Search

Background: Aspirin is a simple, globally available medication that has been shown to reduce the incidence of colorectal cancer. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of aspirin in the secondary prevention of colorectal cancer., Methods: This phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 66 centres across 11 countries and territories (ten in Asia-Pacific; one in the Middle East). The trial included patients aged 18 years and older with Dukes' C or high-risk Dukes' B colon cancer or Dukes' B or C rectal cancer who had undergone resection and had completed standard adjuvant therapy (at least 3 months of chemotherapy). Patients with contraindications to aspirin, familial syndromes of colorectal cancer, recent other cancers, and clinically significant history of cardiovascular disease or stroke were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to aspirin 200 mg daily or placebo for 3 years, and were followed up for 5 years. Randomisation was stratified by study centre, tumour site and stage, and inclusion of oxaliplatin in adjuvant chemotherapy. The patients, study team, and sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival. The primary analysis used a stratified Cox model in those commencing study treatment (modified intention-to-treat population), analysing all events to March 31, 2023. Safety was analysed in the same population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00565708). The primary analysis has been completed, but translational studies of putative aspirin sensitivity biomarkers are ongoing., Findings: Between Feb 25, 2009, and June 30, 2021, 1587 patients underwent randomisation, of whom 1550 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis: 791 (51%) in the aspirin group and 759 (49%) in the placebo group. Of these patients, the median age was 57 years (IQR 48-65); 897 (58%) were male and 653 (42%) female; 271 (17%) had Dukes' B colon cancer, 770 (50%) Dukes' C colon cancer, and 509 (33%) rectal cancer. Median follow-up at data cutoff was 59·2 months (IQR 36·7-60·0). 5-year disease-free survival was 77·0% (95% CI 73·6-80·0) in the aspirin group and 74·8% (71·3-77·9) in the placebo group (hazard ratio of 0·91 [95% CI 0·73-1·13]; p=0·38). Any-grade adverse events were reported in 390 (49%) of 791 patients in the aspirin group versus 386 (51%) of 759 in the placebo group. Serious adverse events were reported in 95 (12%) patients in the aspirin group versus 107 (14%) in the placebo group. There were no treatment-related deaths in either group. Among adverse events of special interest, there were no cases of acute myocardial infarction in the aspirin group versus two in the placebo group; no ischaemic cerebrovascular events in the aspirin group versus two in the placebo group; and three major gastrointestinal bleeds in the aspirin group versus one in the placebo group., Interpretation: In patients with colorectal cancer, aspirin 200 mg daily for 3 years after completion of standard adjuvant therapy was well tolerated but did not significantly improve disease-free survival., Funding: SingHealth Foundation, National Medical Research Council Singapore, National Cancer Centre Research Fund, Rising Tide Foundation, Lee Foundation, Lee Kim Tah Foundation, Duke-NUS Khoo Bridge Funding Award, Terry-Fox Run, Silent Foundation, Cancer Australia, Bowel Cancer Australia, and Cancer Council NSW., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JS declares research funding from Bayer. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2025 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Background and Aim: In recent years, the incidence of colorectal cancer has been increasing, and it is now becoming the major cause of cancer death in Asian countries. The aim of the present study was to develop Asian expert-based consensus to standardize the preparation, detection and characterization for the diagnosis of early-stage colorectal neoplasia., Methods: A professional group was formed by 36 experts of the Asian Novel Bio-Imaging and Intervention Group (ANBI 2 G) members. Representatives from 12 Asia-Pacific countries participated in the meeting. The group organized three consensus meetings focusing on diagnostic endoscopy for gastrointestinal neoplasia. The Delphi method was used to develop the consensus statements., Results: Through the three consensus meetings with debating, reviewing the literature and regional data, a consensus was reached at third meeting in 2016. The consensus was reached on a total of 10 statements. Summary of statements is as follows: (i) Adequate bowel preparation for high-quality colonoscopy; (ii) Antispasmodic agents for lesion detection; (iii) Image-enhanced endoscopy (IEE) for polyp detection; (iv) Adenoma detection rate for quality indicators; (v) Good documentation of colonoscopy findings; (vi) Complication rates; (vii) Cecal intubation rate; (viii) Cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) for polyp detection; (ix) Macroscopic classification using indigocarmine spray for characterization of colorectal lesions; and (x) IEE and/or magnifying endoscopy for prediction of histology., Conclusion: This consensus provides guidance for carrying out endoscopic diagnosis and characterization for early-stage colorectal neoplasia based on the evidence. This will enhance the quality of endoscopic diagnosis and improve detection of early-stage colorectal neoplasia., (© 2018 The Authors. Digestive Endoscopy published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.)

Background: Cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) is an emerging surgical procedure for peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC). CRS/HIPEC is a complicated treatment that requires multi-disciplinary teamwork (MDT), which may be lacking when establishing a CRS/HIPEC programme. Herein, we report our preliminary treatment outcomes with the early implementation of an MDT model for CRS/HIPEC., Methods: From April 2015 to December 2016, 45 patients with a diagnosis of PC who received CRS/HIPEC were reviewed retrospectively in a single institution in Taiwan., Results: Among the 45 patients, CRS was mainly performed by laparotomy (n = 42), and only three patients with limited PC underwent laparoscopic CRS. The first 13 patients received treatment before the MDT had been established (group 1), and the other 32 patients were treated after the MDT had been established (group 2). The highest peri-HIPEC body temperature in group 2 was significantly lower than that in group 1 (36.8 °C vs. 37.5 °C, p < 0.001). Overall, eight patients experienced major complications. The trend of a lower major complication rate was observed after the MDT model had been implemented (30.7% in group 1 vs. 12.4% in group 2, p = 0.202). Pre-CRS/HIPEC abdominal pain significantly increased the risk of post-operative major complications (p = 0.017)., Conclusions: Our experience suggests that the early implementation of an MDT model when establishing a CRS/HIPEC programme at a single institution may result in a higher complete cytoreduction rate and lower major complication rate, and also shorten the learning curve of this complicated procedure.

Complete mesocolic excision is a relatively new concept in western literature. It follows the same concept of total mesorectal excision and units' routinely performing complete mesocolic excisions have good pathological results as well as good improvements in overall survival, disease free survival and local recurrence. And yet unlike total mesorectal excision, uptake in the West has been relatively slow with many units sceptical of the true benefits gained by taking up a more technically challenging and potentially more morbid procedure when there is a paucity of literature to support these claims. This article reviews complete mesocolic excision for colon cancer, attempting to identify the risks and benefits of the technique and particularly looking at the reasons why its uptake has not been universal. It also discusses the similarities of a complete mesocolic excision to a colon resection with a D3 lymphadenectomy as well as the role of a laparoscopic approach to this technique. Considering a D3 lymphadenectomy has been the standard of care for stage II and III colon cancers in many of our Asian neighbours for over 20 years, combining this data with data on complete mesocolic excision may provide enough evidence to support or refute the need for complete mesocolic excisions. Maybe there might be lessons to be learnt from our colleagues in the east.