Right-sided vs. left-sided obstructing colonic cancer: results of a multicenter study of the French Surgical Association in 2325 patients and literature review

Risk of metachronous peritoneal metastases after surgery for obstructive colon cancer: Multivariate analysis from a series of 1,085 patients

BACKGROUND

Data in the literature suggest that obstruction is an independent predictor of poor prognosis in colon cancer. Of all possible sites of recurrence, peritoneal metastases are associated with worse survival. Our aim was to report the incidence of metachronous peritoneal metastases from a cohort of patients undergoing resection of obstructive colon cancer with curative intent and to identify predictive factors for metachronous peritoneal metastases.

METHODS

From 2000 to 2015, a total of 2,325 patients were treated for obstructive colon cancer in French surgical centers, members of the French National Surgical Association (AFC). Patients with palliative management, synchronous metastatic disease, and with postoperative mortality were excluded. A multivariate analysis was performed to determine independent predictive factors of metachronous peritoneal metastases.

RESULTS

The cohort included 1,085 patients. The median follow-up was 21.5 months. Metachronous peritoneal metastases occurred in 12% of patients and were diagnosed after a median interval of 13.5 months. The cumulative 3-year metachronous peritoneal metastasis rate was 10.9%. Three-year overall survival was 85% for patients who did not develop recurrence, 71% for those who develop recurrence without peritoneal metastases, and 56% for those with metachronous peritoneal metastases (P < .0001). In multivariate analysis, 3 variables were identified as independent risk factors for metachronous peritoneal metastases: pT4 stage (odds ratio: 1.98; 95% confidence interval: 1.17-3.36; P = .011), pN2 stage (odds ratio: 2.57; 95% confidence interval: 1.89-4.45; P = .0007), and fewer than 12 lymph nodes examined (odds ratio: 2.01; 95% confidence interval: 1.08-3.74; P = .028).

CONCLUSION

This study showed a significant risk of metachronous peritoneal metastases after curative-intent resection of obstructive colon cancer. The awareness of factors predisposing to metachronous peritoneal metastases could improve the treatment strategy of these patients.

Impact of Sidedness of Colon Cancer on Epidemiological, Clinical Presentation, Surgical, Pathological, and Oncologic Outcomes

Aim: The purpose of the study was to identify potential differences between patients with right colon cancer and left colon cancer in epidemiological, clinical presentation, pathological, and surgical results in addition to the impact of the sidedness on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Method: Patients with a diagnosis of colon cancer stages I-IV between 2010 and 2020 were identified from a prospective database in a tertiary single center. Right and left-sided cancer were compared regarding epidemiological, clinical presentation, pathological, and surgical results. Survival analysis was conducted using the Kaplan-Meier method and adjusted hazard ratios for mortality (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were obtained using Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: The right colon group included 82 (31%) patients and the left colon group 182 (69%). After adjusted analysis, RCC presented less bleeding (RP: 0.31; CI: 0.18-0.56; p: 0.0001) and change in bowel habits (RP: 0.60; CI: 0.41-0.87; p: 0.0069). A laparotomy approach was more performed in LCC (RP: 0.64; CI: 0.47-0.86; p: 0.0029). Regarding pathological results, RCC had more poorly differentiated tumors (RP: 0.81; CI: 0.70-0.94; p: 0.05). In the adjusted analysis, there was no difference in survival for right-sided compared to left-sided colon cancer: the hazard ratios were 1.36 (CI 95%: 0.61-3.01; p: 0.4490) for OS and 2.04 (CI: 0.91-4.59; p: 0.0814) for DFS. Conclusions: In this population-based cohort, we found no impact of colon cancer sidedness on OS and DFS. RCC presented less differentiated tumors and LCC presented more bleeding and change in bowel habits.

