Should a loop ileostomy closure in rectal cancer patients be done during or after adjuvant chemotherapy?

Timing and morbidity of loop ileostomy closure after rectal cancer resection: a prospective observational multicentre snapshot study from Multidisciplinary Italian Study group for STOmas (MISSTO)

PURPOSE

Time to closure and morbidity are significant issues associated with ileostomy reversal after rectal cancer resection. This study aimed to investigate the rate, time, and morbidity associated with ileostomy closure procedure.

METHODS

Between February and December 2022, patients who underwent protective ileostomy after rectal cancer surgery across 45 Italian surgical centres were prospectively included. Data on ileostomy closure times, surgical methods, and complications were collected and analyzed. Both univariate and multivariate statistical tests were employed to assess stoma closure rates and the occurrence of post-operative complications.

RESULTS

A total of 287 patients participated in the study. Ileostomy closure was achieved in 241 patients, yielding overall and 6-month closure rates of 84% and 62%, respectively. The median time for ileostomy closure was 146 days. Direct sutures were used to close approximately 70% of skin defects, while purse-string sutures were applied in around 20%. The overall morbidity rate was 17%, with complications including skin suture dehiscence (7%), small bowel obstruction (6%), and anastomotic leakage (2%). Multivariate analysis revealed that an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score > 2 (p = 0.028), advanced age (p = 0.048), and previous stoma complications (p = 0.048) were independently linked to failure of stoma closure; hypertension (p = 0.036) was found to be a significant independent risk factor for post-operative complications.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that a delay and a significant no-closure rate exist in ileostomy reversal after rectal cancer surgery. Post-operative complications remain high but can be prevented with adequate pre-operative assessment and post-operative care.

Impact of chemotherapy on surgical outcomes in ileostomy reversal: a propensity score matching study from a single centre

PURPOSE

In patients with chemotherapy, there is no consensus on the timing of ileostomy closure. Ileostomy reversal could improve the quality of life and minimise the long-term adverse events of delayed closure. In this study, we evaluated the impact of chemotherapy on ileostomy closure and searched for the predictive factors for complications.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed 212 patients with rectal cancer who underwent ileostomy closure surgery during and without chemotherapy and were consecutively enrolled between 2010 and 2016. As a result of the heterogeneity of the two groups, propensity score matching (PSM) was performed with a 1:1 PSM cohort.

RESULTS

A total of 162 patients were included in the analysis. The overall stoma closure-related complications (12.4% vs. 11.1%, p = 1.00) and major complications (2.5% vs. 6.2%, p = 0.44) were not significantly different between the two groups. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that chronic kidney disease and bevacizumab use are risk factors for major complications.

CONCLUSION

Patients with oral or intravenous chemotherapy can safely have ileostomy closure with an adequate time delay from chemotherapy. When patients use bevacizumab, major complications related to ileostomy closure should still be cautioned.

Comparison of clinical outcomes of stoma reversal during versus after chemotherapy for rectal cancer patients

PURPOSE

The optimal timing of stoma closure during or after adjuvant chemotherapy for rectal cancer patients undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery remains unknown. This study aimed to investigate the influence of clinical and oncological outcomes depending on the timing of stoma closure.

METHODS

Between January 2006 and December 2015, we enrolled 244 consecutive rectal cancer patients who underwent curative-intent sphincter-preserving surgery with diverting transverse colostomy and adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with stoma closure during (During group) adjuvant chemotherapy were compared to those who had stoma closure after adjuvant chemotherapy (After group).

RESULTS

Parastomal hernia occurred more frequently in the after group than in the during group. (10% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.028). Overall, no significant difference was observed in overall survival (OS) or disease-free survival (DFS) between the two groups (p = 0.911 for OS, p = 0.505 for DFS). However, an inferior OS occurred if reopen surgery was performed within 30 days of stoma closure in the during group, as compared with the after group (p = 0.004). In addition, a marginally poor DFS was observed in the group of patients who received further operations due to 30-day stoma closure complications compared to the other patients (p = 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

For rectal cancer patients who underwent sphincter-preserving surgery, attention should be given to avoid 30-day major complications after stoma reversal because patients who require reoperation during adjuvant chemotherapy may have poor long-term survival.

