Multicenter Stratified Comparison of Hospital Costs Between Laparoscopic and Open Colorectal Cancer Resections: Influence of Tumor Location and Operative Risk

The Application of Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing in Oncology: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Time-driven activity-based costing (TD-ABC) holds promise to control costs and enhance value in oncology, but the current landscape of its applications remains uncharted. This study aimed to: (1) document the applications of TD-ABC in oncology and unveil its strengths and limitations, (2) assess the extent to which studies adhere to Kaplan and Porter's method, and (3) appraise study quality.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to provide an empirical application of TD-ABC within oncology. Structured data extraction included key characteristics such as cancer type, perspective, and analysis setting. Quality was assessed using the TD-ABC Healthcare Consortium Consensus Statement checklist.

RESULTS

A total of 59 studies met the inclusion criteria, two-thirds of which were published within the last 5 years. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries and analyzed common cancer types. The provider's perspective (85%) dominated, and studies typically relied on single-institution data (76%). No study assessed costs over a complete cycle of care and most focused on the costs of radiotherapy (56%) or surgery (20%). Articles generally did not adhere to the seven-step method, and average study quality was low (52%), particularly because of inadequate content in methods and results.

CONCLUSIONS

Oncology has emerged as a productive field for TD-ABC analyses, showcasing the effectiveness of TD-ABC in capturing the costs of healthcare processes in which medical devices are integral to care delivery. Nevertheless, concerns arise because of the low overall study quality and the lack of a consistent methodology.

Risk of Life-Threatening Complications After Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Japanese Multicenter Study

PURPOSE

As the population ages, more surgeries are being performed on patients in poor general condition. Such patients are at greater risk of life-threatening postoperative complications and perioperative mortality.

METHODS

This multicenter study investigated 4164 consecutive patients who underwent colorectal surgery between 2016 and 2023. Patients were divided into those who experienced life-threatening complications (LT group, n = 31) and those who did not (no-LT group, n = 4133). Clinical features were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients (0.7%) experienced life-threatening complications. Age was higher (80 years vs. 71 years, p = 0.011), body mass index was lower (19.7 kg/m2 vs. 22.0 kg/m2, p < 0.001), poor performance status (performance status ≥ 3) was more frequent (54.8% vs. 10.4%, p < 0.001), and open surgery was more frequent (25.8% vs. 9.0%, p < 0.001) in the LT group. Multivariate analysis revealed high age (odds ratio 2.268, 95% confidence interval 1.079-4.763; p = 0.030), poor performance status (odds ratio 7.714, 95% confidence interval 3.622-11.251; p < 0.001) and open surgery (odds ratio 1.792, 95% confidence interval 1.205-6.799; p = 0.016) as independent predictors of life-threatening complications.

CONCLUSION

Patients with a risk of life-threatening complications should be given a detailed preoperative description of the risks, and indications and approaches to surgery should be thoroughly examined.

Minimally Invasive Surgery in Liver Transplantation: From Living Liver Donation to Graft Implantation

Since the end of the 20th century and the establishment of minimally invasive techniques, they have become the preferred operative method by many surgeons. These techniques were applied to liver surgery for the first time in 1991, while as far as transplantation is concerned their application was limited to the living donor procedure. We performed a review of the literature by searching in Pubmed and Scopus using the following keywords: Liver transplantation, Minimally invasive surgery(MIS) living liver donor surgery. Applications of MIS are recorded in surgeries involving the donor and the recipient. Regarding the recipient surgeries, the reports are limited to 25 patients, including combinations of laparoscopic, robotic and open techniques, while in the living donor surgery, the reports are much more numerous and with larger series of patients. Shorter hospitalization times and less blood loss are recorded, especially in centers with experience in a large number of cases. Regarding the living donor surgery, MIS follows the same principles as a conventional hepatectomy and is already the method of choice in many specialized centers. Regarding the recipient surgery, significant questions arise mainly concerning the safe handling of the liver graft.

Colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection versus segmental colon resection for benign colonic polyps: a comparative cost analysis

AIM

The colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection (CAL-WR) is proven to be an effective and safe alternative to a segmental colon resection (SCR) for large or complex benign colonic polyps that are not eligible for endoscopic removal. This analysis aimed to evaluate the costs of CAL-WR and compare them to the costs of an SCR.

