No abstract

BackgroundTotal mesorectal excision is the standard surgical treatment for mid- and low-rectal cancer. Laparoscopy represents a clear leap forward in the management of rectal cancer patients, offering significant improvements in post-operative measures such as pain, first bowel movement, and hospital length of stay. However, there are still some limits to its applications, especially in difficult cases. Such cases may entail either conversion to an open procedure or positive resection margins. Transanal endoscopic proctectomy (ETAP) was recently described and could address the difficulties of approaching the lower third of the rectum. Early series and case-control studies have shown favourable short-term results, such as a low conversion rate, reduced hospital length of stay and oncological outcomes comparable to laparoscopic surgery. The aim of the proposed study is to compare the rate of positive resection margins (R1 resection) with ETAP versus laparoscopic proctectomy (LAP), with patients randomly assigned to each arm.Methods/designThe proposed study is a multicentre randomised trial using two parallel groups to compare ETAP and LAP. Patients with T3 lower-third rectal adenocarcinomas for whom conservative surgery with manual coloanal anastomosis is planned will be recruited. Randomisation will be performed immediately prior to surgery after ensuring that the patient meets the inclusion criteria and completing the baseline functional and quality of life tests. The study is designed as a non-inferiority trial with a main criterion of R0/R1 resection. Secondary endpoints will include the conversion rate, the minimal invasiveness of the abdominal approach, postoperative morbidity, the length of hospital stay, mesorectal macroscopic assessment, functional urologic and sexual results, faecal continence, global quality of life, stoma-free survival, and disease-free survival at 3 years. The inclusion period will be 3 years, and every patient will be followed for 3 years. The number of patients needed is 226.DiscussionThere is a strong need for optimal evaluation of the ETAP because of substancial changes in the operative technique. Assessment of oncological safety and septic risk, as well as digestive and urological functional results, is particularily mandatory. Moreover, benefits of the ETAP technique could be demonstrated  in post-operative outcome.Trial registrationClinicalTrial.gov: NCT02584985. Date and version identifier: Version n°2 – 2015 July 6.

No abstract

We report the first randomized study comparing early hospital discharge with standard hospital-based follow-up after high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) and PBSCT. Patients aged 18-65 years, with an indication of PBSCT for non-leukemic malignant diseases were randomly assigned between two arms. Arm A consisted of early hospital discharge (HDCT during hospitalization, discharge at day 0, home stay with a caregiver, outpatient clinic follow-up). In arm B patients were followed up as inpatients. In total 131 patients were analyzed (66 in arm A and 65 in arm B). Patient characteristics and hematological reconstitution were comparable between the two groups. In arm A, 26 patients were actually discharged early. Patients in group A spent fewer days in hospital (11 vs 12 days, P ¼ 0.006). This strategy resulted in a 6% mean cost reduction per patient when compared with the conventional hospital-based group. The early discharge approach within the French health system, while safe and feasible, is highly dependent on social criteria (caregiver availability and home to hospital distance). It is almost always associated with conventional hospital readmission during the aplasia phase, and limits cost savings when considering the whole population of patients benefiting from HDCT in routine clinical practice.