Prophylactic effect of retromuscular mesh placement during loop ileostomy closure on incisional hernia incidence-a multicentre randomised patient- and observer-blind trial (P.E.L.I.O.N trial)

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia is a frequent complication following loop ileostomy reversal. Incisional hernias are associated with morbidity, loss of health-related quality of life and costs and warrant the investigation of prophylactic measures. Prophylactic mesh implantation at the time of surgical stoma reversal has shown to be a promising and safe method to prevent incisional hernias in this setting. However, the efficacy of this method has not yet been investigated in a large multicentre randomised-controlled trial (RCT) with adequate external validity. The P.E.L.I.O.N. trial will evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic mesh reinforcement after loop ileostomy closure in decreasing the rate of incisional hernia versus standard closure alone.

METHODS

P.E.L.I.O.N. is a multicentre, patient- and observer-blind RCT. Patients undergoing loop ileostomy closure will undergo intraoperative 1:1 randomisation into either abdominal wall closure with a continuous slowly absorbable suture in small-stitch technique without mesh reinforcement (control group) or abdominal wall closure with an additional reinforcement with a retromuscular non-absorbable, macro-pore (pore size ≥ 1000 μm or effective porosity >0%) light-weight monofilament or mixed structure mesh. A total of 304 patients (152 per group) will need to be randomised in the study. Based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, 1,014 patients are expected to be screened for eligibility in order to recruit the necessary number of patients. The primary endpoint will be the frequency of incision hernias within 24 months according to the European Hernia Society definition. Secondary endpoints will be the frequency of surgical site occurrences (including surgical site infections, wound seromas and hematomas, and enterocutaneous fistulas), postoperative pain, the number of revision surgeries and health-related quality of life. Safety will be assessed by measuring postoperative complications ≥ grade 3 according to the Dindo-Clavien classification.

DISCUSSION

Depending on the results of the P.E.L.I.O.N. trial, prophylactic mesh implantation could become the new standard for loop ileostomy reversal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

DRKS00027921, U1111-1273-4657.

Impact of the Interval between Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Gastrectomy on Pathological Response and Survival Outcomes for Patients with Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Meta-analysis

Background

It is still unknown what is the appropriate time between neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and gastrectomy in cases of gastric cancer. To comprehend the relationship more clearly between waiting time after NACT before having a gastrectomy and survival results, a meta-analysis was done.

Methods

Retrospective and prospective research from the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were thoroughly reviewed. Research examining the impact of delays of 4, 4-6, and above 6 weeks between the conclusion of NACT and surgery in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer qualified as eligible studies. The pathologic complete response (pCR) rate served as the main outcome indicator. Additional outcome metrics were overall survival (OS) and survival free of illness.

Results

The meta-analysis showed that patients with locally advanced gastric cancer with a waiting time for surgery of above 4 weeks compared to those with a waiting time for surgery of below 4 weeks saw a significantly higher pCR rate (pCR) [odds ratio (OR): 1.67; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07-2.60; p = 0.02]. The meta-analysis found no appreciable OS differences [hazard ratio (HR): 0.93; 95% CI: 0.76-1.13; p = 0.44).

Conclusions

Time to surgery (TTS) had no effect on the survival results, according to our data. Only in the group where delaying surgery by more than 4 weeks after the end of NACT improved pathological response, but had no effect on survival.

How to cite this article

Naveed S, Banday SZ, Qari H, et al. Impact of the Interval between Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Gastrectomy on Pathological Response and Survival Outcomes for Patients with Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Meta-analysis. Euroasian J Hepato-Gastroenterol 2022;12(2):81-91.