METHOD

A single-centre 90-day 'in-hospital' comparative cost analysis was performed on patients undergoing CAL-WR or SCR for complex benign polyps between 2016 and 2020. The CAL-WR group consisted of 44 patients who participated in a prospective multicentre study (LIMERIC study). Inclusion criteria were (1) endoscopically unresectable benign polyps; (2) residual or recurrence after previous polypectomy; or (3) irradically resected low risk pT1 colon carcinoma. The comparison group, which was retrospectively identified, included 32 patients who underwent an elective SCR in the same period.

RESULTS

Colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection was associated with significantly fewer complications (7% in the CAL-WR group vs. 45% in the SCR group, P < 0.001), shorter operation time (50 min in the CAL-WR group vs. 119 min in the SCR group, P < 0.001), shorter length of hospital stay (median length of stay 2 days in the CAL-WR group vs. 4 days in the SCR group, P < 0.001) and less use of surgical resources (reduction in costs of 32% per patient), resulting in a cost savings of €2372 (£2099 GBP) per patient (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Given the clinical and financial benefits, CAL-WR should be recommended for complex benign polyps that are not eligible for endoscopic resection before major surgery is considered.

A propensity score matching investigation of short-term results of single-incision laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection via ileostomy site

Aims

The study was performed to verify the results of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) through the ileostomy site for low rectal cancer compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

Materials and Methods

From January 2019 to November 2021, 133 patients with low rectal cancer underwent single-incision (n = 27) or conventional (n = 106) methods of low anterior rectal resection surgery with ileostomy. All patients were balanced by propensity score matching for basic information in a ratio of 1:2, resulting in 27 and 54 in SILS and CLS groups, respectively.

Results

Relative to the CLS group, the SILS group exhibited fewer leucocyte changes, shorter time to first exhaust and first bowel sounds, shorter length of hospital stay and lower Visual Analogue Score on post-operative days (POD2) and POD3. Intraoperative or post-operative complications or readmissions were comparable between the two groups. The oncologic results remained consistent between the two groups other than the number of lymph nodes dissected in group no. 253.

Conclusions

Single-incision laparoscopic low rectal resection surgery through the ileostomy site has advantages in terms of reduced post-operative pain, shorter post-operative exhaust time and length of hospital stay while also achieving oncologic outcomes similar to those of conventional laparoscopy. It can be an alternative procedure for patients with low rectal cancer who require ileostomy.

Anastomotic leak risk factors following colon cancer resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite improved surgical techniques, anastomotic leakage is still a serious complication that can occur after colon cancer resection, resulting in increased morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk factors for anastomotic leakage after colon cancer surgery, provide a theoretical basis for reducing its occurrence, and guide the practice of clinicians.

METHODS

A systematic review of PubMed, Ovid, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases was conducted by using a combination of subject terms and free words for online searches. The databases were searched from their inception to 31 March 2022, and all cross-sectional, cohort or case‒control studies examining the risk factors for the development of anastomotic fistula after surgery for colon cancer were identified.

RESULT

A total of 2133 articles were searched for this study, and 16 publications were ultimately included, all of which were cohort studies. A total of 115,462 subjects were included, and a total of 3959 cases of anastomotic leakage occurred postoperatively, with an incidence of 3.4%. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used for evaluation. Male sex (OR = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.29-1.46, P < 0.00001), BMI (OR = 1.04, 95% CI: 1.00-1.08, P = 0.03), diabetes (OR = 2.80, 95% CI: 1.81-4.33, P < 0.00001), combined lung disease (OR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.15-1.42, P < 0.00001), anaesthesia ASA score (OR = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.24-1.46, P < 0.00001), ASA class ≥ III (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.22-1.47, P < 0.00001), emergency surgery (OR = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.11-1.55, P = 0.001), open surgery (OR = 1.94, 95% CI: 1.69-2.24, P < 0.00001) and type of surgical resection (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.12-1.61, P = 0.002) are risk factors for anastomotic leakage after colon cancer surgery. There is still a lack of strong evidence on whether age (OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.99-1.01, P = 0.36) and cardiovascular disease (OR = 1.18, 95% CI: 0.94-1.47, P = 0.16) are factors influencing the occurrence of anastomotic leakage after colon cancer surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Male sex, BMI, obesity, coexisting pulmonary disease, anaesthesia ASA score, emergency surgery, open surgery and type of resection were risk factors for anastomotic leakage after colon cancer surgery. The effect of age and cardiovascular disease on postoperative anastomotic leakage in patients with colon cancer needs further study.

