Search

Aim: The aim was to assess the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in high‐risk Stage II colorectal cancer. Method: A systematic literature review and meta‐analysis was performed comparing survival in patients with resected Stage II colorectal cancer and high‐risk features having postoperative chemotherapy vs no chemotherapy. Results: Of 1031 articles screened, 29 were included, reporting on 183 749 participants. Adjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival [hazard ratio (HR) 0.61, P < 0.0001], disease‐specific survival (HR = 0.73, P = 0.05) and disease‐free survival (HR = 0.59, P < 0.0001) compared to no chemotherapy. Adjuvant chemotherapy significantly increased 5‐year overall survival (OR = 0.53, P = 0.0008) and 5‐year disease‐free survival (OR = 0.50, P = 0.001). Overall survival and disease‐free survival remained significantly prolonged during subgroup analysis of studies published from 2015 onwards (HR = 0.60, P < 0.0001; HR = 0.65, P = 0.0001; respectively), in patients with two or more high‐risk features (HR = 0.59, P = 0.0001; HR = 0.70, P = 0.03; respectively) and in colon cancer (HR = 0.61, P < 0.0001; HR = 0.51, P = 0.0001; respectively). Overall survival, disease‐specific survival and disease‐free survival during subgroup analysis of individual high‐risk features were T4 tumour (HR = 0.58, P < 0.0001; HR = 0.50, P = 0.003; HR = 0.75, P = 0.05), < 12 lymph nodes harvested (HR = 0.67, P = 0.0002; HR = 0.80, P = 0.17; HR = 0.72, P = 0.02), poor differentiation (HR = 0.84, P = 0.35; HR = 0.85, P = 0.23; HR = 0.61, P = 0.41), lymphovascular or perineural invasion (HR = 0.55, P = 0.05; HR = 0.59, P = 0.11; HR = 0.76, P = 0.05) and emergency surgery (HR = 0.60, P = 0.02; HR = 0.68, P = 0.19). Conclusion: Adjuvant chemotherapy in high‐risk Stage II colorectal cancer results in a modest survival improvement and should be considered on an individual patient basis. Due to potential heterogeneity and selection bias of the included studies, and lack of separate rectal cancer data, further large randomized trials with predefined inclusion criteria and standardized chemotherapy regimens are required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Aim: There is no consensus as to which ileoanal pouch design provides better outcomes after restorative proctocolectomy. This study compares different pouch designs. Method: A systematic review of the literature was performed. A random effects meta‐analytical model was used to compare adverse events and functional outcome. Results: Thirty comparative studies comparing J, W, S and K pouch designs were included. No significant differences were identified between the different pouch designs with regard to anastomotic dehiscence, anastomotic stricture, pelvic sepsis, wound infection, pouch fistula, pouch ischaemia, perioperative haemorrhage, small bowel obstruction, pouchitis and sexual dysfunction. The W and K designs resulted in fewer cases of pouch failure compared with the J and S designs. J pouch construction resulted in a smaller maximum pouch volume compared with W and K pouches. Stool frequency per 24 h and during daytime was higher following a J pouch than W, S or K constructions. The J design resulted in increased faecal urgency and seepage during daytime compared with the K design. The use of protective pads during daytime and night‐time was greater with a J pouch compared to S or K. The use of antidiarrhoeal medication was greater after a J reservoir than a W reservoir. Difficulty in pouch evacuation requiring intubation was higher with an S pouch than with W or J pouches. Conclusion: Despite its ease of construction and comparable complication rates, the J pouch is associated with higher pouch failure rates and worse function. Patient characteristics, technical factors and surgical expertise should be considered when choosing pouch design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]