Early-rectal Cancer Treatment: A Decision-tree Making Based on Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Local excision (LE) has arisen as an alternative to total mesorectal excision for the treatment of early rectal cancer. Despite a decreased morbidity, there are still concerns about LE outcomes.This systematic-review and meta-analysis design is based on the “PICO” process, aiming to answer to three questions related to LE as primary treatment for early-rectal cancer, the optimal method for LE, and the potential role for completion treatment in high-risk histology tumors and outcomes of salvage surgery.The results revealed that reported overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) were 71%–91.7% and 80%–94% for LE, in contrast to 92.3%–94.3% and 94.4%–97% for radical surgery. Additional analysis of National Database studies revealed lower OS with LE (HR: 1.26; 95%CI, 1.09–1.45) and DSS (HR: 1.19; 95%CI, 1.01–1.41) after LE. Furthermore, patients receiving LE were significantly more prone develop local recurrence (RR: 3.44, 95%CI, 2.50–4.74). Analysis of available transanal surgical platforms was performed, finding no significant differences among them but reduced local recurrence compared to traditional transanal LE (OR:0.24;95%CI, 0.15–0.4). Finally, we found poor survival outcomes for patients undergoing salvage surgery, favoring completion treatment (chemoradiotherapy or surgery) when high-risk histology is present.In conclusion, LE could be considered adequate provided a full-thickness specimen can be achieved that the patient is informed about risk for potential requirement of completion treatment. Early-rectal cancer cases should be discussed in a multidisciplinary team, and patient's preferences must be considered in the decision-making process.     

早中期结直肠癌根治术后中西结合心理康复干预指南解读及典型病例

我国癌症患者普遍存在着心理康复需求,中医药对其有良好的干预效果。目前已有肿瘤相关西医心理指南及标准治疗方案发表,然而中西医结合及中医干预方案仍有待规范。结直肠癌作为中国高发病率、长生存期的肿瘤,其根治术后的时期作为中西医结合心理康复的良好切入点,前期已有一定基础的研究发表。为规范该类疾病的诊疗及随访,提高中西医结合治疗早中期结直肠癌根治术后心理问题的效果,2022年中华中医药学会发布《早中期结直肠癌根治术后中西医结合心理康复干预指南》,包含12条推荐意见。该指南为结直肠癌领域首个中西医结合心理干预指南,但受限于相关研究的数量与质量,未来尚需要更多高质量研究结果的发表以促进其更新完善。     

解剖性保留控尿肌群技术在腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术中的临床应用价值

目的 探讨腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术（LRP）中解剖性保留控尿肌群技术对术后早期控尿功能恢复的影响,及其肿瘤学安全性。方法 回顾性队列研究。纳入2016年1月—2020年6月浙江大学医学院附属金华医院泌尿外科采用LRP治疗的前列腺癌患者共292例,将其中采用解剖性保留控尿肌群技术的83例纳入观察组;对另外209例接受经典前列腺癌根治术的患者与观察组患者进行1∶1倾向性评分匹配,选择其中83例纳入对照组。全组共166例,年龄45~75（64.0±7.3）岁,BMI 21~31（24.4±2.4）kg/m²。对比分析2组患者手术时间、术中出血量、术后病理TNM分期、Gleason评分、术后留置导尿时间、手术并发症和手术切缘阳性（PSM）率;采用Kaplan-Meier法评估患者3年、5年无生化复发（BCR）累积生存率;根据术后每天使用的尿垫数量进行控尿功能分级评估,分别于拔除导尿管后的当天（第1个24 h）、1周及1、3、6、12个月时,观察并对比2组患者控尿功能恢复情况。结果 2组患者年龄、临床分期、危险分级、膀胱颈和神经保留与否等临床基线特征比较,差异均无统计学意义（P值均>0.05）。全组166例均在腹腔镜下完成手术,术后恢复良好,无围手术期死亡病例。2组患者手术时间、术中出血量、术后病理TNM分期、术后Gleason评分、术后留置导尿时间和手术并发症比较,差异均无统计学意义（P值均>0.05）。观察组PSM率为10.84％（9/83）,低于对照组的13.25%（11/83）,但差异无统计学意义（χ²=0.23, P=0.633）。2组患者术后随访12~71个月,平均33.73个月。随访期间无死亡病例。观察组3年、5年无BCR累积生存率分别为90.2％和73.2%,对照组分别为91.4%和77.8%,2组差异无统计学意义（χ²=0.38, P=0.535）。在拔除导尿管后当天、1周及1、3、6个月,观察组完全控尿率分别为39.76%（33/83）、53.01%（44/83）、66.27%（55/83）、90.36%（75/83）和97.95%（81/83）,对照组为16.87%（14/83）、21.96%（18/83）、38.55%（32/83）、53.01%（44/83）和68.67%（57/83）;观察组控尿功能分级均优于对照组,差异均有统计学意义（Z=-4.24、-4.09、-3.78、-5.61、-4.99,P值均<0.001）;拔管后12个月,2组完全控尿率分别为98.80%（82/83）和93.98%（78/83）,控尿功能分级比较差异无统计学意义（Z=-1.67,P=0.094）。术后3个月,观察组控尿（完全+社交）率达100％（83/83）,高于对照组的73.49%（61/83）,差异有统计学意义（χ²=25.36, P<0.001）。结论 LRP中解剖性保留控尿肌群技术的应用有助于患者术后早期恢复控尿功能,且不影响手术的肿瘤学安全性。     