Delayed TME Surgery in a Watch-and-Wait Strategy After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer: An Analysis of Hospital Costs and Surgical and Oncological Outcomes

BACKGROUND

A watch-and-wait strategy for patients with rectal cancer with a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is a valuable alternative for rectal resection. However, there are patients who will have residual tumor or regrowth during watch and wait.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate safety and costs for patients who underwent delayed surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study with prospectively collected data.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at a large teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

Between January 2015 and May 2020, 622 new rectal cancer patients were seen, of whom 200 received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Ninety-four patients were included, 65 of whom underwent immediate surgery and 29 of whom required delayed surgery after an initial watch-and-wait approach.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcome measures included 30-day postoperative morbidity rate, hospital costs. 2-year overall and disease-free survival.

RESULTS

There was no difference in length of stay (9 vs 8; p = 0.83), readmissions (27.6% vs 10.0%; p = 0.10), surgical re-interventions (15.0% vs 3.4%; p = 0.16), or stoma-free rate (52.6% vs 31.0%; p = 0.09) between immediate and delayed surgery groups. Hospital costs were similar in the delayed group (€11,913 vs €13,769; p = 0.89). Two-year overall survival (93% vs 100%; p = 0.23) and disease-free survival (78% vs 81%; p = 0.47) rates were comparable.

LIMITATIONS

Limitations included small sample size, follow-up time and retrospective design.

CONCLUSION

Delayed surgery for regrowth in a watch-and-wait program or for persistent residual disease after a repeated assessment is not associated with an increased risk of postoperative morbidity or a significant rise in costs compared to immediate total mesorectal excision. There also appears to be no evident compromise in oncological outcome. Repeated response assessment in patients with a near complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is a useful approach to identify more patients who can benefit from a watch-and-wait strategy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B836 .

CIRUGA DE TME RETRASADA EN UNA ESTRATEGIA DE WATCH AND WAIT DESPUS DE LA QUIMIORRADIOTERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE PARA CNCER DE RECTO UN ANLISIS DE COSTOS HOSPITALARIOS, Y DE RESULTADOS QUIRRGICOS Y ONCOLGICOS

ANTECEDENTES: Una estrategia de Watch and Wait para pacientes con cáncer de recto con una respuesta clínica completa después de quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante es una alternativa valiosa en vez de resección rectal. Sin embargo, hay pacientes que tendrán tumor residual o un recrecimiento durante el Watch and Wait .OBJETIVO: El objetivo fue investigar la seguridad y los costos para los pacientes que se sometieron a una cirugía diferida después de la quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante.DISEÑO: Este es un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo con datos recolectados prospectivamente.AJUSTE: El estudio se llevó a cabo en un gran hospital universitario.PACIENTES: Entre enero de 2015 y mayo de 2020, se atendieron 622 nuevos pacientes con cáncer de recto, de los cuales 200 recibieron quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante. Se incluyeron 94 pacientes, de los cuales 65 se sometieron a cirugía inmediata y 29 pacientes requirieron cirugía diferida después de un enfoque inicial de observación y espera.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: se incluyeron la tasa de morbilidad posoperatoria a 30 días, los costos hospitalarios y las sobrevidas general y libre de enfermedad a dos años.RESULTADOS: No hubo diferencia en la duración de la estancia (9 vs 8, p = 0,83), reingresos (27,6% vs 10,0%, p = 0,10), reintervenciones quirúrgicas (15,0% vs 3,4%, p = 0,16) y tasa libre de estoma (52,6% vs 31,0%, p = 0,09) entre los grupos de cirugía inmediata y tardía. Los costos hospitalarios fueron similares en el grupo retrasado (11913 € frente a 13769 €, p = 0,89). Las tasas de sobrevida general a dos años (93% frente a 100%, p = 0,23) y sobrevida libre de enfermedad (78% frente a 81%, p = 0,47) fueron comparables.LIMITACIONES: Tamaño de muestra pequeño, tiempo de seguimiento y diseño retrospectivo.CONCLUSIÓN: La cirugía tardía para el recrecimiento en un programa de Watch and Wait o para la enfermedad residual persistente después de una evaluación repetida no se asocia con un riesgo mayor de morbilidad posoperatoria ni con un aumento significativo en los costos, en comparación con la escisión total de mesorrecto inmediata. Tampoco parece haber un compromiso evidente en el resultado oncológico. La evaluación repetida de la respuesta en pacientes con una respuesta clínica casi completa después de la quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante es un enfoque útil para identificar más pacientes que pueden beneficiarse de una estrategia de Watch and Wait . Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B836 . (Traducción-Dr. Juan Carlos Reyes ).

