Background and Objectives: Gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy is the standard surgical treatment with curative intent for patients with gastric cancer (GC). Over the last three decades, surgeons have been increasingly adopting laparoscopic surgery for GC, due to its better short-term outcomes. In particular, laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has been routinely used for early gastric cancer (EGC) treatment. However, LG suffers from technical limitations and drawbacks, such as a two-dimensional surgical field of view, limited movement of laparoscopic tools, unavoidable physiological tremors and discomfort for operating surgeon. Therefore, robotic surgery has been developed to address such limitations. Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) guidelines in order to investigate the benefits and harms of robotic gastrectomy (RG) compared to the LG. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Re-views, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials-CENTRAL) and Web of Science (Science and Social Science Citation Index) databases were used to search all related literature. Results: The 7 included meta-analyses covered an approximately 20 years-study period (2000–2020). Almost all studies included in the meta-analyses were retrospective ones and originated from Asian countries (China and Korea, in particular). Examined overall population ranged from 3176 to 17,712 patients. If compared to LG, RG showed both operative advantages (operative time, estimated blood loss, number of retrieved lymph nodes) and perioperative ones (time to first flatus, time to restart oral intake, length of hospitalization, overall complications, Clavien-Dindo (CD) ≥ III complications, pancreatic complications), in the absence of clear differences of oncological outcomes. However, costs of robotic approach appear significant. Conclusions: It is impossible to make strong recommendations, due to the statistical weakness of the included studies. Further randomized, possibly multicenter trials are strongly recommended, if we want to have our results confirmed.

We developed a novel method for accurate cataloguing of bacterial communities at (sub)species level involving amplification of the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region through optimized primers, followed by next-generation sequencing and taxonomic classification of amplicons by means of a comprehensive database of bacterial ITS sequences. Host-associated, food, and environmental matrices were employed to test the performance of the microbial ITS profiling pipeline. Moreover, mucosal biopsy samples from colorectal cancer patients were analyzed to demonstrate the scientific relevance of this profiling approach in a clinical setting through identification of putative novel biomarkers. The results indicate that the ITS-based profiling pipeline proposed here represents a key metagenomic tool with major relevance for research, industrial, and clinical settings.

The interaction of programmed death-1 (PD-1) on T lymphocytes with its ligands Programmed Death Ligand 1 (PD-L1) and Programmed Death Ligand 2 (PD-L2) on tumor cells and/or tumor-associated macrophages results in inhibitory signals to the T-cell receptor pathway, consequently causing tumor immune escape. PD-L1/PD-L2 are currently used as predictive tissue biomarkers in clinical practice. Virtually PD-L1 levels expressed by tumor cells are associated with a good response to immune checkpoint blockade therapies targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis. These therapies restore T-cell antitumor immune response by releasing T-lymphocytes from the inhibitory effects of tumor cells. Immune checkpoint therapies have completely changed the management of patients with solid cancers. This therapeutic strategy is less used in hematological malignancies, although good results have been achieved in some settings, such as refractory/relapsed classic Hodgkin lymphoma and primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma. Variable results have been obtained in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and T-cell lymphomas. Immunohistochemistry represents the main technique for assessing PD-L1 expression on tumor cells. This review aims to describe the current knowledge of PD-L1 expression in various types of lymphomas, focusing on the principal mechanisms underlying PD-L1 overexpression, its prognostic significance and practical issues concerning the evaluation of PD-L1 immunohistochemical results in lymphomas.

Purpose: In colorectal cancer (CRC), lymphovascular invasion (LVI) is a predictor of poor outcome and its analysis is nowadays recommended. Literature is still extremely heterogeneous, and we hypothesize that, within such a group of patients, there are any further predictors of survival. Methods: A total of 2652 patients with I–III-stage CRC undergoing resection between 2002 and 2018 were included in a retrospective analysis of demographic, clinical, and histology with the aim of defining the impact of LVI on overall survival (OS) and its relationship with other prognostic factors. Results: Overall, 5-year-OS was 62.6% (77-month-median survival). LVI was found in 558 (21%) specimens and resulted associated with 44.9%-5-year-OS (44 months) vs. 64.1% (104 months) of LVI cases. At multivariate analysis, LVI (p = 0.009), T3–4 (p < 0.001), and N ≠ 0 (p < 0.001) resulted independent predictors of outcome. LVI resulted as being associated with older age (p < 0.013), T3–4 (p < 0.001), lower grading (p < 0.001), N ≠ 0 (p < 0.001), mucinous histology (p < 0.001), budding (p < 0.001), and PNI (p < 0.001). Within the LVI + patients, T3–4 (p = 0.009) and N ≠ 0 (p < 0.001) resulted as independent predictors of shortened OS. In particular, N-status impacted the prognosis of patients with T3–4 tumors (p = 0.020), whereas it did not impact the prognosis of patients with T1–2 tumors (p = 0.393). Three groups (T1–2anyN, T3–4N0, T3–4 N ≠ 0), with distinct outcome (approximately 70%-, 52%-, and 35%-5-year-OS, respectively), were identified. Conclusions: LVI is associated with more aggressive/more advanced CRC and is confirmed as predictor of poor outcome. By using T- and N-stage, a simple algorithm may easily allow re-assessing the expected survival of patients with LVI + tumors.

Purpose Transverse colon cancer, which accounts for approximately 10% of all colon cancers, has a significant gap in the available scientific literature regarding the optimal minimally invasive surgical approach. This meta-analysis aims to compare the robotic and laparoscopic approaches for the surgical management of transverse colon cancer. Methods Our systematic review made use of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, in addition to Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Articles of interest turned out from a search with PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials-CENTRAL), Web of Science (Science and Social Science Citation Index), and Embase databases. A comprehensive literature search was conducted for comparative population studies concerning patients who underwent robotic or laparoscopic colectomy for transverse colon cancer). The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials (Version 2) (RoB 2) and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies – of Interventions (Version 2) ROBINS-I. We evaluated two groups of outcomes: intraoperative and postoperative. RevMan (Computer program) Version 5.4.1 was used to perform the meta-analysis. The heterogeneity of the included studies in the meta-analysis was assessed by using the I² statist. Results The 4 included comparative studies (373 patients: 116 robotic colectomy versus 257 laparoscopic colectomy) had a time frame of approximately 26 years (2005–2021) and an observational nature. Meta-analysis showed a longer operative time (MD: 62.47, 95% CI: 18.17, 106.76, I² = 92%, P = 0.006) and a shorter hospital stay (MD:—1.11, 95% CI: -2.05, -0.18, I² = 63%, P = 0.002) for the robotic group. No differences in terms of conversion to laparotomy, estimated blood loss, time to flatus, time to solid diet, overall postoperative complications rate, minor (Clavien-Dindo or CD I—II) and major (Clavien-Dindo or CD ≥ III) postoperative complications rate, anastomotic leakage, surgical site infections, bleeding, lymph nodes harvested, were shown between robotic and laparoscopic groups. Conclusions Our meta-analysis revealed that the robotic approach to transverse colon cancer appears to be a safe and feasible option, with results comparable to those of laparoscopic surgery, with longer operating times but a shorter hospital stay. Further high-quality methodological studies are needed to evaluate and compare the short- and long-term outcomes, healthcare costs, and the learning curve between the robotic and laparoscopic surgical approaches.

In this article, we provide a review of large B-cell lymphomas (LBCLs), comparing the recently published fifth edition of the WHO classification and the International Consensus Classification (ICC) on hematolymphoid tumors. We focus on updates in the classification of LBCL, an heterogeneous group of malignancies with varying clinical behaviors and different pathological and molecular features, providing a comparison between the two classifications. Besides the well-recognized diagnostic role of clinical, morphological and immunohistochemical data, both classifications recognize the ever-growing impact of molecular data in the diagnostic work-up of some entities. The main aim is to offer a guide for clinicians and pathologists on how the new classifications can be applied to LBCL diagnosis in routine practice. In the first part of the paper, we review the following categories: LBLs transformed from indolent B-cell lymphomas, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified (DLBCL, NOS), double-hit/triple-hit lymphomas (DH/TH), high-grade large B-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified (HGBCL, NOS), LBCL with IRF4 rearrangement, Burkitt lymphoma (BL) and HGBCL/LBCL with 11q aberration, focusing on the differences between the two classifications. In the second part of the paper, we provide a practical diagnostic algorithm when facing LBCLs in routine daily practice.