Early vs. standard reversal ileostomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Formation of a defunctioning loop ileostomy is common after mid and low rectal resection. Historically, they were reversed between 3 and 6 months after initial resection. Recently, earlier closure (< 14 days) has been suggested by some current randomised controlled trials. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of early stoma closure on surgical and patient outcomes.

Methods

A systematic review of the current randomised controlled trial literature comparing early and standard ileostomy closure after rectal surgery was performed. Specifically, we examined surgical outcomes including; morbidity, mortality and quality of life.

Results

Six studies met the predefined criteria and were included in our analysis. 275 patients underwent early stoma closure compared with 259 patients having standard closure. Overall morbidity was similar between both groups (25.5% vs. 21.6%) (OR, 1.47; 95% CI 0.75–2.87). However, there tended to be more reoperations (8.4 vs. 4.2%) (OR, 2.02, 95% CI 0.99–4.14) and small bowel obstructions/postoperative ileus (9.3% vs. 4.4%) (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22–0.90) in the early closure group, but no difference across the other domains.

Conclusions

Early closure appears to be a feasible in highly selective cases after good perioperative counselling and shared decision-making. Further research on quality of life outcomes and long term benefits is necessary to help define which patients are suitable candidates for early closure.

Clinical Outcomes of Ileostomy Closure before Adjuvant Chemotherapy after Rectal Cancer Surgery: An Observational Study from a Chinese Center

Background

The optimal timing of temporary ileostomy closure with respect to the time of adjuvant chemotherapy following sphincter-saving surgery for rectal cancer remains unclear. The aim of this study is to investigate the clinical and oncological outcomes of ileostomy closure before, during, and after adjuvant chemotherapy following curative rectal cancer resection.

Methods

Patients diagnosed with rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent low anterior resection and temporary loop ileostomy during May 2015 and September 2019 were retrospectively evaluated. Patients undergoing ileostomy closure before adjuvant chemotherapy (Group I) were compared to patients undergoing closure during (Group II) and after (Group III) adjuvant chemotherapy.

Results

A total of 225 patients were evaluated for eligibility, and 132 were finally selected and divided into 3 groups (24 in Group I, 53 in Group II, and 55 in Group III). No significant differences were observed in operative time, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative complications, total adjuvant chemotherapy cycles, and low anterior resection syndrome scores among the three groups. There was no significant difference in disease-free survival (p = 0.834) and overall survival (p = 0.462) between the three groups.

Conclusion

Temporary ileostomy closure before adjuvant chemotherapy following curative rectal cancer resection can achieve a clinical and oncological safety level equal to stoma closure during or after chemotherapy in selected patients.

Prospective, randomised, multicentre, open-label trial, designed to evaluate the best timing of closure of the temporary ileostomy (early versus late) in patients who underwent rectal cancer resection and with indication for adjuvant chemotherapy: the STOMAD (STOMa closure before or after ADjuvant therapy) randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Temporary ileostomy is a valuable aid in reducing the severity of complications related to rectal cancer surgery. However, it is still unclear what is the best timing of its closure in relation to the feasibility of an adjuvant treatment, especially considering patient-reported outcomes and health system costs. The aim of the study is to compare the results of an early versus late closure strategy in patients with indication to adjuvant chemotherapy after resection for rectal cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a prospective multicentre randomised trial, sponsored by Rete Oncologica Piemonte e Valle d'Aosta (Oncology Network of Piedmont and Aosta Valley-Italy). Patients undergone to rectal cancer surgery with temporary ileostomy, aged >18 years, without evidence of anastomotic leak and with indication to adjuvant chemotherapy will be enrolled in 28 Network centres. An early closure strategy (between 30 and 40 days from rectal surgery) will be compared with a late one (after the end of adjuvant therapy). Primary endpoint will be the compliance to adjuvant chemotherapy with and without ileostomy. Complications associated with stoma closure as well as quality of life, costs and oncological outcomes will be assessed as secondary endpoints.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial will engage the Network professional teams in a common effort to improve the treatment of rectal cancer by ensuring the best results in relation to the most correct use of resources. It will take into consideration both the patients' point of view (patient-reported outcome) and the health system perspective (costs analysis). The study has been approved by the Ethical Review Board of Città della Salute e della Scienza Hospital in Turin (Italy). The results of the study will be disseminated by the Network website, medical conferences and peer-reviewed scientific journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04372992.

