Faculty Bibliography

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the commonest cancers in Western society with a poor prognosis in patients with advanced disease. Targeted therapy is of increasing interest and already, targeted hormone treatment for breast and prostate cancer has improved survival. The aim of this literature review is to summarise the role of hormones in CRC prognosis and treatment. A literature review of all human and animal in vivo and in vitro studies in the last 20 years, which assessed the role of hormones in CRC treatment or prognosis, was carried out. The hormones described in this review have been subdivided according to their secretion origin. Most of the studies are based on in vitro or animal models. The main findings point to adipokines, insulin and the insulin growth factor axis as key players in the link between obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus and a subset of CRC. Gut-derived hormones, especially uroguanylin and guanylin are being increasingly investigated as therapeutic targets, with promising results. Using hormones as prognostic and therapeutic markers in CRC is still in the preliminary stages for only a fraction of the hormones affecting the GIT. In light of the increasing interest in tailoring treatment strategies, hormones are an important area of focus in the future of CRC management.

AIM/OBJECTIVE:To perform a review of the literature reporting on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing treatments for faecal incontinence (FI) in adults. METHODS:A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded and Cochrane was performed in order to identify RCTs reporting on treatments for FI. RESULTS:. In two separate RCTs, combination treatment of amplitude-modulated medium frequency stimulation and electromyography-biofeedback (EMG-BF), was noted to be superior to EMG-BF and low-frequency electrical stimulation alone. Combination of non-surgical treatments such as BF with sphincteroplasty significantly improved continence scores compared to sphincteroplasty alone. Surgical treatments were associated with higher rates of serious adverse events compared to non-surgical interventions. CONCLUSIONS:The current evidence has not identified significant differences between treatments for FI, and where differences were identified, the results were contradictory between RCTs.

OBJECTIVE:To compare techniques for rectal cancer resection. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA:Different surgical approaches exist for mesorectal excision. METHODS:Systematic literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis performed. RESULTS:Twenty-nine randomized controlled trials included, reporting on 6237 participants, comparing: open versus laparoscopic versus robotic versus transanal mesorectal excision. No significant differences identified between treatments in intraoperative morbidity, conversion rate, grade III/IV morbidity, reoperation, anastomotic leak, nodes retrieved, involved distal margin, 5-year overall survival, and locoregional recurrence. Operative blood loss was less with laparoscopic surgery compared with open, and with robotic surgery compared with open and laparoscopic. Robotic operative time was longer compared with open, laparoscopic, and transanal. Laparoscopic operative time was longer compared with open. Laparoscopic surgery resulted in lower overall postoperative morbidity and fewer wound infections compared with open. Robotic surgery had fewer wound infections compared with open. Time to defecation was longer with open surgery compared with laparoscopic and robotic. Hospital stay was longer after open surgery compared with laparoscopic and robotic, and after laparoscopic surgery compared with robotic. Laparoscopic surgery resulted in more incomplete or nearly complete mesorectal excisions compared with open, and in more involved circumferential resection margins compared with transanal. Robotic surgery resulted in longer distal resection margins compared with open, laparoscopic, and transanal. CONCLUSIONS:The different techniques result in comparable perioperative morbidity and long-term survival. The laparoscopic and robotic approaches may improve postoperative recovery, and the open and transanal approaches may improve oncological resection. Technique selection should be based on expected benefits by individual patient.

Anastomotic leak (AL) is a serious post-operative complication in colorectal surgery. It can lead to devastating morbidity and mortality. Clinicians usually depend on a combination of clinical, biochemical and radiological findings to diagnose this problem. In our article, we tried to look if electrolyte disturbances could be indicators for intra-abdominal sepsis due to AL. Systematic review of the literature identifies a potential correlation between electrolyte alterations and AL in digestive surgery. The following databases were searched: PubMed, EMBASE and MIDLINE. The review adhered to the PRISMA statement for systematic review. Our literature search did not identify any articles linking any electrolyte disturbances-except for hyponatremia-to AL. Pathophysiology of these electrolyte disturbances does not seem to be linked to AL, except for hyponatremia which might be explained. Our review included 442 patients with intra-abdominal sepsis and 1133 controls. The mean specificity of hyponatremia being associated with intra-abdominal sepsis is 86%, whereas mean sensitivity is 28%. Hyponatremia seems to be a significant and clinically relevant marker for of intra-abdominal sepsis and AL.

The objective is to investigate preoperative body mass index (BMI) in patients receiving beyond total mesorectal excision (bTME) surgery. The primary end point is length of postoperative stay. Secondary end points are length of intensive care stay, postoperative morbidity and overall survival. BMI is the most commonly used anthropometric measurement of nutrition and studies have shown that overweight and obese patients can have improved surgical outcomes. Patients who underwent a bTME operation for locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer were put into three BMI (kg/m²) groups of normal weight (18.5-24.9), overweight (25-29.9) and obese (≥ 30) for analysis. Included are 220 consecutive patients from a single centre. The overall length of stay, in days ± standard deviation (range), for normal weight, overweight and obese patients was 21.14 ± 16.4 (6-99), 15.24 ± 4.3 (7-32) and 19.10 ± 9.8 (8-62) respectively (p = 0.002). The mean ICU length of stay was 5.40 ± 9.1 (1-69), 3.37 ± 2.4 (0-19) and 3.60 ± 2.4 (1-14), respectively (p = 0.030). There was no significant difference between the three groups in terms of postoperative morbidity or overall survival. Patients with a normal weight BMI in this cohort have a significantly longer length of stay in ICU and in hospital than overweight or obese patients. This is seen with no significant difference in morbidity or overall survival.

BACKGROUND:To assess the impact of primary tumor resection (PTR) on survival and morbidity in incurable colorectal cancer. METHODS:Systematic literature review and meta-analysis to compare PTR versus primary tumor intact (PTI). RESULTS:Seventy-seven studies were included, reporting on 159,991 participants (94,745 PTR; 65,246 PTI). PTR improved overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.59, P < 0.0001; mean difference [MD] 7.27 months, P < 0.0001), cancer-specific survival (HR 0.47, MD 10.80), and progression-free survival (HR 0.76, MD 1.67). Overall survival remained significantly improved during subgroup analysis of asymptomatic patients (HR 0.69, MD 3.86), elderly patients (HR 0.46, MD 7.71), patients diagnosed after 2000 (HR 0.62, MD 7.29), patients with colon (HR 0.58, MD 6.31) or rectal (HR 0.54, MD 6.88) primary tumor, patients undergoing resection of primary tumor versus non-resectional surgery (NRS) to treat primary tumor complications (HR 0.56, MD 8.72), and of studies with propensity score analysis (HR 0.65, MD 5.68). Overall survival per treatment strategy was: [PTI/chemotherapy] 14.30 months, [PTI/bevacizumab] 17.27 months, [PTR/chemotherapy] 21.52 months, [PTR/bevacizumab] 27.52 months. PTR resulted in 4.5% perioperative mortality and 22.4% morbidity (major adverse events 10.2%, minor 18.5%, reoperation 2.5%, intraabdominal collection/sepsis 2.2%). PTI had 21.7% morbidity (obstruction 14.4%, anemia 11.0%, hemorrhage 1.5%, perforation 0.6%, adverse events requiring surgery 15.8%). NRS resulted in 10.6% perioperative mortality and 21.7% morbidity (major 7.9%, minor 21.7%, reoperation 0.1%). CONCLUSIONS:PTR in patients with incurable colorectal cancer results in a limited improvement of survival without a significant increase in morbidity. PTR should be considered by the multidisciplinary team on an individual patient basis.