腹腔镜远端胃癌根治术消化道重建的单中心经验

目的:对比线形吻合器与圆形吻合器在腹腔镜胃癌根治术(毕Ⅱ+布朗吻合)中的应用价值。方法:回顾分析2019年1月至2020年6月接受腹腔镜胃癌根治术(毕Ⅱ+布朗吻合)的116例患者的临床资料。根据吻合方式将患者分成两组,线形吻合器组(n=58)与圆形吻合器组(n=58),通过对比两组患者一般资料、手术情况及术后短期恢复情况,并进行6个月的随访,分析线形吻合器与圆形吻合器在腹腔镜胃癌根治术中的应用价值。结果:两组患者一般资料、术后病理及术后并发症差异无统计学意义,线形吻合组手术时间[(212.93±32.09)min vs.(242.26±34.90)min,P<0.001]、吻合时间[(44.03±2.66)min vs.(70.50±3.33)min,P<0.001]短于圆形吻合组,线形吻合组术后3 d内胃管引流量[(50.34±39.64)mL vs.(67.84±49.71)mL,P=0.038]少于圆形吻合组,术后首次排气时间[(73.66±25.38)h vs.(85.48±16.63)h,P<0.001]、首次试饮水时间[(3.59±0.50)d vs.(4.29±0.62)d,P<0.001]早于圆形吻合组,线形吻合组术后第3天白细胞计数[(9.27±3.52)vs.(10.78±3.35),P=0.020]及术后3 d内最高体温[(37.57±0.49)℃vs.(37.75±0.48)℃,P=0.044]均低于圆形吻合组,术后上消化道造影线形吻合组吻合口宽度[(1.5±0.00)cm vs.(0.98±0.092)cm,P<0.001]宽于圆形吻合组。结论:腹腔镜胃癌根治术(毕Ⅱ+布朗吻合)中使用圆形吻合器与线形吻合器完成消化道重建均是安全、可行的,但线性吻合器相较圆形吻合器在缩短手术时间、加快术后康复等方面更具优势,可作为优先选择的吻合方式。     