Management of obstructed colorectal carcinoma in an emergency setting: An update

Colorectal carcinoma is common, particularly on the left side. In 20% of patients, obstruction and ileus may be the first clinical manifestations of a carcinoma that has advanced (stage II, III or even IV). Diagnosis is based on clinical presentation, plain abdominal radiogram, computed tomography (CT), CT colonography and positron emission tomography/CT. The best management strategy in terms of short-term operative or interventional and long-term oncological outcomes remains unknown. For the most common left-sided obstruction, the first choice should be either emergency surgery or endoscopic decompression by self-expendable metal stents or tubes. The operative plan should be either one-stage or two-stage resection. One-stage resection with on-table bowel decompression and irrigation can be accompanied or not accompanied by proximal defunctioning stoma (colostomy or ileostomy). Primary anastomosis is more convenient but has increased risks of anastomotic leakage and morbidity. Two-stage resection (Hartmann's procedure) is safer and the most widely used despite temporally affecting quality of life. Damage control surgery in high-risk frail patients is less frequently performed since it can be successfully substituted with endoscopic stenting or tubing. For the less common right-sided obstruction, one-stage surgical resection is more beneficial than endoscopic decompression. The role of minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopic or robotic) is a subject of debate. Emergency laparoscopic-assisted management is advantageous to some extent but requires much expertise due to inherent difficulties in dissecting the distended colon and the risk of rupture and subsequent septic complications. The decompressing stent as a bridge to elective surgery more substantially decreases the risks of morbidity and mortality than emergency surgery for decompression and has equivalent medium-term overall survival and disease-free survival rates. Its combination with neoadjuvant chemotherapy or radiation may have a positive effect on long-term oncological outcomes. Management plans are crucial and must be individualized to better fit each case.

Short- and Long-Term Survival among Elderly Colorectal Cancer Patients in Finland, 2006-2015: A Nationwide Population-Based Registry Study

This population-based registry study aimed to report 30-day and one-year postoperative survival, five-year overall survival (OS), and disease-specific survival (DSS) among elderly (≥75 years old) colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. All new colorectal cancer cases from 2006-2015 were included and followed until death or the end of follow-up (end of 2016). Among 27,088 CRC patients, 11,306 patients were ≥75 years old. Among patients ≥ 75 years, 36.8% (n = 4160) had right-sided colon cancer, 21.9% (n = 2478) left-sided colon cancer, and 32.3% (n = 3650) rectal cancer. In this study population, 932 patients were aged ≥ 90. The 30-day postoperative OS for patients aged 75-79 was 96.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 95.3-96.9) falling to 93.2% (95% CI 92.0-94.4) for patients aged 80-84. The one-year postoperative OS among patients aged 75-79 was 86.3% (95% CI 84.7-87.9) compared with 80.5% (95% CI 78.7-82.3) among patients aged 80-84. Five-year OS among patients aged 75-79 was 47.6% (95% CI 46.0-49.2) and 36.6% (95% CI 34.8-38.4) among patients aged 80-84, compared with 61.7% (95% CI 60.9-62.5) among younger patients (<75 years old). Survival among elderly CRC patients (≥75 years old) was in general fairly good when compared with younger patients, especially among patients aged 75-79 and 80-84 with localized or locally advanced disease.

Surgical treatment and overall survival in patients with right-sided obstructing colon cancer-a nationwide retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare baseline characteristics, 90-day mortality and overall survival (OS) between patients with obstructing and non-obstructing right-sided colon cancer at a national level.

METHODS

All patients who underwent resection for right-sided colon cancer between January 2015 and December 2016 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and stratified for obstruction. Primary outcome was 5-year OS after excluding 90-day mortality as assessed by the Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 525 patients (7%) with obstructing and 6891 patients (93%) with non-obstructing right-sided colon cancer were included. Patients with right-sided obstructing colon cancer (OCC) were older and had more often transverse tumour location, and the pathological T and N stage was more advanced than in those without obstruction (p < 0.001). The 90-day mortality in patients with right-sided OCC was higher compared to that in patients with non-obstructing colon cancer: 10% versus 3%, respectively (p < 0.001). The 5-year OS of those surviving 90 days postoperatively was 42% in patients with OCC versus 73% in patients with non-obstructing colon cancer, respectively (p < 0.001). Worse 5-year OS was found in patients with right-sided OCC for all stages. Obstruction was an independent risk factor for decreased OS in right-sided colon cancer (HR 1.79, 95% CI 1.57-2.03).

