Colibaseanu, Dorin

3566 Background: According to the American Society of Clinical Oncology and College of American Pathologists (ASCO/CAP) joint review on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) issued in March 2018, widespread use of ctDNA assays in most patients with advanced cancer is still an area of ongoing research. However, multiple studies thereafter published and/or presented support its use in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). This has led to several institutions adopting it as ‘clinical practice’. The aim of this study is to report on our institution’s adoption of ctDNA testing for every patient at the time of diagnosis and/or time of progression. Methods: We report on results of 322 CRC patients with 607 ctDNA tests at our center from January 2017 to February 2019 using a commercially available platform (Guardant360). Results: Among 322 patients of our cohort, a total of 607 ctDNA tests were done (Table). 127 (39.4%) of these tests were serial analyses. In the CRC patients who had serial testing, at progression, mechanisms of resistance included acquisition of KRAS, NRAS, EGFR mutations; and HER2- and MET-amplifications. The subclonal mutations were noted to disappear when the selective inhibition was stopped. This was seen in patients on targeted therapies/biologics rather than chemotherapy. This was of value in treatment modification, clinical trial selection and/or monitoring of disease progression in these patients. Conclusions: While ctDNA testing may not be ready for primetime in all advanced cancers, it is increasingly being adopted in practice for especially metastatic CRC. Of particular value is the serial ctDNA testing in the RAS/RAF wildtype subset and now BRAF V600E mutant CRC on anti-EGFR based therapies. [Table: see text]

Abstract Background: Laparoscopy and more recently robotics are increasingly used for colorectal cancer surgery in the United States. We examined the current trends of minimally invasive surgical resections for colorectal cancer in Florida. Methods: The Florida Inpatient Discharge Dataset was used to examine the clinical data of patients who underwent elective surgery for colorectal cancer during 2013–2015. Multivariate analyses were performed to compare patient characteristics associated with the use of open and minimally invasive surgeries. Results: A total of 10,513 patients were analyzed; 5451 (52%) had open surgery, 4403 (42%) laparoscopy, and 659 (6%) robotic surgery. The rates of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) increased from 46.95% in 2013 to 48.72% in 2015. Among minimally invasive surgical procedures, the use of robotics increased from 9.82% in 2013 to 15.48% in 2015. Metastatic cancer (odds ratio [OR] 0.61, confidence interval [CI] 0.55–0.67), Elixhauser score of 3–5 (OR 0.85, CI 0.76–0.95) or more than 5 (OR 0.78, CI 0.63–0.97), Medicaid insurance (OR 0.73, CI 0.6–0.89), Black race (OR 0.88, CI 0.77–0.99), and rural residence (OR 0.83, CI 0.69–0.99) were associated with lower odds of MIS than open surgery. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the overall rates of MIS for colorectal cancer in Florida increased from 2013 to 2015. Socially deprived and very sick patient populations with colorectal cancer are less likely to undergo MIS.

Abstract Background Transverse abdominis plane (TAP) block is considered an effective alternative to neuraxial analgesia for abdominal surgery. However, limited evidence supports its use over traditional analgesic modalities in colorectal surgery. This study compared the analgesic efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine TAP block with intrathecal (IT) opioid administration in a multicentre RCT. Methods Patients undergoing elective small bowel or colorectal resection were randomized to receive TAP block or a single injection of IT analgesia with hydromorphone. Patients were assessed at 4, 8, 16, 24 and 48 h after surgery. Primary outcomes were mean pain scores and morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) administered within 48 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes included duration of hospital stay, incidence of postoperative ileus and use of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia. Results In total, 209 patients were recruited and 200 completed the trial (TAP 102, IT 98). The TAP group had a 1·6-point greater mean pain score than the IT group at 4 h after surgery, and this difference lasted for 16 h after operation. The TAP group received more MMEs within the first 24 h after surgery than the IT group (median difference in MMEs 10·0, 95 per cent c.i. 3·0 to 20·5). There were no differences in MME use at 24 and 48 h, or with respect to secondary outcomes. Conclusion IT opioid administration provided better immediate postoperative pain control than TAP block. Both modalities resulted in low pain scores in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery and should be considered in multimodal postoperative analgesic plans. Registration number: NCT02356198 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

AbstractBackgroundOncological outcomes of locally advanced rectal cancer depend on the quality of surgical and oncological management. Enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) have yet to be assessed for their oncological impact when used in combination with minimally invasive surgery. This study assessed outcomes with or without an ERP in patients with rectal cancer.MethodsThis was a retrospective analysis of all consecutive adult patients who underwent elective minimally invasive surgery for primary rectal adenocarcinoma with curative intent between February 2005 and April 2018. Both laparoscopic and robotic procedures were included. Short-term morbidity and overall survival were compared between patients treated according to the institutional ERP and those who received conventional care.ResultsA total of 600 patients underwent minimally invasive surgery, of whom 320 (53·3 per cent) were treated according to the ERP and 280 (46·7 per cent) received conventional care. ERP was associated with less overall morbidity (34·7 versus 54·3 per cent; P < 0·001). Patients in the ERP group had improved overall survival on univariable (91·4 versus 81·7 per cent at 5 years; hazard ratio (HR) 0·53, 95 per cent c.i. 0·28 to 0·99) but not multivariable (HR 0·78, 0·41 to 1·50) analysis. Multivariable analysis revealed age (HR 1·46, 1·17 to 1·82), male sex (HR 1·98, 1·05 to 3·70) and complications (HR 2·23, 1·30 to 3·83) as independent risk factors for compromised overall survival. Disease-free survival was comparable for patients who had ERP or conventional treatment (80·5 versus 84·6 per cent at 5 years respectively; P = 0·272).ConclusionTreatment within an ERP was associated with a lower morbidity risk that may have had a subtle impact on overall but not disease-specific survival.

Background. Individuals after solid organ transplant may develop secondary malignancies. In our clinical practice, we noted an increasing number of individuals who developed colorectal cancers after solid organ transplantation. The primary aim of this study was to describe the characteristics and outcomes of the patients who developed colorectal cancer after solid organ transplant. Materials and Methods. Data was gathered and merged from several registries at Mayo Clinic to identify all patients who received a diagnosis of colon or rectal cancer and solid organ transplant. Continuous variables were summarized as mean (standard deviation) and median (range), while categorical variables were reported as frequency (percentage). Time to colorectal cancer after transplant and overall survival after cancer diagnosis were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Results. Initially, 115 colorectal cancer patients who also had a transplant were identified. The diagnosis of colorectal cancer was noted after solid organ transplant in 63 patients. The mean age at transplant was 57 years. Majority had received a kidney transplant (44.4%) followed by liver (36.5%). The median time to develop colorectal cancer was 59.3 months (range: 4.4-251.4 months). 15 (24.6%) were stage 4 at diagnosis and 13 (21.3%) had stage 3 colorectal cancer. Median overall survival was 30.8 months; 5-, 10- and 15-year survival were noted to be 42.5%, 17.9%, and 7.5%, respectively. None of the stage 4 patients were alive at 5 years; 5-year survival rate for stage 1, 2, and 3 patients was 77%, 50%, and 42%, respectively. Conclusions. Our study reports on one of the largest cohorts of patients of colorectal cancer that developed the cancer after solid organ transplant. Survival is extremely poor for advanced cases. However, long-term survivors are noted who developed the cancer at a relatively early stage. Colorectal screening recommendations may need to be revised for patients after solid organ transplant.