The latest medical research on Surgical Oncology

A recent large real-world study conducted in the United States reported the effectiveness of palbociclib plus aromatase inhibitor in HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC). However, local clinical practice and available medical treatment can vary between Japan and Western countries. Thus, it is important to investigate Japanese real-world data. This observational, multicenter study (NCT05399329) reports the interim analysis of effectiveness of palbociclib plus ET as first-line or second-line treatment for HR+/HER2- ABC by estimating real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and overall survival (OS) in Japanese routine clinical practice.

Real-world clinical outcomes and treatment patterns of palbociclib plus ET were captured using a medical record review of patients diagnosed with HR+/HER2- ABC who had received palbociclib plus ET in the first-line or second-line treatment across 20 sites in Japan. The primary endpoint was rwPFS; secondary endpoints were OS, real-world overall response rate, real-world clinical benefit rate, and chemotherapy-free survival.

Of the 677 eligible patients, 420 and 257 patients, respectively, had received palbociclib with ET as first-line and second-line treatments. Median rwPFS (95% confidence interval) was 24.5 months (19.9-29.4) for first-line and 14.5 months (10.2-19.0) for second-line treatment groups. Median OS was not reached in the first-line group and was 46.7 months (38.8-not estimated) for the second-line group. The 36-month OS rates for de novo metastasis, treatment-free interval (TFI) ≥ 12 months, and TFI < 12 months were 80.2% (69.1-87.7), 82.0% (70.7-89.3), and 66.0% (57.9-72.9), respectively.

The addition of palbociclib to ET was effective for treating HR+/HER2- ABC in Japanese routine clinical practice.

To improve the quality of care for patients with breast cancer, an analysis of the health-care pathway, considering feedback from both health-care practitioners (HCPs) and patients, is needed.

Between 2020 and 2022, we conducted a survey at French breast cancer centers and analyzed information from questionnaires completed by HCPs and patients. We collected information on center organization, diagnostic processes, treatment decisions and modalities, supportive care, patient advocacy groups, and work issues.

Twenty-three breast cancer centers were included and questionnaires completed by 247 HCPs and 249 patients were analyzed. The centers closely followed the legal French framework for cancer treatments, which includes formal diagnostic announcements, multidisciplinary tumor boards, personalized treatment summaries, and supportive care access. HCPs and patients were satisfied with the time to diagnosis (≤ 2 weeks as evaluated by 75% of patients), time to surgery (mean 61 days), time between surgery and chemotherapy (mean 47 days), and time between surgery and radiotherapy (mean 81 days). Fertility preservation counseling for women under 40 years of age was systematically offered by 67% of the HCPs. The majority (67%) of the patients indicated that they had received a personalized treatment summary; the topics discussed included treatments (92%), tumor characteristics (84%), care pathways (79%), supportive care (52%), and breast reconstruction (33%). Among HCPs, 44% stated that reconstructive surgery was offered to all eligible patients and 57% and 45% indicated coordination between centers and primary care physicians for adverse effects management and access to supportive care should be improved, for chemotherapy and radiotherapy, respectively. Regarding patient advocacy groups, 34% of HCPs did not know whether patients had contact and only 23% of patients declared that they had such contact. For one-third of working patients, work issues were not discussed. Twenty-eight percent of patients claimed that they had faced difficulties for supportive care access. Among HCPs, 13% stated that a formal personalized survivorship treatment program was administered to almost all patients and 37% almost never introduced the program to their patients. Compliance to oral treatments was considered very good for 75-100% of patients by 62% of HCPs.

This study provides an updated analysis of breast cancer care pathways in France. Overall, the initial processes of diagnosis, announcement, and treatment were swift and were in agreement with the best care standards. No barriers to accessing care were identified. Based on the study findings, we proposed several strategies to improve the quality of care for patients in supportive care, coordination with primary care physicians, reconstructive surgery, and fertility preservation access.

Care of patients with diverticulitis is undergoing a paradigm shift. This narrative review summarizes the current evidence for left-sided uncomplicated and complicated diverticulitis. The latest pathophysiology, advances in diagnosis, and prevention strategies are also reviewed.

Treatment is moving to the outpatient setting, physicians are forgoing antibiotics for uncomplicated disease, and the decision for elective surgery for diverticulitis has become preference sensitive. Furthermore, the most current data guiding surgical management of diverticulitis include the adoption of new minimally invasive and robot-assisted techniques.

This review provides an updated summary of the best practices in the management of diverticulitis to guide colorectal and general surgeons in their treatment of patients with this common disease.

Unlike medications, procedural interventions are rarely trialed against placebo prior to becoming accepted in clinical practice. When placebo-controlled trials are eventually conducted, procedural interventions may be less effective than previously believed.

To investigate the importance of including a placebo arm in trials of surgical and interventional procedures by comparing effect sizes from trials of the same procedure that do and do not include a placebo arm.

Searches of MEDLINE and Embase identified all placebo-controlled trials for procedural interventions in any specialty of medicine and surgery from inception to March 31, 2019. A secondary search identified randomized clinical trials assessing the same intervention, condition, and end point but without a placebo arm for paired comparison.

Placebo-controlled trials of anatomically site-specific procedures requiring skin incision or endoscopic techniques were eligible for inclusion; these were then matched to trials without placebo control that fell within prespecified limits of heterogeneity.

Random-effects meta-regression, with placebo and blinding as a fixed effect and intervention and end point grouping as random effects, was used to calculate the impact of placebo control for each end point. Data were analyzed from March 2019 to March 2020.

End points were examined in prespecified subgroups: patient-reported or health care professional-assessed outcomes, quality of life, pain, blood pressure, exercise-related outcomes, recurrent bleeding, and all-cause mortality.

Ninety-seven end points were matched from 72 blinded, placebo-controlled trials (hereafter, blinded) and 55 unblinded trials without placebo control (hereafter, unblinded), including 111 500 individual patient end points. Unblinded trials had larger standardized effect sizes than blinded trials for exercise-related outcomes (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.89; P < .001) and quality-of-life (SMD, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.53; P = .003) and health care professional-assessed end points (SMD, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.61; P < .001). The placebo effect accounted for 88.1%, 55.2%, and 61.3% of the observed unblinded effect size for these end points, respectively. There was no significant difference between unblinded and blinded trials for patient-reported end points (SMD, 0.31; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.64; P = .07), blood pressure (SMD, 0.26; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.62; P = .15), all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.23; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.72; P = .36), pain (SMD, 0.03; 95% CI, -0.52 to 0.57; P = .91), or recurrent bleeding events (OR, -0.12; 95% CI, -1.11 to 0.88; P = .88).

The magnitude of the placebo effect found in this systematic review and meta-regression was dependent on the end point. Placebo control in trials of procedural interventions had the greatest impact on exercise-related, quality-of-life, and health care professional-assessed end points. Randomized clinical trials of procedural interventions may consider placebo control accordingly.

Current short-term evidence has shown that uncomplicated acute appendicitis can be treated successfully with oral antibiotics alone, but longer-term results are lacking.

To assess the treatment effectiveness of oral antibiotic monotherapy compared with combined intravenous (IV) and oral antibiotics in computed tomography-confirmed uncomplicated acute appendicitis at a longer-term follow-up.

This secondary analysis of a predefined year 3 follow-up of the Appendicitis Acuta II (APPAC II) noninferiority, multicenter randomized clinical trial compared oral moxifloxacin with combined IV ertapenem plus oral levofloxacin and metronidazole for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis. The trial was conducted at 9 university and central hospitals in Finland from April 2017 to November 2018, with the last follow-up in November 2022. Participants included patients aged 18 to 60 years, who were randomized to receive either oral antibiotics monotherapy (n = 301) or combined IV and oral antibiotics (n = 298).

Antibiotics monotherapy consisted of oral moxifloxacin, 400 mg/d, for 7 days. Combined IV and oral antibiotics consisted of IV ertapenem sodium, 1 g/d, for 2 days plus oral levofloxacin, 500 mg/d, and metronidazole, 500 mg 3 times/d, for 5 days.

The primary end point was treatment success, defined as the resolution of acute appendicitis and discharge from hospital without the need for surgical intervention and no appendicitis recurrence at the year 3 follow-up evaluated using a noninferiority design. The secondary end points included late (after 1 year) appendicitis recurrence as well as treatment-related adverse events, quality of life, length of hospital stay, and length of sick leave, which were evaluated using a superiority design.

After exclusions, 599 patients (mean [SD] age, 36 [12] years; 336 males [56.1%]) were randomized; after withdrawal and loss to follow-up, 582 patients (99.8%) were available for the year 3 follow-up. The treatment success at year 3 was 63.4% (1-sided 95% CI, 58.8% to ∞) in the oral antibiotic monotherapy group and 65.2% (1-sided 95% CI, 60.5% to ∞) in the combined IV and oral antibiotics group. The difference in treatment success rate between the groups at year 3 was -1.8 percentage points (1-sided 95% CI, -8.3 percentage points to ∞; P = .14 for noninferiority), with the CI limit exceeding the noninferiority margin. There were no significant differences between groups in treatment-related adverse events, quality of life, length of hospital stay, or length of sick leave.

This secondary analysis of the APPAC II trial found a slightly higher appendectomy rate in patients who received oral antibiotic monotherapy; however, noninferiority of oral antibiotic monotherapy compared with combined IV and oral antibiotics could not be demonstrated. The results encourage future studies to assess oral antibiotic monotherapy as a viable treatment alternative for uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03236961.