CONCLUSION

In addition to increased risk of postoperative mortality, a stage-independent worse 5-year OS after excluding 90-day mortality was found in patients with right-sided OCC compared to patients without obstruction.

Self-expandable metallic stent as bridge to surgery vs. emergency resection in obstructive right-sided colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Emergency resection is common for malignant right-sided obstructive colon cancer. As there is evidence showing a potential benefit of self-expandable metal stents as a bridge to surgery, a new debate has been initiated.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare self-expandable metal stents with emergency resection in right-sided obstructive colon cancer.

DATA SOURCE

A systematic search was conducted accessing Medline/PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies reporting either emergency surgery or stent placement in right-sided obstructive colon cancer were included.

INTERVENTION

Stent or emergency resection in right-sided obstructive colon cancer.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Morbidity rate, mortality rate, stoma rate, laparoscopic resection rate, anastomotic insufficiency rate, success rate of stent.

RESULTS

A total of 6343 patients from 16 publications were analyzed. The stent success rate was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.87 to 0.95) with perforation of 0.03 (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.06). Emergency resection was performed laparoscopically at a rate of 0.15 (95% CI, 0.09 to 0.24). Primary anastomosis rate in emergency resection was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.91 to 0.97) with an anastomotic insufficiency rate of 0.07 (95% CI, 0.04 to 0.11). The mortality rate after emergency resection was 0.05 (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.09). Primary anastomosis and anastomotic insufficiency rate were similar between the two groups (RR: 1.02; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.1; p = 0.56 and RR: 0.53; 95% CI, 0.14 to 1.93; p = 0.33). The mortality rate in emergency resection was higher compared to stent (RR: 0.51, 95% CI 0.30 to 10.89, p = 0.016).

LIMITATION

No randomized controlled trials are available.

CONCLUSION

Stent is a safe and successful alternative to emergency resection and may increase the rate of minimally invasive surgery. Emergency resection, however, remains safe and did not result in higher rate of anastomotic insufficiency. Further high-quality comparative studies are warranted to assess long-term outcomes.

NCR, an Inflammation and Nutrition Related Blood-Based Marker in Colon Cancer Patients: A New Promising Biomarker to Predict Outcome

Background: Colorectal carcinoma (CRC) is a heterogeneous disease, and differences in outcomes have been reported among patients diagnosed with the same disease stage. Prognostic and predictive biomarkers provide information for patient risk stratification and guide treatment selection. Although numerous studies have analyzed the effects of systemic inflammatory factors on CRC outcomes, clinical significance remains to be elucidated. In particular, the treatment strategy of colon cancer patients is different from that of rectal cancer due to outcome and recurrence differences. The identification of patients with a poor prognosis who might benefit from intensive treatment approaches is clinically necessary. Methods: This study aimed to evaluate the value of different blood-based markers and assess the significance of our newly developed inflammatory-nutrition-related biomarker (NCR = BMI × albumin/CRP) in patients with colon cancer. A two-stage design was used with 212 patients with colon cancer (CC) in the discovery cohort (n = 159) and in an external validation cohort (n = 53). Results: A lower preoperative NCR level was significantly correlated with a worse prognosis, sidedness, undifferentiated histology, nodal involvement, and advanced UICC stage. We compared the NCR with other established prognostic indices and showed that the NCR is a more reliable indicator of a poor prognosis for patients with CC. Patients with low NCR levels experienced a significantly shorter Overall Survival (OS) than patients with high levels. Multivariate analysis confirmed preoperative NCR levels as an independent predictor for overall survival with a hazard ratio of 3.3 (95% confidence interval 1.628−6.709, p < 0.001). Finally, we confirmed the predictive value of the NCR in an independent validation cohort and confirmed NCR as an independent prognostic factor for OS. Conclusion: Taken together, we discovered a new prognostic index (NCR) based on BMI, albumin, and CRP levels as an independent prognostic predictor of OS in patients with colon cancer. In all UICC stages, our newly developed NCR marker is able to distinguish patients with better and worse prognoses. We, therefore, propose that NCR may serve as a supplement to the TNM staging system to optimize the risk stratification in CC patients towards personalized oncology. In particular, NCR can be used in clinical trials to stratify patients with UICC II and III tumors and help better select patients who might benefit from adjuvant treatment.

