Background: Lymphadenectomy is a fundamental part of surgical strategy in patients with gastric cancer. Lymph node (LN) status is a key point in assessment of prognosis in gastric cancer. The LN ratio (LNR)—number of positive LNs/number of sampled LNs—offers a new approach for predicting survival. The aim of the study was to find factors affecting LN yield and the impact of LNR on 5-year survival. Methods: Prospective multicenter quality assurance study. Only LN-positive patients were included in the LNR calculations. Results: 4946 patients from 149 hospitals were enrolled. The inclusion criteria were met by 1884 patients. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 (<16 LN), 456 patients and Group 2 (≥16 LN), 1428 patients. The multivariate analysis found G2 (OR 1.98; 95%CI 1.11–3.54), G3 (OR 2.15; 95%CI 1.212–3.829), UICC-stage II (OR 1.44; 95%CI 1.01–2.06) and III (OR 1.71; 95%CI 1.14–2.57), age < 70 (OR 1.818 95%CI 1.19–2.78) and female gender (OR 1.37; 95%CI 1.00–1.86) as independent factors of ≥16 LN yield. Patients with a LNR ≥ 0.4 have a lower probability of survival (p = 0.039 and <0.001) than patients with a LNR = 0.1. Patients with UICC-II have a lower probability of survival than UICC-I (p = 0.023). Age 70–80 (p = 0.045) and > 80 years (p = 0.003) were negative prognostic factors for long-term survival. Conclusion: Long-term survival is directly related to adequate lymphadenectomy. LNR could be superior to pN-stage for estimating survival and adds remarkable nuances in prognosis compared to UICC-stage. LNR also appears valid, even in the case of insufficient LN yield.

Background/Objectives: The certification of hospitals as colorectal cancer centers aims to improve treatment quality, but evidence supporting its effectiveness remains limited. This study evaluated the impact of certification on treatment outcomes for rectal cancer patients in Germany. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 14,905 patients with primary rectal cancer (UICC Stages I-III) treated at 271 hospitals. Treatment outcomes were compared between certified colorectal cancer centers (3624 patients in 55 hospitals) and non-certified hospitals (11,281 patients in 216 hospitals). Additionally, a subset analysis examined outcomes before and after certification within the same institutions. Results: Certified centers demonstrated higher utilization of preoperative imaging (endorectal ultrasound: 70.7% vs. 58.2%, p < 0.001; pelvic MRI: 39.1% vs. 28.5%, p < 0.001) and lower rates of intraoperative complications (4.6% vs. 6.2%, p < 0.001). Surgical quality indicators, including M.E.R.C.U.R.Y. classification (Grade 1: 86.5% both groups, p = 0.620) and anastomotic leakage rates (11.3% vs. 11.9%, p = 0.407), were comparable between certified and non-certified hospitals. Despite treating patients with more favorable tumor stages, certified centers showed no significant advantage in 5-year overall survival (82.8% vs. 82.0%, p = 0.880) or 30-day mortality (2.6% both groups, p = 0.869). Hospital stays were marginally shorter in certified centers (19.46 vs. 20.24 days, p < 0.001). Conclusions: While certification was associated with improved adherence to diagnostic protocols and reduced intraoperative complications, it did not significantly impact surgical quality or long-term survival outcomes. These findings suggest that certification alone may not guarantee superior treatment quality, as hospitals participating in quality assurance programs achieved comparable results without formal certification.