Impact of the Interval Between Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Gastrectomy on Short- and Long-Term Outcomes for Patients with Advanced Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

The optimal time between neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and gastrectomy for gastric cancer (GC) remains unknown. This study aimed to investigate the association between the time-to-surgery (TTS) interval and the major pathologic response (mPR).

METHODS

In this study, 280 consecutive GC patients who underwent NAC followed by gastrectomy between 2014 and 2018 were retrospectively analyzed by the use of prospectively collected databases from three major GC treatment centers in Lithuania and Estonia. Based on TTS, they were grouped into three interval categories: the early-surgery group (ESG: ≤ 30 days; n = 70), the standard-surgery group (SSG: 31-43 days; n = 138), and the delayed-surgery group (DSG: ≥ 44 days, n = 72). The primary outcome of the study was the mPR rate. The secondary end points were postoperative morbidity, mortality, oncologic safety (measured as the number of resected lymph nodes and radicality), and long-term outcomes.

RESULTS

The mPR rate for the ESG group (32.9%) was significantly higher than for the SSG group (20.3%) or the DSG group (16.7%) (p = 0.047). Furthermore, after adjustment for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics, the odds for achievement of mPR were twofold higher for the patients undergoing early surgery (odds ratio [OR] 2.09; 95% conflidence interval [CI] 1.01-4.34; p = 0.047). Overall morbidity, severe complications, 30-day mortality, R0 resection, and retrieval of at least 15 lymph nodes rates were similar across the study groups. In addition, the long-term outcomes did not differ between the study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that an interval of more than 30 days between the end of NAC and gastrectomy is associated with a higher mPR rate, the same oncologic safety of surgery, and similar morbidity and mortality.

The feasibility and safety of early ileostomy reversal: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent evidence supports the safety of early reversal of a temporary stoma, within 14 days of construction. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the post-operative morbidity and overall feasibility of early stoma reversal.

METHODS

Medline and Cochrane databases were searched for studies up to June 2019 that investigated the outcomes of early stoma reversal (EC, defined as closure ≤14 days from the index operation) versus late stoma reversal (LC, ≥8 weeks from the index operation). Meta-analysis was performed on the respective rates of post-operative morbidity, anastomotic leak, wound infection, bleeding, sepsis, small bowel obstruction and ileus.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included (667 patients analysed). Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in the post-operative morbidity rate, anastomotic leak rate, rates of small bowel obstruction, bleeding and ileus between EC and LC. However, the wound infection rate was significantly higher after EC than LC; relative difference 0.10 (95% confidence interval 0.00-0.19, P = 0.047). The stoma-related complication rate was significantly higher after LC than EC; relative difference -0.28 (95% confidence interval -0.45 to -0.11, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The concept of early stoma reversal is appealing, and this meta-analysis confirms the safety of early stoma closure with an associated reduction in stoma-related complications despite higher wound infection rates. However, the results need to be interpreted with caution due to the heterogeneity of the studies included, especially in respect of the definition of complications that were used. Further well-designed prospective studies are required prior to confident adoption of early stoma closure into clinical practice.