Poorer Survival in Patients with Cecum Cancer Compared with Sigmoid Colon Cancer

Background and Objectives: An increasing number of studies have shown the influence of primary tumor location of colon cancer on prognosis, but the prognostic difference between colon cancers at different locations remains controversial. After comparing the prognostic differences between left-sided and right-sided colon cancer, the study subdivided left-sided and right-sided colon cancer into three parts, respectively, and explored which parts had the most significant prognostic differences, with the aim to further analyze the prognostic significance of primary locations of colon cancer. Materials and Methods: Clinicopathological data of patients with colon cancer who underwent radical surgery from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program database were analyzed. The data was divided into two groups (2004−2009 and 2010−2015) based on time intervals. Two tumor locations with the most significant survival difference were explored by using Cox regression analyses. The prognostic difference of the two locations was further verified in survival analyses after propensity score matching. Results: Patients with right-sided colon cancer had worse cancer-specific and overall survival compared to left-sided colon cancer. Survival difference between cecum cancer and sigmoid colon cancer was found to be the most significant among six tumor locations in both 2004−2009 and 2010−2015 time periods. After propensity score matching, multivariate analyses showed that cecum cancer was an independent unfavorable factor for cancer specific survival (HR [95% CI]: 1.11 [1.04−1.17], p = 0.001 for 2004−2009; HR [95% CI]: 1.23 [1.13−1.33], p < 0.001 for 2010−2015) and overall survival (HR [95% CI]: 1.09 [1.04−1.14], p < 0.001 for 2004−2009; HR [95% CI]: 1.09 [1.04−1.14], p < 0.001 for 2010−2015) compared to sigmoid colon cancer. Conclusions: The study indicates the prognosis of cecum cancer is worse than that of sigmoid colon. The current dichotomy model (right-sided vs. left-sided colon) may be inappropriate for the study of colon cancer.

Mortality Risk Stratification in Emergency Surgery for Obstructive Colon Cancer-External Validation of International Scores, American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator (SRC), and the Dedicated Score of French Surgical Association (AFC/OCC Score)

BACKGROUND

The increased rates of postoperative mortality after emergency surgery for obstructive colon cancer (OCC) require the use of risk-stratification scores. The study purpose is to external validate the surgical risk calculator (SRC) and the AFC/OCC score and to create a score for risk stratification.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Overall, 435 patients with emergency surgery for OCC were included in this retrospective study. We used statistical methods suitable for the aimed purpose.

RESULTS

Postoperative mortality was 11.72%. SRC performance: strong discrimination (AUC = 0.864) and excellent calibration (11.80% predicted versus 11.72% observed); AFC/OCC score performance: adequate discrimination (AUC = 0.787) and underestimated mortality (6.93% predicted versus 11.72% observed). We identified nine predictors of postoperative mortality: age > 70 years, CHF, ECOG > 2, sepsis, obesity or cachexia, creatinine (aN) or platelets (aN), and proximal tumors (AUC = 0.947). Based on the score, we obtained four risk groups of mortality rate: low risk (0.7%)-0-2 factors, medium risk (12.5%)-3 factors, high risk (40.0%)-4 factors, very high risk (84.4%)-5-6 factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The two scores were externally validated. The easy identification of predictors and its performance recommend the mortality score of the Clinic County Emergency Hospital of Galați/OCC for clinical use.

