Traditionally, the therapeutic approach to rectal cancer has involved neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgical resection, and, in some cases, adjuvant chemotherapy. This study aims to present current advances and ongoing controversies in the management of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), with a particular focus on clarifying the role of total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) in contemporary treatment strategies. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review in Medline/PubMed using various keyword combinations, including “rectal cancer/neoplasia” and“therapy” or “neoadjuvant therapy” or “TNT”, and included articles published between 2015 and 2025. Results: The association of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy with preoperative systemic chemotherapy has led to the current concept of total neoadjuvant therapy. The advantages of preoperative chemotherapy include better patient compliance, a decrease in the rate of local recurrence and distant metastases via the early destruction of infra-clinical micrometastases, and higher rates of pathological complete response. All of these have led to the inclusion of this strategy in treatment guidelines for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Conclusions: However, the selection of patients with advanced rectal tumors for optimal therapy requires comprehensive imaging assessments, molecular and genetic testing, and a multidisciplinary team to determine the most appropriate total neoadjuvant therapy approach.

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) systems, including large language models, are increasingly used in clinical practice, whether consulted informally by clinicians or introduced by employers into decision workflows. It remains unclear how physicians attribute moral responsibility when a decision follows an AI recommendation and whether that attribution varies with the type of decision at stake. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, within-subject vignette survey of physicians in Romania. Each respondent rated the same three scenarios—urgent clinical, elective clinical, and administrative—in which a physician followed an AI recommendation under two extenuating institutional constraints. Five-point Likert items addressed the mitigation of blame by circumstances, physician responsibility despite the AI recommendation, and institutional co-responsibility. Analyses were non-parametric, with corrections for multiple testing. Results: Among 72 physicians from 17 specialties, respondents endorsed full personal responsibility in every scenario, including the administrative one, with no significant difference between scenarios. They rejected extenuating circumstances as mitigating in both clinical scenarios but were divided about them in the administrative scenario, which had the largest effect. Institutional co-responsibility was endorsed alongside personal responsibility rather than in place of it, and the two attributions were largely uncorrelated. No demographic association survived correction, although the study was not powered to detect small-effect sizes. Conclusions: Physicians treated AI as an instrument rather than a bearer of responsibility, which is unsurprising. The substantive findings lie elsewhere: personal responsibility was retained across all decision contexts, while what varied was the admissibility of institutional constraints as excuses and the emphasis placed on the institution’s share. Because respondents did not treat responsibility as a fixed quantity to be divided, the pattern is consistent with distributed-responsibility accounts rather than with a responsibility gap, though attitudinal data cannot adjudicate between normative accounts. The findings are exploratory and require confirmation in larger, more representative samples.

Background: Mucosal perforation during laparoscopic esocardiomyotomy is quite frequent, and its consequences cannot always be neglected. The purpose of the study is to investigate the risk factors for intraoperative mucosal perforation and its implications on the postoperative outcomes and the functional results three months postoperatively. Material and methods: We retrospectively identified the patients with laparoscopic esocardiomyotomy performed at Sf. Maria Hospital Bucharest, in the period between January 2017–January 2022 and collected the data (preoperative—clinic, manometric and imaging, intra-and postoperative). To identify the risk factors for mucosal perforations, we used logistic regression analysis. Results: We included 60 patients; intraoperative mucosal perforation occurred in 8.33% of patients. The risk factors were: the presence of tertiary contractions (OR = 14.00, 95%CI = [1.23, 158.84], p = 0.033206), the number of propagated waves ≤6 (OR = 14.50), 95%CI = [1.18, 153.33], p < 0.05), the length of esophageal myotomy (OR = 1.74, 95%CI = [1.04, 2.89] p < 0.05), the length of esocardiomyotomy (OR = 1.74, 95%CI = [1.04, 2.89] p < 0.05), and a protective factor—the intraoperative upper endoscopy (OR = 0.037, 95%CI = [0.003, 0.382] p < 0.05). Conclusions: Identifying risk factors for this adverse intraoperative event may decrease the incidence and make this surgery safer. Although mucosal perforation resulted in prolonged hospital stays, it did not lead to significant differences in functional outcomes.

Background: Esophagogastric cancer (EGC), encompassing oesophageal, gastroesophageal junction (GEJ), and proximal gastric malignancies, remains a major contributor to global cancer mortality. Neoadjuvant therapy, chemotherapy (CT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is now standard for locally advanced, resectable disease. However, variability in treatment response and survival outcomes continues to challenge therapeutic optimisation. Methods: This systematic review followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines and included studies published between January 2020 and September 2025. Eligible studies enrolled adult patients with resectable EGC treated with neoadjuvant CT or CRT, reporting data on pathological response (pathological complete response (pCR) or tumour regression grade (TRG)) and survival outcomes [overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS)]. Sixty studies (18 randomised controlled trials and 42 cohort analyses) were included for qualitative synthesis. Results: Across all regimens, pCR rates ranged from 8% to 49%, with CRT achieving higher pCR (mean 33%) and major TRG response (63%) compared to CT alone (pCR 22%, TRG 48%). Immunotherapy-enhanced protocols (IO-CRT and IO-CT) demonstrated the most promising outcomes, reaching mean pCR rates up to 48–50%. Patients with complete or major regression consistently achieved superior OS and DFS, confirming pathological response as a consistent prognostic marker for long-term survival. Significant clinical heterogeneity was observed across histological subtypes (SCC vs. AC), treatment intensity, and surgical timing, while methodological heterogeneity stemmed from variations in TRG systems, follow-up duration, and reporting standards. Conclusions: Pathological response is consistently associated with survival following neoadjuvant therapy in EGC, yet its predictive power is modulated by tumour histology and treatment modality. Standardisation of TRG assessment, integration of molecular biomarkers, and harmonisation of study design are essential for improving comparability and advancing personalised, multimodal strategies in oesophagogastric oncology.