methods: A literature search was conducted utilizing PubMed and the OVID library. Key-word combinations included colorectal cancer metastases, neoadjuvant therapy, rectal cancer, imaging modalities, CEA, down-staging, tumor response, and biomarkers. Directed searches of the embedded references from the primary articles were also performed in selected circumstances.

Results: Pathologic examination of the post-treatment surgical specimen is the gold standard for monitoring response to therapy. Endoscopy is useful for evaluating local recurrence, but not in assessing tumor response outside of the limited information gained by direct examination of intra-lumenal lesions. Imaging is used to monitor tumors throughout the body for response, with CT, PET, and MRI employed in different circumstances. Overall, each has been validated in the monitoring of patients with colorectal cancer and residual tumors.

Conclusion: Although there is no imaging or serum test to precisely correlate with a tumor's response to chemo- or radiation therapy, these modalities, when used in combination, can aid in allowing clinicians to adjust medical therapy, pursue operative intervention, or (in select cases) identify complete responders. Improvements are needed, however, as advances across multiple modalities could allow appropriate selection of patients for a close surveillance regimen in the absence of operative intervention.