園田 洋史

BACKGROUND: A laparoscopic approach generally provides several benefits in patients who undergo colon or rectal surgery without jeopardizing oncological outcomes. However, there is a paucity of studies on comparative outcomes of laparoscopic versus open approaches for second primary colorectal lesions after colectomy or proctectomy. METHODS: From patients with colorectal disease who underwent surgery between 2008 and 2022 at our hospital, we collected 69 consecutive patients who had previous colorectal surgery for this retrospective study. Based on the second surgery approach (laparoscopic or open), patients were classified into the Lap (n = 37) or Op group (n = 32). Patients' baseline data and perioperative and postoperative outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Four patients (11%) of the Lap group needed conversion to laparotomy. The intraoperative blood loss was lower in the Lap group than the Op group (median: 45 ml vs. 205 ml, p = 0.001). The time to first bowel movement was shorter in the Lap group than the Op group (median: 2.8 days vs. 3.6 days, p = 0.007). The operative time, frequencies of postoperative morbidities, and overall survival did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic surgery appeared feasible and beneficial for selected patients undergoing second colorectal resection after colectomy or proctectomy regarding blood loss and bowel function recovery without affecting other outcomes.

PURPOSE: Banoxantrone is a topoisomerase II inhibitor that is selectively activated in hypoxia. Although it has exhibited anti-tumor activity against several types of cancers in preclinical models, its efficacy against colorectal cancer (CRC) remains unclear. METHODS: We examined the antitumor effects of 1,4-bis[2-(dimethylamino)ethylamino]-5,8-dihydroxyanthracene-9,10-dione (AQ4), an activated metabolite of banoxantrone, in CRC cell lines (HT-29, CaR-1) using in vitro experiments under normoxic and hypoxic conditions. The inhibition of cell growth was assessed using a proliferation assay. The induction of apoptosis and changes in the cell cycle were measured using flow cytometry. Signaling pathways involved in apoptosis and hypoxia were analyzed. The anti-tumor activity of temsirolimus, an inhibitor of mammalian target of rapamycin, and the combined effects of temsirolimus and AQ4 were also evaluated. RESULTS: Regardless of the oxygen condition, a single drug treatment with AQ4 or temsirolimus inhibited proliferation and induced apoptosis in both cell lines, accompanied by a reduction in the phosphorylation of S6. AQ4 induced G2/M cell cycle arrest, whereas temsirolimus induced G0/G1 arrest. Moreover, the combined treatment markedly reduced the proportion of cells in the S phase and enhanced apoptosis, as evidenced by an increased Bax/Bcl-2 ratio. The hypoxia-induced activation of the HIF-1α pathway was suppressed by AQ4 and temsirolimus. CONCLUSION: Based on the cooperative anti-tumor activity of AQ4 and temsirolimus in vitro, the combination of banoxantrone plus temsirolimus has potential as a treatment option for CRC in preclinical and clinical settings.

BACKGROUND: Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) is a novel treatment strategy that is an alternative to preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). However, an optimal protocol for TNT has not yet been established. The present study will be an open-label, single-arm, single-center trial to develop a new protocol. METHODS: Thirty LARC patients at high risk of distant metastasis will receive CRT consisting of long-course radiation, concurrent with tegafur/uracil, oral leucovorin, irinotecan (TEGAFIRI), followed by mFOLFOX-6 or CAPOX before undergoing surgery. DISCUSSION: Since previous findings showed a high percentage of grade 3-4 adverse events with the TEGAFIRI regimen for CRT and TNT, the primary outcome of this study will be safety and feasibility. Our regimen for CRT consists of the biweekly administration of irinotecan for good patient compliance. The novel combination approach of this treatment may improve the long-term outcomes of LARC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Japan Registry of Clinical Trials jRCTs031210660.

PURPOSE: The second Houston valve is used as a surrogate for estimating the position of the peritoneal reflection; however, the concordance between the positions of the valve and peritoneal reflection has not been investigated. This study aimed to clarify this positional relationship. METHODS: The second Houston valve and peritoneal reflection positions were assessed using tomographic colonography and magnetic resonance imaging. In total, 117 patients were enrolled in this study. RESULTS: The positions of the second Houston valve and peritoneal reflection were nearly concordant, although the space between them ranged from - 20.7 to 33.9 mm. A peritoneal reflection located further from the anal verge than the second Houston valve was defined as a shallow peritoneal reflection. Male sex, high body weight, and a high body mass index were significantly correlated with a shallower peritoneal reflection, as determined by a univariate analysis (sex: P = 0.0138, weight: P = 0.0097, body mass index: P = 0.0311). A multivariate analysis revealed a significantly shallower peritoneal reflection in males than in females (odds ratio: 2.75, 95% confidence interval: 1.15-6.56, P = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: The second Houston valve located near the peritoneal reflection can be a useful surrogate marker for estimating its position. In relatively heavy males, the peritoneal reflection is located more cranially than the second Houston valve.

The genetic risk factors for anastomotic recurrence (AR) after curative surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) are unclear. The present study is a single-center retrospective observational study that aimed to elucidate the association between the KRAS G13D mutation and AR in CRC. The present study included 21 patients with AR and 67 patients with non-anastomotic local recurrence (NALR) following curative surgery for CRC between January 2005 and December 2019. KRAS G13D mutation status was examined by droplet digital polymerase chain reaction. Data of clinicopathological findings and oncological outcomes were analyzed and compared between the AR group and the matched NALR group. The prevalence of the KRAS G13D mutation was significantly higher in the AR group (AR vs. NALR, 33.3 vs. 4.8%; P=0.047). Comparing the KRAS G13D mutation-positive and KRAS G13D mutation-negative patients in the AR group, there was no significant difference in the time from initial surgery to AR or resection rate of AR; however, all patients with KRAS G13D mutation who underwent resection of AR had subsequent recurrence within 2 years after resection, and overall survival was poor (3-year survival rate: Positive vs. negative, 68.6 vs. 90.9%; P=0.02). The prevalence of the KRAS G13D mutation was significantly higher in patients with AR, and KRAS G13D-mutant patients with AR had a poorer prognosis than those that were negative for the KRAS G13D mutation. In conclusion, postoperative surveillance and treatment strategies should be considered with attention to the possibility of AR and subsequent recurrence in KRAS G13D-mutant patients.