Clinical Outcomes of Ileostomy Closure According to Timing During Adjuvant Chemotherapy After Rectal Cancer Surgery

PURPOSE

No guidelines exist detailing when to implement a temporary ileostomy closure in the setting of adjuvant chemotherapy following sphincter-saving surgery for rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and oncological outcomes of ileostomy closure during adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with curative resection of rectal cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective study investigated 220 patients with rectal cancer undergoing sphincter-saving surgery with protective loop ileostomy from January 2007 to August 2016. Patients were divided into 2 groups: group 1 (n = 161) who underwent stoma closure during adjuvant chemotherapy and group 2 (n = 59) who underwent stoma closure after adjuvant chemotherapy.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in operative time, blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, or postoperative complications in ileostomy closure between the 2 groups. No difference in overall survival (P = 0.959) or disease-free survival (P = 0.114) was observed between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Ileostomy closure during adjuvant chemotherapy was clinically safe, and interruption of chemotherapy due to ileostomy closure did not change oncologic outcomes.

Meta-analysis of temporary loop ileostomy closure during or after adjuvant chemotherapy following rectal cancer resection: the dilemma remains

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate comparative outcomes of temporary loop ileostomy closure during or after adjuvant chemotherapy following rectal cancer resection.

METHODS

We systematic searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov , ISRCTN Register and bibliographic reference lists. Overall perioperative complications, anastomotic leak, surgical site infection, ileus and length of hospital stay were the evaluated outcome parameters. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using fixed effects or random effects models.

RESULTS

We identified 4 studies reporting a total of 436 patients comparing outcomes of temporary loop ileostomy closure during (n = 185) or after (n = 251) adjuvant chemotherapy following colorectal cancer resection. There was no significant difference in overall perioperative complications (OR 1.39; 95% CI 0.82-2.36, p = 0.22), anastomotic leak (OR 2.80; 95% CI 0.47-16.56, p = 0.26), surgical site infection (OR 1.97; 95% CI 0.80-4.90, p = 0.14), ileus (OR 1.22; 95% CI 0.50-2.96, p = 0.66) or length of hospital stay (MD 0.02; 95% CI - 0.85-0.89, p = 0.97) between two groups. Between-study heterogeneity was low in all analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The meta-analysis of the best, albeit limited, available evidence suggests that temporary loop ileostomy closure during adjuvant chemotherapy following rectal cancer resection may be associated with comparable outcomes to the closure of ileostomy after adjuvant chemotherapy. We encourage future research to concentrate on the completeness of chemotherapy and quality of life which can determine the appropriateness of either approach.

Is the interval from surgery to ileostomy closure a risk factor for low anterior resection syndrome?

AIM

Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) comprises a collection of symptoms affecting patients after restorative surgery for rectal cancer. The aim of the present study was to analyse the incidence of LARS in patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery with and without subsequent ileostomy and to determine whether the interval to ileostomy closure is a factor associated with its occurrence.

METHOD

All patients undergoing curative anterior resection for rectal cancer from 2008 to 2012 in our institution were included in the study. They were divided into two groups according to whether or not a defunctioning ileostomy had been performed. Patients were assessed for LARS at a median interval of 23.60 ± 16.73 (12-48) months from anterior resection in those who did not have an ileostomy and at an interval of 11.31 ± 14.24 (12-60) months from closure of the ileostomy in those who did. They underwent a structured telephone interview based on a validated LARS score questionnaire. Univariate and multivariate analysis was carried out to assess possible associations between LARS and the variables studied.

RESULTS

There were 150 patients (93 men) of whom 54.7% had no evidence of LARS, 17.3% had minor symptoms and 28% major symptoms of LARS. Univariate analysis showed that male gender, the presence of a temporary ileostomy and neoadjuvant therapy were predisposing factors for LARS. The interval from construction of the ileostomy to its closure did not appear to be a factor associated with LARS. In multivariate analysis, male gender and preoperative neoadjuvant therapy were significant predisposing factors for LARS.

CONCLUSION

Male gender and preoperative neoadjuvant therapy are risk factors for LARS. The presence of ileostomy or time to ileostomy closure is not associated with the development of this syndrome.

