No abstract

a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f oObjectives: As result of the aging population and increasing rectal cancer incidence, more older patients undergo treatment for rectal cancer. This study compares treatment course, postoperative complications, and quality of life (QOL) between older and younger patients with rectal cancer and evaluates the impact of postoperative complications on QOL in the elderly. Materials and Methods: Patients with rectal cancer participating in a prospective colorectal cancer cohort and referred for radiotherapy between 2013 and 2016 were included. QOL was assessed with the cancer questionnaire of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC QLQ-C30) before treatment and at three, six, and twelve months. Outcomes were compared between older patients (≥70 years) and younger patients (b 70 years) and stratified by presence of postoperative complications. Results: In total, 115 (33%) older patients and 230 (67%) younger patients were included. Compared to younger patients, older patients underwent significantly more often short-course radiation with delayed surgery (6.1% and 19.1% respectively) and less often chemoradiation (62.6% and 39.1% respectively), and were more likely to undergo a Hartmann procedure with permanent stoma (3.5% and 13.0% respectively) instead of sphincter-sparing surgery (43.9% and 29.6% respectively). Postoperative complication rates were similar (38.5% in older patients versus 34.7% in younger patients). Older patients had worse physical functioning at six and twelve months after diagnosis compared to younger patients. Presence of postoperative complications had a significant stronger impact on physical-and role functioning in older patients. Conclusion: Older patients undergo more often a tailored treatment approach for rectal cancer than younger patients. With this tailored approach, similar postoperative complication rates and QOL are achieved. However, postoperative complications have a larger negative impact on physical-and role functioning in older patients which indicates a need for better prediction of postoperative complications in the elderly.

Background Melanoma patients with intra‐nodal nevi (INN) and without melanoma metastasis in the sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) are generally treated as patients with negative SLNB. However, diagnosis of INN may be difficult and nodal melanoma metastases may falsely be regarded as INN. Objectives Our aim was to evaluate the clinical significance of INN in the SLNB in patients with primary cutaneous melanoma on a nationwide level in The Netherlands by comparing survival between three groups: patients with INN and without nodal melanoma metastasis (INN group), patients without INN and without nodal melanoma metastasis (negative SLNB group) and patients with nodal melanoma metastasis irrespective of INN (positive SLNB group). Methods Data were obtained from ‘PALGA’, the Dutch Nationwide Network and Registry of Histopathology and Cytopathology, yielding a cohort of adults with histologically proven, primary, invasive cutaneous melanoma patients in The Netherlands diagnosed between 2000 and 2014 who underwent SLNB. Clinical and pathological variables were extracted from the pathology text files. Differences between patients with INN, negative SLNB and positive SLNB were analysed using Kaplan–Meier analysis. Results A total of 11 274 patients were eligible for inclusion. The prevalence of INN in the SLNB was 5.0%. Melanomas with INN had similar median Breslow thickness compared to melanomas with negative SLNB and were more frequently located on trunk and upper limbs and observed in younger patients compared to melanomas with negative and positive SLNB. Overall survival of patients with INN showed no significant difference compared with negative SLNB (median follow‐up of 5.7 years of all patients). Conclusions As there seems to be no difference in overall survival between patients with INN and negative SLNB, the diagnosis of INN seems to be reliable. Current practice to treat patients with INN as patients with negative SLNB appears to be appropriate.

No abstract