Comparison of Oncologic Outcomes Between Incomplete Obstructive Colon Cancer and Non-Obstructive Colon Cancer by Tumor Location

Introduction

Obstruction in colon cancer is a well-known risk factor for worse oncologic outcomes. However, studies on differences in survival of patients with incomplete obstructive colon cancer (IOCC) by tumor location are insufficient. Thus, the aim of this study was to compare oncologic outcomes between IOCC and non-obstructive colon cancer (NOCC) according to tumor location.

Methods

From January 2010 to December 2015, a total of 2,004 patients diagnosed with stage II or stage III colon adenocarcinoma who underwent elective colectomy were included (IOCC, n = 405; NOCC, n = 1,599). Incomplete obstruction was defined as a state in which colonoscopy could not pass through the cancer lesion but did not require emergent surgery, stent insertion, or stoma formation because the patient was asymptomatic without problem in bowel preparation. Kaplan–Meier method and log-rank tests were used to compare survival between IOCC and NOCC. Multivariable analysis was performed to determine which factors affected survivals.

Results

Stage III IOCC patients showed significantly lower overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). Stage II IOCC patients and stage III NOCC patients had similar survival curves. IOCC patients with tumors on the right side showed worse OS than other patients. In multivariable analysis, incomplete obstruction was an independent risk factor for worse OS and RFS in all stages. Tumor located at the right side in stage III was an independent risk factor for RFS (HR: 1.40, p = 0.030).

Conclusions

Patients with IOCC showed significantly worse survival outcomes than those with NOCC. Stage II IOCC patients and stage III NOCC patients showed similar survival. Patients with stage III IOCC located at the right side showed significantly worse oncologic outcomes than those located at the left side. These results confirm that prognosis is different depending on the presence of incomplete obstruction and the location of the tumor, even in the same stage.

Preoperative prognostic factors for obstructive colorectal cancer

AIM

The aim of the study was to determine the preoperative predictive factors of overall survival, relapse-free survival, and peritoneal carcinomatosis in obstructive colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Data from patients undergoing emergency surgery for obstructive colorectal cancer at our center between 2004 and 2016 were extracted retrospectively from our health records. Several preoperative parameters were used to predict survival and peritoneal carcinomatosis using univariate and multivariate analysis, and ROC curves.

RESULTS

A total of 107 patients with obstructive colorectal cancer were included. Five-year relapse-free and overall survival rates were 14% and 28%, respectively, with 15% peritoneal carcinomatosis. Univariate analysis showed that age ≥ 83 years old, preoperative ASA score ≥ 3, initial hemodynamic instability, and CRP > 18.3 mg/L was significantly associated with worse relapse-free and overall survival. In a multivariate analysis, only age > 83 years (HR = 1.75; HR = 2.16, for relapse-free and overall survival status, respectively) and hemodynamic instability (HR = 7.29; HR = 6.55) were confirmed in the multivariate model. Global peritoneal carcinomatosis was significantly associated with synchronous liver metastases in the multivariate model (OR = 4.56), and synchronous peritoneal carcinomatosis only was significantly associated with platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR) > 269 and synchronous liver metastases in the multivariate model (OR = 0.003; OR = 7.26).

CONCLUSION

Synchronous liver metastases are prognostic risk factor for global and synchronous peritoneal carcinomatosis whereas PLR > 269 was a significant protective factor for synchronous peritoneal carcinomatosis only for obstructive colorectal cancer. Age > 83 years and initial hemodynamic instability were key preoperative prognostic risk factors for worse relapse-free and overall survival. Prognostic usefulness of blood cell ratios for mortality and peritoneal carcinomatosis warrants further investigation.

Short-term and long-term outcomes of subtotal/total colectomy in the management of obstructive left colon cancer

Purpose

Surgical management of obstructive left colon cancer (OLCC) is still a matter of debate. The classic Hartmann procedure (HP) has a disadvantage that requires a second major operation. Subtotal colectomy/total abdominal colectomy (STC/TC) with ileo-sigmoid or ileo-rectal anastomosis is proposed as an alternative procedure to avoid stoma and anastomotic leakage. However, doubts about morbidity and functional outcome and lack of long-term outcomes have made surgeons hesitate to perform this procedure. Therefore, this trial was designed to provide data for morbidity, functional outcomes, and long-term outcomes of STC/TC.