Effectiveness between early and late temporary ileostomy closure in patients with rectal cancer: A prospective study

A temporary stoma is often used in rectal cancer surgery to protect a distal anastomosis, which remains a major concern after rectal cancer surgery, particularly after low anterior resection. The temporary stoma is scheduled for closure. However, the optimal time of closure of the protecting stoma remains unclear because of sparse studies and data. We aimed to detect the efficacy between early and late temporary ileostomy closure in patients with rectal cancer during or after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. We conducted a prospective, 2-group design between early and late ileostomy closure group in patients after rectal cancer surgery with temporary stoma. Participants were recruited in a teaching hospital in Guangzhou, China. A total of 161 patients confirmed diagnosis of rectal cancer underwent curative surgery and temporary ileostomy. Participants with temporary ileostomy received closure surgery after 1 (early) or 6 (late) months were assessed by clinical parameters and quality of life. Patients in late closure group received more adjuvant chemotherapy cycles but with comparable incidence of stoma closure-related complications and length of hospital stay compared to early closure group. Participants in late closure group with standardized postoperative chemotherapy might have a better prognosis compared with those in early closure group. An increased emphasis should be given to choose the optimal closure time of patients with rectal cancer having temporary ileostomy. Colorectal nurses could provide support to physician for observation of prognosis of different closure time.

Complications of Diverting Ileostomy after Low Anterior Resection for Rectal Carcinoma

There have been few studies directly comparing the postoperative complications in patients with a diverting ileostomy to patients who were not diverted after low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal carcinoma. This study is a retrospective chart review of all rectal carcinoma patients (99) who underwent a LAR from January 2009 to December 2014 at Loma Linda University Medical Center and Veterans Affairs Loma Linda Healthcare System. A majority of patients were diverted (58% vs 42%). The diverted patients were more likely to have a low tumor location ( P < 0.01), preoperative chemoradiation ( P < 0.01), and more intraoperative blood loss ( P < 0.01). Our study shows a statistically significant higher overall complication rate among patients receiving a diverting ileostomy in the six months after LAR (61% vs 38%, P = 0.02). The difference is due to a higher rate of readmission (27% vs 14%) and acute kidney injury (14% vs 5%) in patients with a diverting ileostomy. It also shows that there is a higher rate of unplanned reoperation (11% vs 6%) due to anastomotic leak (17% vs 5%) in nondiverted patients. Further studies are needed to refine the specific indications to maximize the benefit of diverting ileostomy after LAR for rectal carcinoma.

Is it safe the reversal of a diverting stoma during adjuvant chemotherapy in elderly rectal cancer patients?

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes between 2 groups of elderly rectal cancer patients according to the time duration after which their diverting stoma can be reversed.

METHODS

We recruited 124 patients who were ≥65 years old and had undergone diverting stoma after rectal cancer surgery. In Group 1, the reversal of the stoma was predominantly performed after the sixth adjuvant chemotherapy. In Group 2, the reversal was predominantly performed after the third adjuvant chemotherapy.

RESULTS

The mean duration for which patients had a stoma was 28.6 ± 9.9 weeks in Group 1 and 17.1 ± 7.4 weeks in Group 2. The interval between stoma formation and stoma formation-related complications was slightly longer in Group 1 than in Group 2 (13.5 ± 9.7 vs. 8.0 ± 4.9 weeks, p = 0.075). There were 16 stoma-related complications in Group 1 (23.2%) and 10 in Group 2 (18.2%) (p = 0.516). There were 6 stoma closure-related complications in Group 1 (8.8%) and 6 in Group 2 (10.9%) (p = 0.766).

DISCUSSION

This study shows that stoma closure during adjuvant chemotherapy is no more harmful than stoma closure after termination of adjuvant chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

It may be possible to limit the duration of diverting stoma following rectal cancer surgery, even if patients are elderly and undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy.