BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) therapy may result in significant tumor regression in patients with rectal cancer. Patients who develop complete tumor regression have been managed by treatment strategies that are alternatives to standard total mesorectal excision. Therefore, assessment of tumor response with positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) after neoadjuvant treatment may offer relevant information for the selection of patients to receive alternative treatment strategies. METHODS: Patients with clinical T2 (cT2) through cT4NxM0 rectal adenocarcinoma were included prospectively. Neoadjuvant therapy consisted of 54 grays of radiation and 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. Baseline PET/CT studies were obtained before CRT followed by PET/CT studies at 6 weeks and 12 weeks after the completion of CRT. Clinical assessment was performed at 12 weeks after CRT completion. PET/CT results were compared with clinical and pathologic data. RESULTS: In total, 99 patients were included in the study. Twenty-three patients were complete responders (16 had a complete clinical response, and 7 had a complete pathologic response). The PET/CT response evaluation at 12 weeks indicated that 18 patients had a complete response, and 81 patients had an incomplete response. There were 5 false-negative and 10 false-positive PET/CT results. PET/CT for the detection of residual cancer had 93% sensitivity, 53% specificity, a 73% negative predictive value, an 87% positive predictive value, and 85% accuracy. Clinical assessment alone resulted in an accuracy of 91%. PET/CT information may have detected misdiagnoses made by clinical assessment alone, improving overall accuracy to 96%. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of tumor response at 12 weeks after CRT completion with PET/ CT imaging may provide a useful additional tool with good overall accuracy for the selection of patients who may avoid unnecessary radical resection after achieving a complete clinical response.

Significant morbidity derives from extensive gluteal and perineal hidradenitis suppurativa caused by the disease extension and large wounds that result from surgical treatment. Wide surgical excision is the treatment of choice and leads to cure. Skin-grafting and healing by second intention lead to effective wound healing.

No abstract

(1) CRC is still the most prevalent cause of death; (2) even after curative resections, CRC can cause death through rectal or pouch malignization; (3) long-term survival was also strongly related to the development of extracolonic neoplasia, especially desmoid tumors and gastroduodenal carcinoma; (4) our results raise the need for local improvement in familiar screening and help us to define follow-up strategies and patient-information standards.

-Objectives -To evaluate the incidence surgical results and prognostic factors of locally advanced colorectal cancer.Methods -Cohort study including 679 colorectal cancer patients treated from 1997 to 2007. Clinical, surgical and histological data were analyzed. Results -Ninety patients (females 61%; median age 59 years) were treated for locally advanced carcinomas (13.2%), either in the colon (66%) or rectum (34%). Extended resections most commonly involved the small bowel (19.8%), bladder (16.4%), uterus (12.9%) and ovaries (11.2%). Postoperative morbidity and mortality occurred in 23 (25.6%) and 3 (3.3%) patients, respectively. Survival and recurrence analysis among 76 R0 (84.4%) procedures revealed a 60% 5-year survival and 34% local recurrence rates. Survival curves demonstrated reduced rates for rectal location (45% vs 65%), tumor depth (50% for T4 vs 75% for T3), vascular/ lymphatic/perineural invasion (35% vs 80%) and lymph node metastasis (35% vs 80%). Conclusions -Locally advanced carcinomas were found in 13.2% of patients. Survival rates were negatively affected by rectal location and adverse histological features. Number of involved organs and neoplastic adhesions did not influenced chances of survival. A radical R0 extended resection was achieved in a high proportion of cases, resulting in a 60% cancer-free survival under acceptable operative risks. HEADINGS -Colorectal neoplasms, surgery.

Since the outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), all health services worldwide underwent profound changes, leading to the suspension of many elective surgeries. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of elective colorectal surgery during the pandemic. METHODS: This was a retrospective, cross-sectional, single-center study. Patients who underwent elective colorectal surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic between March 10 and September 9, 2020, were included. Patient data on sex, age, diagnosis, types of procedures, hospital stay, mortality, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) preoperative screening tests were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 103 colorectal surgical procedures were planned, and 99 were performed. Four surgeries were postponed due to positive preoperative screening for SARS-CoV-2. Surgical procedures were performed for colorectal cancer (n=90) and inflammatory bowel disease (n=9). Laparoscopy was the approach of choice for 43 patients (43.4%), 53 (53.5%) procedures were open, and 3 (3%) procedures were robotic. Five patients developed COVID-19 in the postoperative period, and three of them died in the intensive care unit (n=3/5, 60% mortality). Two other patients died due to surgical complications unrelated to COVID-19 (n=2/94, 2.1% mortality) (po0.01). Hospital stay was longer in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection than in those without (38.4 versus 10.3 days, respectively, po0.01). Of the 99 patients who received surgical care during the pandemic, 94 were safely discharged (95%). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that elective colorectal surgical procedures may be safely performed during the pandemic; however, preoperative testing should be performed to reduce in-hospital infection rates, since the mortality rate due to SARS-CoV-2 in this setting is particularly high.

Evaluation of clinic complete response according to current adopted criteria has low sensitivity because pathologic complete response more frequently presented as clinic incomplete response (see Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/DCR/A221).

No abstract