Background: A high percentage of patients diagnosed with localized colon cancer (CC) will relapse after curative treatment. Although pathological staging currently guides our treatment decisions, there are no biomarkers determining minimal residual disease (MRD) and patients are at risk of being undertreated or even overtreated with chemotherapy in this setting. Circulatingtumor DNA (ctDNA) can to be a useful tool to better detect risk of relapse.Patients and methods: One hundred and fifty patients diagnosed with localized CC were prospectively enrolled in our study. Tumor tissue from those patients was sequenced by a custom-targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel to characterize somatic mutations. A minimum variant allele frequency (VAF) of 5% was applied for variant filtering. Orthogonal droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) validation was carried out. We selected known variants with higher VAF to track ctDNA in the plasma samples by ddPCR.Results: NGS found known pathological mutations in 132 (88%) primary tumors. ddPCR showed high concordance with NGS (r ¼ 0.77) for VAF in primary tumors. Detection of ctDNA after surgery and in serial plasma samples during follow-up were associated with poorer disease-free survival (DFS) [hazard ratio (HR), 17.56; log-rank P ¼ 0.0014 and HR, 11.33; log-rank P ¼ 0.0001, respectively]. Tracking at least two variants in plasma increased the ability to identify MRD to 87.5%. ctDNA was the only significantly independent predictor of DFS in multivariable analysis. In patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy, presence of ctDNA after therapy was associated with early relapse (HR 10.02; log-rank P < 0.0001). Detection of ctDNA at followup preceded radiological recurrence with a median lead time of 11.5 months.Conclusions: Plasma postoperative ctDNA detected MRD and identified patients at high risk of relapse in localized CC. Mutation tracking with more than one variant in serial plasma samples improved our accuracy in predicting MRD.

Preoperative nutritional status and the stapled anastomotic technique were the only independent risk factors for clinically relevant anastomotic leak after elective right colectomy for cancer. Age and preoperative nutritional status determined the mortality risk, while laparoscopic approach reduced postoperative morbidity.

Aim: A prospective review of the complications of ileostomy construction and takedown. Materials and Methods: One hundred twenty-seven consecutive patients undergoing construction of a loop ileostomy were included in a prospective nonrandomized computer database. Complications of the loop ileostomy were assessed prior to and after closure. Three closure techniques were performed [enterotomy suture (25.7%), resection and hand sewn (31.2%) or stapled anastomosis (43.1%)] and compared. Results: One hundred twenty-seven (73 male, 54 female) patients, mean age 54 years were included from 1992 to 2002. Seventy-two patients underwent anterior resection for low rectal carcinoma, 30 an ileoanal pouch for ulcerative colitis and 25 for miscellaneous conditions. Fifty-nine pre-takedown complications occurred in 50 (39.4%) patients. The most common were dermatitis (12.6%) and erythema (7.1%). The most severe were dehydration in 1 patient and stomal prolapse in 4 patients. Closure was associated with a complication rate of 33.1% and a mortality rate of 0.9%. Wound infection occurred in 18.3% and small bowel obstruction in 4.6%. Anastomotic leak requiring reanastomosis occurred in 2.8% and enterocutaneous fistula treated conservatively in 5.5%. There were no statistically significant differences in morbidity between closure techniques (p = 0.892). There were no statistically significant differences in complications (p = 0.516) between patients with ulcerative colitis and those with neoplasia (39.29% vs. 32.2%). Conclusions: Loop ileostomy construction and takedown is associated with considerable morbidity, mostly minor. No differences exist between technique used for closure or the baseline pathology of the patient.

Intrasphincteric injection of botulinum toxin is a reliable new option in the treatment of uncomplicated chronic anal fissure. The healing rate is related to the dose and probably to the number of puncture sites. No permanent damage to the continence mechanism was detected in these patients.

BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) survival depends mostly on stage at the time of diagnosis. However, symptom duration at diagnosis or treatment have also been considered as predictors of stage and survival. This study was designed to: 1) establish the distinct time-symptom duration intervals; 2) identify factors associated with symptom duration until diagnosis and treatment.MethodsThis is a cross-sectional study of all incident cases of symptomatic CRC during 2006–2009 (795 incident cases) in 5 Spanish regions. Data were obtained from patients’ interviews and reviews of primary care and hospital clinical records. Measurements: CRC symptoms, symptom perception, trust in the general practitioner (GP), primary care and hospital examinations/visits before diagnosis, type of referral and tumor characteristics at diagnosis. Symptom Diagnosis Interval (SDI) was calculated as time from first CRC symptoms to date of diagnosis. Symptom Treatment Interval (STI) was defined as time from first CRC symptoms until start of treatment. Nonparametric tests were used to compare SDI and STI according to different variables.ResultsSymptom to diagnosis interval for CRC was 128 days and symptom treatment interval was 155. No statistically significant differences were observed between colon and rectum cancers. Women experienced longer intervals than men. Symptom presentation such as vomiting or abdominal pain and the presence of obstruction led to shorter diagnostic or treatment intervals. Time elapsed was also shorter in those patients that perceived their first symptom/s as serious, disclosed it to their acquaintances, contacted emergencies services or had trust in their GPs. Primary care and hospital doctor examinations and investigations appeared to be related to time elapsed to diagnosis or treatment.ConclusionsResults show that gender, symptom perception and help-seeking behaviour are the main patient factors related to interval duration. Health service performance also has a very important role in symptom to diagnosis and treatment interval. If time to diagnosis is to be reduced, interventions and guidelines must be developed to ensure appropriate examination and diagnosis during both primary and hospital care.