Methods

This study retrospectively analyzed consecutive cases of OLCC that were treated by STC/TC between January 2000 and November 2020 at a single tertiary referral center. Perioperative outcomes and long-term outcomes of STC/TC were analyzed.

Results

Twenty-five descending colon cancer (45.5%) and 30 sigmoid colon cancer cases (54.5%) were enrolled in this study. Postoperative complications occurred in 12 patients. The majority complication was postoperative ileus (10 of 12). Anastomotic leakage and perioperative mortality were not observed. At 6 to 12 weeks after the surgery, the median frequency of defecation was twice per day (interquartile range, 1-3 times per day). Eight patients (14.5%) required medication during this period, but only 3 of 8 patients required medication after 1 year. The 3-year disease-free survival was 72.7% and 3-year overall survival was 86.7%.

Conclusion

The risk of anastomotic leakage is low after STC/TC. Functional and long-term outcomes are also acceptable. Therefore, STC/TC for OLCC is a safe, 1-stage procedure that does not require diverting stoma.

Long-term and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open resection following tube decompression for obstructive colorectal cancer: a single-center retrospective study

PURPOSE

The benefits of laparoscopic surgery over open surgery are well documented; however, the suitability of laparoscopic surgery for obstructive colorectal cancer is still controversial. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the clinical benefits of laparoscopic surgery vs. open surgery for obstructive colorectal cancer after tube decompression.

METHODS

We analyzed the outcomes of patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery vs. open surgery for curative resection after tube decompression for obstructive colorectal cancer at our hospital between January, 2007 and March, 2018.

RESULTS

This study comprised 67 patients: 29 patients who underwent open surgery and 38 patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery. The morbidity within 30 days after surgery was comparable between the groups. The 3-year overall survival rates of the open and laparoscopic groups were 83.3 and 79.4%, respectively (p = 0.6244), and the 3-year disease-free survival rates were 59.3 and 71.2%, respectively (p = 0.3200). Multivariate analysis showed that nodal stage (p = 0.021) was an independent prognostic factor for OS and sex (p = 0.010) and side-ness (p = 0.048) were independent prognostic factors for DFS.

CONCLUSION

If adequate decompression is achieved, laparoscopic resection following tube decompression for obstructive colorectal cancer can be a safe alternative to open surgery.

Timing and outcome of right- vs left-sided colonic anastomotic leaks: Is there a difference?

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leaks (AL) contribute to postoperative mortality, prolonged hospitalization, and increased health care costs. While left-sided AL (LAL) are well described in the literature, there is a paucity of studies on outcomes and management of right-sided AL (RAL). This study aimed to compare the timing of RAL versus LAL, and the variable diagnosis, management and outcomes of RAL versus LAL. We hypothesized that the timing of RAL may be later compared to LAL and may result in worse overall outcomes.

METHODS

Patients who underwent curative intent surgery for neoplastic disease from January 1995 to December 2015 were included. Patients that underwent an anastomosis below the peritoneal reflection, neoadjuvant treatment, fecal diversion, previous colectomy/anastomosis, multiple anastomoses, and patients with inflammatory bowel disease or hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes were excluded. Patient demographics, neoplastic data, operative data, time to AL, methods utilized for diagnosis of AL, and management of AL were collected. The primary endpoint was timing of AL, and secondary endpoints were management and outcome based on RAL versus LAL. RAL and LAL were analyzed and compared using Chi-squared and categorical variables were expressed as number (percentage) and continuous variables expressed as median (interquartile range).

