Purpose: The standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer involves neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by total mesorectal excision surgery. A subset of patients achieves pathologic complete response (pCR), representing the optimal treatment outcome. This study compares the long-term oncological outcomes of patients who achieved pCR with those who attained clinical complete response (cCR) after total neoadjuvant therapy, managed using a watch-and-wait approach. Methods: This study retrospectively evaluated patients with mid-low locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant treatment from January 1, 2005, to May 1, 2023. The pCR and cCR groups were compared based on demographic, clinical, histopathological, and long-term survival outcomes. Results: The median follow-up times were 54 months (range, 7–83 months) for the cCR group (n=73), 96 months (range, 7–215 months) for the pCR group (n=63), and 72 months (range, 4–212 months) for the pathological incomplete clinical response (pICR) group (n=627). In the cCR group, 15 patients (20.5%) experienced local regrowth, and 5 (6.8%) developed distant metastasis (DM). The pCR group had no cases of local recurrence, but 3 patients (4.8%) developed DM. Among the pICR patients, 58 (9.2%) experienced local recurrence, and 92 (14.6%) had DM. Five-year disease-free survival rates were 90.0% for cCR, 92.0% for pCR, and 69.5% for pICR (P=0.022). Five-year overall survival rates were 93.1% for cCR, 92.0% for pCR, and 78.1% for pICR. There were no significant differences in outcomes between the cCR and pCR groups (P=0.810); however, the pICR group exhibited poorer outcomes (P=0.002). Conclusion This study shows no significant long-term oncological differences between patients who exhibited cCR and those who experienced pCR.

Purpose: The standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer involves neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by total mesorectal excision surgery. A subset of patients achieves pathologic complete response (pCR), representing the optimal treatment outcome. This study compares the long-term oncological outcomes of patients who achieved pCR with those who attained clinical complete response (cCR) after total neoadjuvant therapy, managed using a watch-and-wait approach. Methods: This study retrospectively evaluated patients with mid-low locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant treatment from January 1, 2005, to May 1, 2023. The pCR and cCR groups were compared based on demographic, clinical, histopathological, and long-term survival outcomes. Results: The median follow-up times were 54 months (range, 7–83 months) for the cCR group (n=73), 96 months (range, 7–215 months) for the pCR group (n=63), and 72 months (range, 4–212 months) for the pathological incomplete clinical response (pICR) group (n=627). In the cCR group, 15 patients (20.5%) experienced local regrowth, and 5 (6.8%) developed distant metastasis (DM). The pCR group had no cases of local recurrence, but 3 patients (4.8%) developed DM. Among the pICR patients, 58 (9.2%) experienced local recurrence, and 92 (14.6%) had DM. Five-year disease-free survival rates were 90.0% for cCR, 92.0% for pCR, and 69.5% for pICR (P=0.022). Five-year overall survival rates were 93.1% for cCR, 92.0% for pCR, and 78.1% for pICR. There were no significant differences in outcomes between the cCR and pCR groups (P=0.810); however, the pICR group exhibited poorer outcomes (P=0.002). Conclusion This study shows no significant long-term oncological differences between patients who exhibited cCR and those who experienced pCR.

Purpose: The standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer involves neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by total mesorectal excision surgery. A subset of patients achieves pathologic complete response (pCR), representing the optimal treatment outcome. This study compares the long-term oncological outcomes of patients who achieved pCR with those who attained clinical complete response (cCR) after total neoadjuvant therapy, managed using a watch-and-wait approach. Methods: This study retrospectively evaluated patients with mid-low locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant treatment from January 1, 2005, to May 1, 2023. The pCR and cCR groups were compared based on demographic, clinical, histopathological, and long-term survival outcomes. Results: The median follow-up times were 54 months (range, 7–83 months) for the cCR group (n=73), 96 months (range, 7–215 months) for the pCR group (n=63), and 72 months (range, 4–212 months) for the pathological incomplete clinical response (pICR) group (n=627). In the cCR group, 15 patients (20.5%) experienced local regrowth, and 5 (6.8%) developed distant metastasis (DM). The pCR group had no cases of local recurrence, but 3 patients (4.8%) developed DM. Among the pICR patients, 58 (9.2%) experienced local recurrence, and 92 (14.6%) had DM. Five-year disease-free survival rates were 90.0% for cCR, 92.0% for pCR, and 69.5% for pICR (P=0.022). Five-year overall survival rates were 93.1% for cCR, 92.0% for pCR, and 78.1% for pICR. There were no significant differences in outcomes between the cCR and pCR groups (P=0.810); however, the pICR group exhibited poorer outcomes (P=0.002). Conclusion This study shows no significant long-term oncological differences between patients who exhibited cCR and those who experienced pCR.

Purpose: The standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer involves neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by total mesorectal excision surgery. A subset of patients achieves pathologic complete response (pCR), representing the optimal treatment outcome. This study compares the long-term oncological outcomes of patients who achieved pCR with those who attained clinical complete response (cCR) after total neoadjuvant therapy, managed using a watch-and-wait approach. Methods: This study retrospectively evaluated patients with mid-low locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant treatment from January 1, 2005, to May 1, 2023. The pCR and cCR groups were compared based on demographic, clinical, histopathological, and long-term survival outcomes. Results: The median follow-up times were 54 months (range, 7–83 months) for the cCR group (n=73), 96 months (range, 7–215 months) for the pCR group (n=63), and 72 months (range, 4–212 months) for the pathological incomplete clinical response (pICR) group (n=627). In the cCR group, 15 patients (20.5%) experienced local regrowth, and 5 (6.8%) developed distant metastasis (DM). The pCR group had no cases of local recurrence, but 3 patients (4.8%) developed DM. Among the pICR patients, 58 (9.2%) experienced local recurrence, and 92 (14.6%) had DM. Five-year disease-free survival rates were 90.0% for cCR, 92.0% for pCR, and 69.5% for pICR (P=0.022). Five-year overall survival rates were 93.1% for cCR, 92.0% for pCR, and 78.1% for pICR. There were no significant differences in outcomes between the cCR and pCR groups (P=0.810); however, the pICR group exhibited poorer outcomes (P=0.002). Conclusion This study shows no significant long-term oncological differences between patients who exhibited cCR and those who experienced pCR.

Purpose: The standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer involves neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by total mesorectal excision surgery. A subset of patients achieves pathologic complete response (pCR), representing the optimal treatment outcome. This study compares the long-term oncological outcomes of patients who achieved pCR with those who attained clinical complete response (cCR) after total neoadjuvant therapy, managed using a watch-and-wait approach. Methods: This study retrospectively evaluated patients with mid-low locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant treatment from January 1, 2005, to May 1, 2023. The pCR and cCR groups were compared based on demographic, clinical, histopathological, and long-term survival outcomes. Results: The median follow-up times were 54 months (range, 7–83 months) for the cCR group (n=73), 96 months (range, 7–215 months) for the pCR group (n=63), and 72 months (range, 4–212 months) for the pathological incomplete clinical response (pICR) group (n=627). In the cCR group, 15 patients (20.5%) experienced local regrowth, and 5 (6.8%) developed distant metastasis (DM). The pCR group had no cases of local recurrence, but 3 patients (4.8%) developed DM. Among the pICR patients, 58 (9.2%) experienced local recurrence, and 92 (14.6%) had DM. Five-year disease-free survival rates were 90.0% for cCR, 92.0% for pCR, and 69.5% for pICR (P=0.022). Five-year overall survival rates were 93.1% for cCR, 92.0% for pCR, and 78.1% for pICR. There were no significant differences in outcomes between the cCR and pCR groups (P=0.810); however, the pICR group exhibited poorer outcomes (P=0.002). Conclusion This study shows no significant long-term oncological differences between patients who exhibited cCR and those who experienced pCR.

Purpose: Stoma reversal is associated with notable postoperative morbidity. Several techniques exist for skin closure after stoma reversal, with linear primary closure (LC) and purse-string closure (PS) being the most common. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to compare LC and PS skin closure after stoma reversal in terms of surgical site infection (SSI) rates, wound healing, and cosmesis. Methods: In accordance with the PRISMA statement, a systematic review of skin closure after stoma reversal was conducted using MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus. Results: Eleven studies, enrolling 1,052 patients (PS, n=534; LC, n=518), published between 2006 and 2024, were included. The overall quality of the studies was considered acceptable, with a mean Jadad scale score of 4 (range, 3–5). Patients underwent ileostomy or ileostomy/colostomy in 6 and 5 studies, respectively. No differences were observed between groups in operative time, length of hospital stay, intestinal obstruction, or incisional hernia. However, SSI and overall infection rates were higher in the LC group, with a statistically significant difference for SSI. Conclusion Skin closure following stoma reversal using the PS technique may offer advantages over LC. PS is associated with significantly lower SSI rates compared to LC. Although a large randomized controlled trial with long-term follow-up is still required, current findings suggest that PS could be considered the standard of care for wound closure after ileostomy reversal.

Purpose: Treatment outcomes of locally advanced rectal cancer have improved significantly in recent decades. This retrospective study aimed to assess the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery in patients with T4 rectal cancer and the different outcomes between T4a and T4b patients. Materials and Methods: A total of 60 clinically T4 rectal cancer patients who underwent nCRT were included in the analysis. Patient characteristics, treatment regimens, down-staging rates, pathological response, and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Results: Both T4a and T4b patients experienced down-staging following nCRT (36.6% and 6.2% respectively; p = 0.021). T4a patients exhibited a higher rate of pathological complete response (pCR) than T4b patients (13.3% in T4a vs. 0% in T4b; p = 0.122). After a median follow-up of 36 months, the OS and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of T4a patients were significantly higher compared to T4b patients (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05–6.05, p = 0.038 for OS; HR = 2.32, 95% CI 1.09–4.92, p = 0.025 for RFS). Conclusion This study provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of nCRT in T4 rectal cancer patients. Although down-staging was observed in both T4a and T4b subgroups, achieving a pCR remains a challenge, particularly in T4b patients. Further research is needed to optimize treatment strategies and enhance pCR rates in T4 rectal cancer patients to improve oncologic outcomes.

Purpose: Treatment outcomes of locally advanced rectal cancer have improved significantly in recent decades. This retrospective study aimed to assess the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery in patients with T4 rectal cancer and the different outcomes between T4a and T4b patients. Materials and Methods: A total of 60 clinically T4 rectal cancer patients who underwent nCRT were included in the analysis. Patient characteristics, treatment regimens, down-staging rates, pathological response, and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Results: Both T4a and T4b patients experienced down-staging following nCRT (36.6% and 6.2% respectively; p = 0.021). T4a patients exhibited a higher rate of pathological complete response (pCR) than T4b patients (13.3% in T4a vs. 0% in T4b; p = 0.122). After a median follow-up of 36 months, the OS and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of T4a patients were significantly higher compared to T4b patients (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05–6.05, p = 0.038 for OS; HR = 2.32, 95% CI 1.09–4.92, p = 0.025 for RFS). Conclusion This study provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of nCRT in T4 rectal cancer patients. Although down-staging was observed in both T4a and T4b subgroups, achieving a pCR remains a challenge, particularly in T4b patients. Further research is needed to optimize treatment strategies and enhance pCR rates in T4 rectal cancer patients to improve oncologic outcomes.

Purpose: Treatment outcomes of locally advanced rectal cancer have improved significantly in recent decades. This retrospective study aimed to assess the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery in patients with T4 rectal cancer and the different outcomes between T4a and T4b patients. Materials and Methods: A total of 60 clinically T4 rectal cancer patients who underwent nCRT were included in the analysis. Patient characteristics, treatment regimens, down-staging rates, pathological response, and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Results: Both T4a and T4b patients experienced down-staging following nCRT (36.6% and 6.2% respectively; p = 0.021). T4a patients exhibited a higher rate of pathological complete response (pCR) than T4b patients (13.3% in T4a vs. 0% in T4b; p = 0.122). After a median follow-up of 36 months, the OS and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of T4a patients were significantly higher compared to T4b patients (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05–6.05, p = 0.038 for OS; HR = 2.32, 95% CI 1.09–4.92, p = 0.025 for RFS). Conclusion This study provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of nCRT in T4 rectal cancer patients. Although down-staging was observed in both T4a and T4b subgroups, achieving a pCR remains a challenge, particularly in T4b patients. Further research is needed to optimize treatment strategies and enhance pCR rates in T4 rectal cancer patients to improve oncologic outcomes.

This study aims to discuss the principles and pillars of robotic colorectal surgery training and share the training pathway at Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust. A narrative review is presented to discuss all the relevant and critical steps in robotic surgical training. Robotic training requires a stepwise approach, including theoretical knowledge, case observation, simulation, dry lab, wet lab, tutored programs, proctoring (in person or telementoring), procedure-specific training, and follow-up. Portsmouth Colorectal has an established robotic training model with a safe stepwise approach that has been demonstrated through perioperative and oncological results. Robotic surgery training should enable a trainee to use the robotic platform safely and effectively, minimize errors, and enhance performance with improved outcomes. Portsmouth Colorectal has provided such a stepwise training program since 2015 and continues to promote and augment safe robotic training in its field. Safe and efficient training programs are essential to upholding the optimal standard of care.