Due to the impact of nodal metastasis on colon cancer prognosis, adequate regional lymph node resection and accurate pathological evaluation are required. The ratio of metastatic to examined nodes may bring an additional prognostic value to the actual staging system. This study analyzes the identification of factors influencing a high lymph node yield and its impact on survival. The lymph node ratio was determined in patients with fewer than 12 or at least 12 evaluated nodes. The study included patients after radical colon cancer resection in UICC stages II and III. For the lymph node ratio (LNR) analysis, node-positive patients were divided into four categories: i.e., LNR 1 (<0.05), LNR 2 (≥0.05; <0.2), LNR 3 (≥0.2; <0.4), and LNR 4 (≥0.4), and classified into two groups: i.e., those with <12 and ≥12 evaluated nodes. The study was conducted on 7012 patients who met the set criteria and were included in the data analysis. The mean number of examined lymph nodes was 22.08 (SD 10.64, median 20). Among the study subjects, 94.5% had 12 or more nodes evaluated. These patients were more likely to be younger, women, with a lower ASA classification, pT3 and pN2 categories. Also, they had no risk factors and frequently had a right-sided tumor. In the multivariate analysis, a younger age, ASA classification of II and III, high pT and pN categories, absence of risk factors, and right-sided location remained independent predictors for a lymph node yield ≥12. The univariate survival analysis of the entire cohort demonstrated a better five-year overall survival (OS) in patients with at least 12 lymph nodes examined (68% vs. 63%, p = 0.027). The LNR groups showed a significant association with OS, reaching from 75.5% for LNR 1 to 33.1% for LNR 4 (p < 0.001) in the ≥12 cohort, and from 74.8% for LNR2 to 49.3% for LNR4 (p = 0.007) in the <12 cohort. This influence remained significant and independent in multivariate analyses. The hazard ratios ranged from 1.016 to 2.698 for patients with less than 12 nodes, and from 1.248 to 3.615 for those with at least 12 nodes. The LNR allowed for a more precise estimation of the OS compared with the pN classification system. The metastatic lymph node ratio is an independent predictor for survival and should be included in current staging and therapeutic decision-making processes.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:Oncology is increasingly adopting three-dimensional (3D) printing, a method of creating objects through additive manufacturing using various techniques and materials. This technology, divided into conventional 3D printing (using non-biological materials like thermoplastics or titanium) and bioprinting (involving living cells and tissues), has shown potential in surgical planning, implant creation, and radiotherapy. However, despite promising preclinical and clinical applications, its clinical integration faces challenges such as a lack of strong evidence, standardized guidelines, and detailed data on costs and scalability. This study reviews the current use of 3D printing in oncology, aiming to differentiate between practical and experimental applications, thereby guiding clinicians interested in incorporating this technology. METHODS:A literature search was conducted to gather comments, reviews, and preclinical and clinical studies focusing on the use of 3D printing in oncology, with publications dated before December 1, 2023. The search for pertinent studies involved utilizing PubMed and Google Scholar Review. The selection process for articles was based on a unanimous consensus among all authors. We excluded topics related to bioprinting and the technical nuances of 3D printing. KEY CONTENT AND FINDINGS:The review comprehensively describes the utilization of 3D printing in radiation oncology, surgical oncology, orthopedic oncology, medical oncology, hyperthermia, and patients' education. However, 3D printing faces several limitations that are related to unpredictable costs, difficult scalability, very complex regulations and lack of standardization. CONCLUSIONS:3D printing is increasingly useful in oncology for diagnostics and treatment, yet remains experimental and case-based. Despite growing literature, it focuses mostly on pre-clinical studies and case reports, with few clinical studies involving small samples. Thus, extensive research is needed to fully evaluate its efficacy and application in larger patient groups.

Treatment guidelines belong to the most authoritative sources of evidence-based medicine and are widely implemented by health-care providers. Rectal cancer with an annual incidence of over 730,000 new cases and nearly 340,000 deaths worldwide, remains a significant therapeutic challenge. The total mesorectal excision (TME) leads to a dramatic improvement of local control. The addition of neoadjuvant treatment has been proposed to offer further advancement. However, this addition results in significant functional impairment and a decline in the quality of life. This review critically assesses whether the recommendation for neoadjuvant treatment in current international guidelines is substantiated. A comprehensive search was conducted in July 2022 in PubMed resulting in 988 papers published in English between 2012 and 2022. After exclusions and proofs 19 documents remained for further analysis. Of the 19 guidelines considered in this review, 11 do not recommend upfront surgery, and 12 do not address the issue of functional impairment following multimodal treatment. The recommendation for neoadjuvant therapy relies on outdated references, lacking differentiated strategies based on current utilisation of MRI staging; numerous guidelines recommend neoadjuvant treatment also to subgroups of patients, who may not need this therapy. Also statements regarding conflicts of interest are often not presented. An immediate and imperative step is warranted to align the recommendations with the latest available evidence, thereby affording rectal cancer patients a commensurate standard of care. A meticulous assessment of the guideline formulation process has the potential to avert heterogeneity in the future.

the initial results of the CONVERT trial, comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy with CAPOX versus standard chemoradiation for rectal cancer with uninvolved mesorectal fascia. The design of the study, reported results and conclusions raise concerns. It seems that a vast

Lymph node dissection is a crucial element of oncologic rectal surgery. Many guidelines regard the removal of at least 12 lymph nodes as the quality criterion in rectal cancer. However, this recommendation remains controversial. This study examines the factors influencing the lymph node yield and the validity of the 12-lymph node limit. Patients with rectal cancer who underwent low anterior resection or abdominoperineal amputation between 2000 and 2010 were analyzed. In total, 20,966 patients from 381 hospitals were included. Less than 12 lymph nodes were found in 20.53% of men and 19.31% of women (p = 0.03). The number of lymph nodes yielded increased significantly from 2000, 2005 and 2010 within the quality assurance program for all procedures. The univariate analysis indicated a significant (p < 0.001) correlation between lymph node yield and gender, age, pre-therapeutic T-stage, risk factors and neoadjuvant therapy. The multivariate analyses found T3 stage, female sex, the presence of at least one risk factor and neoadjuvant therapy to have a significant influence on yield. The probability of finding a positive lymph node was proportional to the number of examined nodes with no plateau. There is a proportional relationship between the number of examined lymph nodes and the probability of finding an infiltrated node. Optimal surgical technique and pathological evaluation of the specimen cannot be replaced by a numeric cut-off value.

Colorectal DiseaseEarly View CORRESPONDENCE Do Danish Registry data document superiority of open surgery for colon cancer? Pawel Mroczkowski, Corresponding Author Pawel Mroczkowski pawel.mroczkowski@med.ovgu.de orcid.org/0000-0002-3738-2976 Universitatsklinikum der Ruhr-Universitat, Bochum, Germany An-Institute for Quality Assurance in Operative Medicine, Otto-von-Guericke-University, Magdeburg, Germany Department for General and Colorectal Surgery, Medical University, Lodz, PolandSearch for more papers by this author Pawel Mroczkowski, Corresponding Author Pawel Mroczkowski pawel.mroczkowski@med.ovgu.de orcid.org/0000-0002-3738-2976 Universitatsklinikum der Ruhr-Universitat, Bochum, Germany An-Institute for Quality Assurance in Operative Medicine, Otto-von-Guericke-University, Magdeburg, Germany Department for General and Colorectal Surgery, Medical University, Lodz, PolandSearch for more papers by this author First published: 08 April 2022 https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.16141Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Early ViewOnline Version of Record before inclusion in an issue RelatedInformation

Colorectal DiseaseEarly View CORRESPONDENCE Is there a bias against open surgery for colorectal cancer? Pawel Mroczkowski, Corresponding Author Pawel Mroczkowski pawel.mroczkowski@med.ovgu.de orcid.org/0000-0002-3738-2976 Department for General, Visceral and Oncological Surgery, German Red-Cross-Hospitals Northern Hessia, Kassel, Germany An-Institute for Quality Assurance in Operative Medicine, Otto-von-Guericke-University, Magdeburg, Germany Department for General and Colorectal Surgery, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, PolandSearch for more papers by this authorRadoslaw Zajdel, Radoslaw Zajdel Department of Medical Informatics and Statistics, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, PolandSearch for more papers by this author Pawel Mroczkowski, Corresponding Author Pawel Mroczkowski pawel.mroczkowski@med.ovgu.de orcid.org/0000-0002-3738-2976 Department for General, Visceral and Oncological Surgery, German Red-Cross-Hospitals Northern Hessia, Kassel, Germany An-Institute for Quality Assurance in Operative Medicine, Otto-von-Guericke-University, Magdeburg, Germany Department for General and Colorectal Surgery, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, PolandSearch for more papers by this authorRadoslaw Zajdel, Radoslaw Zajdel Department of Medical Informatics and Statistics, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, PolandSearch for more papers by this author First published: 30 October 2021 https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.15973Citations: 1 Pawel Mroczkowski and Radoslaw Zajdel contributed equally to the manuscript. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article.Citing Literature Early ViewOnline Version of Record before inclusion in an issue RelatedInformation

To the Editor: W ith great interest, we have read the paper from Silber et al, which draws conclusions about costs and outcomes of teaching and nonteaching hospitals. However, the presented results are diffuse and their validity questionable. The authors use administrative claim data as the basis for clinical consequences. This approach remains controversial. In the real world, nobody tries to compare the quality of food based on names and sums printed on restaurant bills, so why would this method be appropriate for surgery? The paper divides performed procedures into three groups: general, vascular, and orthopedic. In general surgery, ‘‘mortality was 4.62% in teaching hospitals versus 5.57%, (a difference of 0.95%, P < 0.0001), and overall paired cost difference $915 (P< 0.0001).’’ This statistical phenomenon is certainly true, but what is the impact of this information, if the cohort mixed