RESULTS

A total of 2223 patients underwent oncologic resection for colonic neoplasia (1457 right sided and 766 left sided anastomoses). 67% of patients were male and median age was 69 years (range, 34-91). There were 48 total AL events (2.16%): 26 RAL (1.78%) and 22 LAL (2.87%). There was no statistical difference in leak rates between RAL and LAL and no difference in time to diagnosis or management (Table 1). RAL had significantly decreased operative time (p = 0.016), decreased intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.002), and increased diagnosis by CT/plain radiograph (p = 0.04). All patients that underwent surgery for leak had some form of fecal diversion performed. Morbidity and mortality were comparable between groups (p = 0.70; p = 1.0).

CONCLUSIONS

This study found overall very low AL rates with comparable timing of RAL and LAL, and no difference in management or outcome of RAL vs. LAL. These findings are informative for patient and surgeon expectations before and after surgery and when AL is suspected.

Malignant Large Bowel Obstruction

Large bowel obstruction is a serious and potentially life-threatening surgical emergency which is associated with high morbidity and mortality rate. The most common etiology is colorectal cancer which accounts for over 60% of all large bowel obstructions. Proper assessment, thoughtful decision-making and prompt treatment is necessary to decrease the high morbidity and mortality which is associated with this entity. Knowledge of the key elements regarding the presentation of a patient with a large bowel obstruction will help the surgeon in formulating an appropriate treatment plan for the patient. Comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the various treatment options available is necessary when caring for these patients. This chapter will review the presentation of patients with malignant large bowel obstruction, discuss the various diagnostic modalities available, as well as discuss treatment options and the various clinical scenarios in which they are most appropriately utilized.

Bridge to Surgery for Obstructing Colonic Cancer: A Comparison between Right- and Left-sided Lesions

Objectives:

Few studies have compared management and outcomes of bridge to surgery (BTS) for obstructive colonic cancer according to the location of the tumor. Additional information is needed about this procedure's characteristics and short-term and long-term outcomes. We aimed to compare patient and tumor characteristics, and outcomes of BTS for obstructive right-sided versus left-sided colonic cancers.

Methods:

This was a retrospective, single center, cohort study. The study cohort comprised 149 patients, including 48 with right-sided and 101 with left-sided obstructive colonic cancers, who were treated with BTS between January 2007 and December 2017. Data on medical history, investigations, treatments, and prognosis were collected from an electronic database of a single hospital. The primary end points were overall (OS) and disease-free (DFS) survival and short-term surgical outcomes.

Results:

Significantly more patients with right-sided cancers had postoperative complications (29.2% vs. 14.9%, p = 0.039). Additionally, postoperative chemotherapy was administered to a marginally significantly greater proportion of patients with left-sided cancers (29.2% vs 45.5%, p = 0.057). The long-term outcomes were comparable between the two groups (the 5-year OS rates were 67.6% and 80.9% [p = 0.117] and the 5-year DFS rates were 62.2% and 58.6% [p = 0.671]). Multivariate analyses using all studied variables showed that lymphovascular invasion, advanced T stage, and adjuvant chemotherapy were independent poor prognostic factors.

Conclusions:

The long-term outcome was not different between the right- and left-sided groups. In a BTS setting, postoperative complications may reduce the compliance of adjuvant chemotherapy in right-sided cancers and affect long-term outcomes.

Outcome of colorectal cancer in Diamond-Blackfan syndrome with a ribosomal protein S19 mutation

Diamond-Blackfan anemia is an autosomal dominant syndrome, characterized by anemia and a predisposition for malignancies. Ribosomal proteins are responsible for this syndrome, and the incidence of colorectal cancer in patients with this syndrome is higher than the general population. This patient's Diamond-Blackfan anemia was caused by a novel ribosomal protein S19 gene mutation, and he received chemotherapy for colorectal cancer caused by it. In his cancer, ribosomal proteins S19 and TP53 were overexpressed. He received 5FU and cetuximab; however, his anemia made chemotherapy difficult, and he did not survive long. Patients with Diamond-Blackfan anemia should be screened earlier and more often for colorectal cancer than usual.