Background Although self‐expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement as bridge to surgery (BTS) in patients with left‐sided obstructing colonic cancer has shown promising short‐term results, it is used infrequently owing to uncertainty about its oncological safety. This population study compared long‐term oncological outcomes between emergency resection and SEMS placement as BTS. Methods Through a national collaborative research project, long‐term outcome data were collected for all patients who underwent resection for left‐sided obstructing colonic cancer between 2009 and 2016 in 75 Dutch hospitals. Patients were identified from the Dutch Colorectal Audit database. SEMS as BTS was compared with emergency resection in the curative setting after 1 : 2 propensity score matching. Results Some 222 patients who had a stent placed were matched to 444 who underwent emergency resection. The overall SEMS‐related perforation rate was 7·7 per cent (17 of 222). Three‐year locoregional recurrence rates after SEMS insertion and emergency resection were 11·4 and 13·6 per cent (P = 0·457), disease‐free survival rates were 58·8 and 52·6 per cent (P = 0·175), and overall survival rates were 74·0 and 68·3 per cent (P = 0·231), respectively. SEMS placement resulted in significantly fewer permanent stomas (23·9 versus 45·3 per cent; P < 0·001), especially in elderly patients (29·0 versus 57·9 per cent; P < 0·001). For patients in the SEMS group with or without perforation, 3‐year locoregional recurrence rates were 18 and 11·0 per cent (P = 0·432), disease‐free survival rates were 49 and 59·6 per cent (P = 0·717), and overall survival rates 61 and 75·1 per cent (P = 0·529), respectively. Conclusion Overall, SEMS as BTS seems an oncologically safe alternative to emergency resection with fewer permanent stomas. Nevertheless, the risk of SEMS‐related perforation, as well as permanent stoma, might influence shared decision‐making for individual patients.

BackgroundThis study was conducted to determine the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) on the likelihood of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) performed for patients with invasive lobular breast carcinoma (ILC) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC).MethodsFemale patients with a diagnosis of ILC or IDC in The Netherlands between July 2008 and December 2012 were identified through the population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry.ResultsA total of 466 ILC patients received NAC compared with 3622 IDC patients. Downstaging by NAC was seen in 49.7 % of the patients with ILC and in 69.6 % of the patients with IDC, and a pathologic complete response (pCR) was observed in 4.9 and 20.2 % of these patients, respectively (P < 0.0001). Breast-conserving surgery was performed for 24.4 % of the patients with ILC receiving NAC versus 39.4 % of the patients with IDC. In the ILC group, 8.2 % of the patients needed surgical reinterventions after BCS due to tumor-positive resection margins compared with 3.4 % of the patients with IDC (P < 0.0001). Lobular histology was independently associated with a higher mastectomy rate (odds ratio 1.91; 95 % confidence interval 1.49–2.44). Among the patients with clinical T2 and T3 disease, BCS was achieved more often when NAC was administered in ILC as well as IDC.ConclusionThe patients with ILC receiving NAC were less likely to experience a pCR and less likely to undergo BCS than the patients with IDC. With regard to BCS, the impact of NAC for ILC patients was lower than for patients receiving surgery without NAC. However, despite the high number to treating in order to achieve BCS, a small subset of ILC patients, especially cT2 and cT3 patients, still may benefit from NAC.

No abstract

This study shows a trend towards less extensive axillary surgery in Dutch cT1-T4N0M0 breast cancer patients; illustrated by an overall increase of sentinel lymph node biopsy and decrease in cALND. Despite this trend, particularly noticed in cT1-2N0 sentinel node-positive patients after publication of the ACOSOG-Z0011 and AMAROS trial, variations in patterns of care in axillary surgery are still present.