肠系膜下动脉低、高位结扎在腹腔镜直肠癌根治术中的效果比较

目的:探讨低、高位结扎肠系膜下动脉(IMA)在腹腔镜直肠癌根治术中的临床疗效、应用价值及患者术后生存情况。方法:回顾分析2014年1月至2017年1月收治的215例直肠癌患者的临床资料,根据IMA结扎方式分为低位结扎组(n=98)与高位结扎组(n=117)。对比分析两组患者一般情况、围手术期相关指标(手术时间、术中出血量、淋巴结清扫数量、IMA根部清扫淋巴结数量、肛门排气时间、住院时间、住院费用)、手术并发症发生率(吻合口漏、肠梗阻、尿潴留、泌尿系统感染)及生存情况(3年总生存率、肿瘤远处转移率、复发率)。结果:两组手术时间[(153.60±8.04)min vs.(149.40±9.71)min]、术中出血量[(79.30±20.61)mL vs.(69.20±20.13)mL]、淋巴结清扫数量[(15.90±2.26)枚vs.(17.10±2.72)]枚、IMA根部淋巴结清扫数量[(3.20±1.23)枚vs.(3.30±1.42)枚]差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),低位组与高位组的肛门排气时间[(24.40±8.54)h vs.(34.20±8.65)h]、住院时间[(9.30±3.43)d vs.(12.50±3.24)d]、医疗费用[(38500±6381.40)元vs.(47700±11888.84)元]差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。低位组吻合口漏发生率为2%,低于高位组的8.5%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),其余术后并发症发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组患者3年总生存率(76.9%vs.79.5%)、肿瘤远处转移率(11.1%vs.12.2%)、复发率(6.8%vs.8.1%)差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:与高位结扎IMA相比,腹腔镜直肠癌根治术中低位结扎IMA利于术后肠道功能的恢复,降低了吻合口漏发生率,提高了近期疗效。     

加速康复外科在达芬奇机器人胃癌根治术中的应用体会

目的:探讨快速康复外科(FTS)在达芬奇机器人胃癌根治术中的临床应用价值。方法:选取2018年10月至2019年5月53例行达芬奇胃癌根治术的患者,随机分为快速康复组(n=25)与常规组(n=28),快速康复组采取FTS理念指导下的围手术期管理;常规组采取常规围手术期管理。比较两组临床资料、围手术期资料(术后住院时间、C反应蛋白、术后下床活动时间、术后进食流食时间、术后通气时间、清扫淋巴结数量、术中出血量、住院费用)及并发症情况。结果:快速康复组与常规组术后通气时间[(2.16±0.62)d vs.(2.71±0.46)d]、术后进食流食时间[(2.28±0.68)d vs.(3.07±0.47)d]、术后C反应蛋白[(16.54±2.68)mg/dL vs.(18.47±2.99)mg/dL]、术后下床活动时间[(1.20±0.41)d vs.(2.86±0.76)d]、术后住院时间[(9.32±1.73)d vs.(12.57±7.90)d]差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05),两组住院总费用[(89006.59±9202.19)元vs.(90951.84±11549.55)元]、术中出血量[(153.20±107.46)mL vs.(157.14±113.62)mL]、清扫淋巴结总数[(43.24±18.70)vs.(39.54±12.24)]差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:FTS与达芬奇机器人胃癌根治术的结合可降低临床分期Ⅲ期及以下无远处转移的原发性胃癌患者的手术应激及炎症反应,促进胃肠功能早期恢复,住院时间短,患者短期收益大,值得进一步临床应用。     

Learning curve could affect oncologic outcome of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer

Background/ObjectiveRecent prospective studies have shown poorer oncologic outcomes following minimally invasive surgery, which has led many surgeons to deeply inspect their practices. We reviewed our experience and evaluated the results of radical hysterectomy in patients with early stage cervical cancer.MethodsThis retrospective study included patients with early stage cervical cancer (Ia1 - IIa1) who were treated with radical hysterectomy from May 2006 to Dec 2016. Patients were divided into three groups according to the surgical approach: radical abdominal hysterectomy (RAH), laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH), and robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH).ResultsLearning curves of each type of surgery were obtained using the cumulative sum method. Survival rates were compared using Kaplan–Meier curves. To analyze the learning curve of a single surgeon, 89 patients were selected from the whole population. Learning curves of each group showed two distinct phases. The minimum number of cases required to achieve surgical improvement were 16 in RAH, 13 in LRH, and 21 in RRH. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival did not vary between RAH and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) (p = .828 and p = .757, respectively). However, when stratified by the phases of the learning curves, patients included in the early phase of MIS showed a poorer PFS (p = .014).ConclusionsSurgical proficiency could significantly affect the oncologic outcome in MIS. A prospective study regarding sufficient surgical competence is necessary for elaborate analysis of the feasibility of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy.