Purpose: Non-operative management (NOM) has emerged as a promising organ-preserving strategy for patients with rectal cancer who achieve a clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). However, no standardized treatment protocol has been established for watch-and-wait strategies. Materials and Methods: This prospective study evaluated oncological outcomes of NOM combined with 4 months of adjuvant capecitabine. Patients with resectable rectal cancer (≤ 8 cm from the anal verge, cT2-4 or N+) underwent CRT (50-54 Gy in 25-27 fractions with capecitabine). Eight weeks post-CRT, a multidisciplinary team assessed cCR. Patients achieving cCR received six cycles of capecitabine (2 weeks on/1 week off) and were actively monitored. Results: Among 89 patients receiving CRT (2018-2023), 17 (19.1%) achieved cCR and were included. The median age was 65 years, and 64.7% were male. Eleven (64.7%) completed all six cycles of adjuvant therapy. After a median follow-up of 31.4 months, 11 patients (64.7%) remained disease-free. Local regrowth occurred in six patients (35.3%) with 2- and 4-year rates of 34.5% and 47.6%, respectively. Five underwent radical surgery, and one received transanal excision with systemic chemotherapy. At the time of assessment, 15 patients (88.2%) showed no evidence of disease, while two (11.8%) received palliative chemotherapy. All patients were alive. Conclusion NOM with adjuvant capecitabine showed promising oncological outcomes, offering an alternative to passive watch-and-wait approaches. Further refinement through multidisciplinary strategies is warranted.

Purpose: We aimed to evaluate the precision of preoperative colonoscopic tattooing and intraoperative colonoscopic tumor localization in determining distal surgical margins for leftsided colorectal cancer surgery. Methods: This retrospective study included 30 patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery, preoperative colonoscopic tattooing, and intraoperative colonoscopic localization for colorectal cancer at our center between July 2020 and March 2024. Clinical data were collected, and the precision of these methods was assessed by measuring the differences between the target resection margin and the actual pathological resection margin. Results: In four patient cases, the indocyanine green tattoo was not visible in the laparoscopic surgical field. The average stained length of the tattoo was 2.89 cm, with a mean distance of 1.18 cm between the low margin of the tattoo and the cancer. The difference between the target distal resection margin by intraoperative colonoscopic localization and the actual pathological resection margin was 0.88 cm. No complications related to the intraoperative colonoscopy were observed. Conclusion Preoperative tattooing showed limitations, such as spreading and occasional invisibility. Intraoperative colonoscopic localization proved to be an effective method for achieving more precise distal surgical margins in left-sided colorectal cancer surgery.

Purpose: We aimed to evaluate the precision of preoperative colonoscopic tattooing and intraoperative colonoscopic tumor localization in determining distal surgical margins for leftsided colorectal cancer surgery. Methods: This retrospective study included 30 patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery, preoperative colonoscopic tattooing, and intraoperative colonoscopic localization for colorectal cancer at our center between July 2020 and March 2024. Clinical data were collected, and the precision of these methods was assessed by measuring the differences between the target resection margin and the actual pathological resection margin. Results: In four patient cases, the indocyanine green tattoo was not visible in the laparoscopic surgical field. The average stained length of the tattoo was 2.89 cm, with a mean distance of 1.18 cm between the low margin of the tattoo and the cancer. The difference between the target distal resection margin by intraoperative colonoscopic localization and the actual pathological resection margin was 0.88 cm. No complications related to the intraoperative colonoscopy were observed. Conclusion Preoperative tattooing showed limitations, such as spreading and occasional invisibility. Intraoperative colonoscopic localization proved to be an effective method for achieving more precise distal surgical margins in left-sided colorectal cancer surgery.

Purpose: We aimed to evaluate the precision of preoperative colonoscopic tattooing and intraoperative colonoscopic tumor localization in determining distal surgical margins for leftsided colorectal cancer surgery. Methods: This retrospective study included 30 patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery, preoperative colonoscopic tattooing, and intraoperative colonoscopic localization for colorectal cancer at our center between July 2020 and March 2024. Clinical data were collected, and the precision of these methods was assessed by measuring the differences between the target resection margin and the actual pathological resection margin. Results: In four patient cases, the indocyanine green tattoo was not visible in the laparoscopic surgical field. The average stained length of the tattoo was 2.89 cm, with a mean distance of 1.18 cm between the low margin of the tattoo and the cancer. The difference between the target distal resection margin by intraoperative colonoscopic localization and the actual pathological resection margin was 0.88 cm. No complications related to the intraoperative colonoscopy were observed. Conclusion Preoperative tattooing showed limitations, such as spreading and occasional invisibility. Intraoperative colonoscopic localization proved to be an effective method for achieving more precise distal surgical margins in left-sided colorectal cancer surgery.

Purpose: Surgical management of obstructive left colon cancer (OLCC) is still a matter of debate. The classic Hartmann procedure (HP) has a disadvantage that requires a second major operation. Subtotal colectomy/total abdominal colectomy (STC/TC) with ileosigmoid or ileorectal anastomosis is proposed as an alternative procedure to avoid stoma and anastomotic leakage. However, doubts about morbidity and functional outcome and lack of long-term outcomes have made surgeons hesitate to perform this procedure. Therefore, this trial was designed to provide data for morbidity, functional outcomes, and long-term outcomes of STC/TC. Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed consecutive cases of OLCC that were treated by STC/TC between January 2000 and November 2020 at a single tertiary referral center. Perioperative outcomes and long-term outcomes of STC/TC were analyzed. Results: Twenty-five descending colon cancer (45.5%) and 30 sigmoid colon cancer cases (54.5%) were enrolled in this study. Postoperative complications occurred in 12 patients. The majority complication was postoperative ileus (10 of 12). Anastomotic leakage and perioperative mortality were not observed. At 6 to 12 weeks after the surgery, the median frequency of defecation was twice per day (interquartile range, 1–3 times per day). Eight patients (14.5%) required medication during this period, but only 3 of 8 patients required medication after 1 year. The 3-year disease-free survival was 72.7% and 3-year overall survival was 86.7%. Conclusion The risk of anastomotic leakage is low after STC/TC. Functional and long-term outcomes are also acceptable. Therefore, STC/TC for OLCC is a safe, 1-stage procedure that does not require diverting stoma.

The standard treatments for locally advanced rectal cancer typically involved neoadjuvant therapy with either short-course radiation or long-course chemoradiation, followed by radical surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. While the advancement of surgical techniques and the adoption of multimodal therapy have greatly contributed to reducing local failure, there has been limited improvement in overall survival, primarily due to the stagnation in systemic failure. In response to this challenge, a new strategy known as total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) has emerged, involving the administration of both fulldose chemotherapy and radiation before surgery. It has shown promise in reducing systemic failure, enhancing tumor regression, and improving treatment adherence, ushering in a new era in the standard treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer. This review aims to summarize the evolution of multimodal treatments for locally advanced rectal cancer, ultimately converging into the current TNT strategy, and provides an assessment of the benefits and limitations of TNT based on available evidence, serving as a foundation for selecting the best treatment option.

Purpose: Surgery to create a stoma for decompression might be required for unresectable stage IV cancer patients with complete colonic obstruction. The aim of this study was to compare the results of blowhole colostomy with those of loop ostomy. Methods: Palliative ileostomy or colostomy procedures performed at a single center between January 2011 and October 2020, were analyzed retrospectively. Fifty-nine patients were identified during this period. The demographic characteristics and outcomes between the blowhole colostomy group (n=24) and the loop ostomy group (n=35) were compared. Results: The median operative time tended to be shorter in the blowhole colostomy group (52.5 minutes; interquartile range [IQR], 43–65) than in the loop ostomy group (60 minutes; IQR, 40–107), but the difference did not reach statistical significance (P=0.162). The median length of hospital stay was significantly shorter with blowhole colostomy (blowhole, 13 days [IQR, 9–23]; loop, 21 days [IQR, 14–37]; P=0.013). Mean cecum diameter was significantly larger in the blowhole group than in the loop group (8.83±1.91 cm vs. 6.78±2.36 cm, P=0.001), and the emergency operation rate was higher in the blowhole group than in the loop group (22 of 24 [91.7%] vs. 23 of 35 [65.7%], P=0.021). Conclusion In surgical emergencies, diverting a blowhole colostomy can be safe and effective for palliative management of colonic obstruction in patients with end-stage cancer and might reduce the operative time in emergent situations.

Colorectal cancer remains the fourth most common malignancy in Korea, and has been ranked as the third leading cause of cancer deaths in 2020. This study aims to describe the epidemiologic status of colorectal cancer in Korea, and provide basic data for effective primary and secondary prevention methods by summarizing risk factors and screening tools.Current Concepts: Although colorectal cancer incidence and mortality have decreased in recent years in Korea, it still poses a significant public health burden. From the early 1990s until the mid-2000s, the 5-year relative survival of patients with colorectal cancer in Korea continuously increased. This can be attributed to the successful introduction of the government-led screening program; development of improved surgical techniques, anticancer drugs, and adjuvant treatment; and advances medical resources and infrastructure along with economic growth. However, since the late 2000s, the improvement in survival has stagnated. The coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak has reduced hospital visits and screenings, which is assumed to cause delays in diagnosis, leading to a worse prognosis in the patients. To overcome these obstacles, it is essential to explore modifiable environmental risk factors and appropriate screening test methods in Korea.Discussion and Conclusion: Primary prevention through risk factor modification and secondary prevention using suitable screening programs can reduce the incidence and mortality rates of colorectal cancer.

Only few studies have shown the efficacy and safety of glucose-control strategies using the quadruple drug combination. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to investigate the usefulness of the quadruple combination therapy with oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs) in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).