Purpose: To determine whether the tumor immune infiltrate, as recently evaluated with the Immunoscore methodology, could be a useful prognostic marker in patients with rectal cancers.Experimental design: The influence of the immune infiltrate on patient's outcome was investigated in patients with or without preoperative chemoradiation therapy (pCRT). The density of total (CD3 þ ) and cytotoxic (CD8 þ ) T lymphocytes was evaluated by immunohistochemistry and quantified by a dedicated image analysis software in surgical specimens of patients with rectal cancer (n ¼ 111) who did not receive pCRT and in tumor biopsies performed before pCRT from additional 55 patients. The results were correlated with tumor recurrence, patient's survival, and response to pCRT.Results: The densities of CD3 þ and CD8 þ lymphocytes and the associated Immunoscore (from I0 to I4)were significantly correlated with differences in disease-free and overall survival (HR, 1.81 and 1.72, respectively; all P < 0.005). Cox multivariate analysis supports the advantage of the Immunoscore compared with the tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging in predicting recurrence and survival (all P < 0.001). Lymph node ratio added information in a prognostic model (all P < 0.05). In addition, high infiltration of CD3 þ and CD8 þ lymphocytes in tumor biopsies was associated with downstaging of the tumor after pCRT (CD3 þ cells; Fisher exact test P ¼ 0.01). Conclusions:The Immunoscore could be a useful prognostic marker in patients with rectal cancer treated by primary surgery. The determination of the immune infiltrate in biopsies before treatment could be a valuable information for the prediction of response to pCRT.

No abstract

IntroductionIn the early 1990s, the laparoscopic approach in uterine cervical cancer has started to become quite popular among oncologist surgeons in order to minimize postoperative morbidity. When a new surgical technique is taken into consideration or suggested, it is compared with the standard therapy hitherto. Important issues to be taken into account include the feasibility and applicability of the new technique, intraoperative and postoperative complications and in oncological cases, survival and risk of recurrence.Gold standard for uterine cervical cancer in the early stages was abdominal radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for more than 100 years. This technique, described for the first time Wertheim, Meigs subsequently underwent some changes. The first laparoscopic hysterectomy was performed and published in 1989 [1], but the first laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy in a patient with cervical cancer stage IA2 was performed by Nezha et al. in June 1989 and reported in 1992 [2]. Since then, it has been reported in the literature over 1000 cases [3]. Laparoscopic Surgery versus Open Surgery in Uterine Cervical CancerInitially used for diagnostic, laparoscopy has become a method of treatment in the field of gynecological surgery, but also in many other field. The results of laparoscopic surgery are now comparable with those obtained by laparotomy in benign and malignant pathologies. The most important advantages of the laparoscopic technique include more pleasing cosmetic appearance, or minimum parietal infectious complications, low incidence of adhesion formation, low cost associated with hospitalization and recovery period smaller resumption of daily activities in a shorter period [4]. In a study comparing the two surgical techniques, the results show an average of operating time with significant differences statistically 231.7 minutes for cases treated laparoscopically and 207 minutes to classical surgery, which can be explained by the fact that laparoscopic hysterectomies implemented quite recently requires a learning curve. The surgeons will become more familiar with laparoscopic procedure; the operative time is expected to become shorter. Intraoperative blood loss was lower in the laparoscopy (161.1 ml) compared with the traditional method (394.4 ml), with blood transfusions in 3 patients. Postoperative complications, represented mostly wound infections were recorded only in the group that received radical abdominal hysterectomy. The hospital stay was less in laparoscopic interventions (mean=2.9 days) compared with the second procedure (mean=5. A randomized, multicenter study including 116 patients demonstrated that laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy can be performed in a similar operating time classic surgery with intraoperative blood loss less and a relatively shorter period of hospitalization (p<0.01). Postoperative pain, another important parameter discussed, is lower for the first 3 days of laparoscopy versus open surgery (p<0.5) [7]....

Colon cancer is a major public health problem. The treatment of colon cancer is primarily surgical using open and minimally invasive techniques. Minimally invasive surgery approaches for colon cancer include single-port laparoscopy, natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery. The techniques are based on the same principles: complete mesocolic excision, high vascular ligation, and extended lymphadenectomy. Laparoscopic surgery is characterized by short hospital stay, reduced postoperative pain, and less need for painkillers. Laparoscopic resections are less expensive than open surgery, but with similar quality of life outcomes. Robotic surgery is an alternative to open and laparoscopic techniques. This type of surgery results in a lower conversion rate and a shorter learning curve than laparoscopic surgery. When comparing the clinical outcomes of laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery no difference in disease free survival and overall survival were found. This article shows the role of minimally invasive surgery in colon cancer, the clinical outcomes of laparoscopic and open colon being similar.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract