Robotic-assisted surgery is expected to have advantages over standard laparoscopic approach in patients undergoing curative surgery for rectal cancer. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar were searched from database inception to 10 November 2021, for both RCTs and observational studies comparing robotic-assisted versus standard laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer resection. Where possible, data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. Forty-Two were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. Survival to hospital discharge or 30-day overall survival rate was 99.6% for RG and 98.8% for LG (OR = 2.10; 95% CI: 1.00 to 4.43; p = 0.05). Time to first flatus in the RG group was 2.5 ± 1.4 days and was statistically significantly shorter than in LG group (2.9 ± 2.0 days; MD = −0.34; 95%CI: −0.65 to 0.03; p = 0.03). In the case of time to a liquid diet, solid diet and bowel movement, the analysis showed no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05). Length of hospital stay in the RG vs. LG group varied and amounted to 8.0 ± 5.3 vs. 9.5 ± 10.0 days (MD = −2.01; 95%CI: −2.90 to −1.11; p < 0.001). Overall, 30-days complications in the RG and LG groups were 27.2% and 19.0% (OR = 1.11; 95%CI: 0.80 to 1.55; p = 0.53), respectively. In summary, robotic-assisted techniques provide several advantages over laparoscopic techniques in reducing operative time, significantly lowering conversion of the procedure to open surgery, shortening the duration of hospital stay, lowering the risk of urinary retention, improving survival to hospital discharge or 30-day overall survival rate.

Despite the technological advances and improved surgical skills, the incidence of anastomotic leakage following colorectal cancer surgery still ranges from 4% to 19%. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of indocyanine green (ICG) use in colorectal cancer surgery. An online search of the Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases (from inception to 10 November 2021) was performed, in addition to manual screening. Thirty-two studies involving 11,047 patients were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. The anastomotic leak rate in the ICG and non-ICG groups varied and amounted to 3.7% vs. 7.6%, respectively (RR = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.39–0.56; p < 0.001). The rate in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was 8.1% in the ICG group compared with 12.1% in the non-ICG group (RR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.46–0.98; p = 0.04). In non-RCTs, it equaled 3.1% vs. 7.3%, respectively (RR = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.35–0.52; p < 0.001). Although the publications encompassed in our meta-analysis present different patients, with different factors influencing the results, a pooled analysis revealed a lower incidence of anastomotic leak in cases with ICG use. There are several other convincing advantages: safety, simplicity, and short time of the method adjustment. The presented meta-analysis indicates ICG perfusion assessment as a tool worth considering to decrease the rate of complications following colorectal surgery—valuable in the context of other, well-known risk factors.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies. Despite the availability of diagnostic tests, an increasing number of new cases is observed. That is why it is very important to search new markers that would show high diagnostic utility. Therefore, we made an attempt to assess the usefulness of eotaxins, as there are few studies that investigate their significance, in patients with CRC. The study included 80 subjects (CRC patients and healthy volunteers). Serum concentrations of all eotaxins were measured using a multiplexing method (Luminex), while CCR3 was measured by immunoenzymatic assay (ELISA). CRP levels were determined by immunoturbidimetry and classical tumor marker levels (CEA and CA 19-9) and were measured using chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA). The highest usefulness among the proteins tested showed CCR3. Its concentrations were significantly higher in the CRC group than in healthy controls. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) of CCR3 were higher than those of CA 19-9. The maximum values for sensitivity, negative predictive value, and AUC were obtained for a combination of CCR3 and CRP. Our findings suggest the potential usefulness of CCR3 in the diagnosis of CRC, especially in combination with CRP or CEA.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most frequently diagnosed neoplasms. Despite the advances in diagnostic tools and treatments, the number of CRC cases is increasing. Therefore, it is vital to search for new parameters that could be useful in its diagnosis. Thus, we wanted to assess the usefulness of selected CC chemokines (CCL2, CCL4, and CCL15) in CRC. The study included 115 subjects (75 CRC patients and 40 healthy volunteers). The serum concentrations of all parameters were measured using a multiplexing method (Luminex). The CRP levels were determined by immunoturbidimetry, and the classical tumor markers (CEA and CA 19-9) were measured using CMIA (chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay). The concentrations of all parameters were higher in the CRC group when compared to the healthy controls. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and area under the ROC curve (AUC) of all estimated CC chemokines were higher than those of CA 19-9. Interestingly, the obtained results also suggest CCL2’s significance in the determination of local metastases and CCL4’s significance in the determination of distant metastases. However, further studies concerning the role of selected CC chemokines in the course of colorectal cancer are necessary to confirm and to fully clarify their diagnostic utility and their clinical application as markers of CRC development.

The CXCL1/CXCR2 and CXCL8-CXCR1/CXCR2 axes are under intensive investigation as they appear to regulate the progression and invasion of colorectal cancer (CRC). Growing evidence demonstrates the elevated expression of these proteins in CRC. However, a majority of relevant studies have been performed on CRC tissues using immunohistochemical techniques. Our study is the first to evaluate the diagnostic significance of serum CXCL1 and CXCR1 levels in CRC patients in comparison to well-established tumor markers, such as the carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and markers of inflammation, such as C-reactive protein (CRP). Thus, the aim of our study was to assess whether circulating serum levels of CXCL1 and CXCR1 might be candidates for novel biomarkers in the diagnosis and progression of CRC. The study was performed on 76 subjects, including patients with CRC and healthy volunteers as a control group. Serum concentrations of CXCL1, CXCR1, and the classical tumor marker (CEA) were measured using immunoenzyme assays, while CRP levels were assessed with the immunoturbidimetric method. Serum CXCL1 levels were statistically significantly increased in CRC patients when compared to healthy subjects, and similar results were found for CEA and CRP levels. The percentage of elevated concentrations of CXCL1 and CXCR1 was higher than that of the classical tumor biomarker and increased in the combined measurement of these proteins with CEA. In addition, among all proteins tested, serum CXCL1 seems to be the best indicator in the differentiation between CRC patients with nodal involvement and patients without the presence of lymph node metastasis. Our preliminary results indicate the role of serum CXCL1 and CXCR1 in the diagnosis of CRC, particularly in the combined measurement with CEA.

Background: Liquid biopsy using circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is rapidly reshaping gastrointestinal (GI) oncology. The highest-impact applications are molecular residual disease (mRD) detection after curative-intent therapy and early recognition of progression or resistance during systemic treatment. Methods: We performed a structured, clinically oriented narrative synthesis by using explicit search, eligibility, evidence prioritization, and clinical interpretation rules, integrating landmark prospective cohorts, randomized ctDNA-guided strategy trials where available, meta-analyses, key methodological research (e.g., pre-analytics, assay design, and clonal hematopoiesis (CH)/clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP)), and selected trial registries. Results: In resected colorectal cancer (CRC), postoperative ctDNA positivity is among the strongest known biomarkers of recurrence risk; large prospective studies demonstrate clear separation of disease-free survival (DFS)/overall survival (OS) between mRD+ and mRD− patients. In stage II colon cancer, randomized data (DYNAMIC) show that a ctDNA-guided strategy reduces adjuvant chemotherapy exposure without compromising long-term outcomes. In metastatic CRC, ctDNA supports early response monitoring and resistance tracking; ctDNA-selected anti-EGFR rechallenge provides a model of biomarker-driven actionability (CHRONOS). In gastroesophageal cancers, longitudinal ctDNA dynamics correlate with relapse risk and treatment efficacy, and in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, ctDNA after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy informs residual disease risk and adjuvant stratification. In pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and hepatobiliary malignancies, sensitivity is constrained by low shedding and background cell-free DNA (cfDNA), yet ctDNA positivity remains clinically meaningful, and emerging data in resected extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (STAMP-linked analyses) show that ctDNA dynamics during adjuvant therapy predict recurrence. Conclusions: ctDNA is a clinically validated biomarker for mRD in CRC, whereas in other GI cancers, it remains a promising but methodologically heterogeneous tool whose clinical utility is tumor- and context-dependent. The next phase requires interventional trials demonstrating outcome improvement, harmonized sampling and reporting standards, and rigorous control of confounders (notably CH/CHIP).