Colonoscopy-Assisted Laparoscopic Wedge Resection for the Treatment of Suspected T1 Colon Cancer

BACKGROUND

Local en bloc resection of pT1 colon cancer has been gaining acceptance during the last few years. In the absence of histological risk factors, the risk of lymph-node metastases (LNM) is negligible and does not outweigh the morbidity and mortality of an oncologic resection. Colonoscopy-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection (CAL-WR) has proved to be an effective and safe technique for removing complex benign polyps. The role of CAL-WR for the primary resection of suspected T1 colon cancer has to be established.

METHODS

This retrospective study aimed to determine the radicality and safety of CAL-WR as a local en bloc resection technique for a suspected T1 colon cancer. Therefore, the study identified patients in whom high-grade dysplasia or a T1 colon carcinoma was suspected based on histology and/or macroscopic assessment, requiring an en bloc resection.

RESULTS

The study analyzed 57 patients who underwent CAL-WR for a suspected macroscopic polyp or polyps with biopsy-proven high-grade dysplasia or T1 colon carcinoma. For 27 of these 57 patients, a pT1 colon carcinoma was diagnosed at pathologic examination after CAL-WR. Histological risk factors for LNM were present in three cases, and 70% showed deep submucosal invasion (Sm2/Sm3). For patients with pT1 colon carcinoma, an overall R0-resection rate of 88.9% was achieved. A minor complication was noted in one patient (1.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

The CAL-WR procedure is an effective and safe technique for suspected high-grade dysplasia or T1-colon carcinoma. It may fill the gap for tumors that are macroscopic suspected for deep submucosal invasion, providing more patients an organ-preserving treatment option.

Temporary vs. permanent stoma: factors associated with the development of complications and costs for rectal cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

To compare in-hospital complication rates and treatment costs between rectal cancer patients receiving permanent and temporary stomas. Surgical complications and costs associated with permanent stoma formation are still poorly understood. While choosing between the two stoma options is usually based on clinical and technical factors, disparities exist.

METHODS

Patients with rectal cancer, stoma formation, complications, and cost of care were identified from the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration Discharge Database. Rectal cancer patients who underwent elective surgery and received a permanent or temporary stoma were identified using ICD-10 codes. Patients who underwent colostomy with resection were included in the "Permanent stoma" group, and those who underwent "resection with ileostomy" were included in the "temporary stoma" group. Multivariable models compared patients receiving temporary vs. permanent stomas.

RESULTS

Regression models revealed no difference in the odds of having a complication between patients who obtained permanent versus temporary stoma (OR 0.96, 95% CI: 0.70-1.32). Further, after adjusting for the number of surgeries, demographic variables, socioeconomic and regional factors, comorbidities, and type of surgery, there was a significant difference between permanent and temporary stomas for rectal cancer (ß - 0.05, p = 0.03) in the log cost of creating a permanent stoma.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest there are no differences associated with complications, and reduced cost for permanent compared to temporary stomas. Increased costs are also associated with receiving minimally invasive surgery. As a result, disparities associated with receipt of MIS could ultimately influence the type of stoma received.

OUP accepted manuscript

Background

As the outcome of modern colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery has significantly improved over the years, however, renewed and adequate risk stratification for mortality is important to identify high-risk patients. This population-based study was conducted to analyse postoperative outcomes in patients with CRC and to create a risk model for 30-day mortality.

Methods

Data from the Dutch Colorectal Audit were used to assess differences in postoperative outcomes (30-day mortality, hospital stay, blood transfusion, postoperative complications) in patients with CRC treated from 2009 to 2017. Time trends were analysed. Clinical variables were retrieved (including stage, age, sex, BMI, ASA grade, tumour location, timing, surgical approach) and a prediction model with multivariable regression was computed for 30-day mortality using data from 2009 to 2014. The predictive performance of the model was tested among a validation cohort of patients treated between 2015 and 2017.

Results

The prediction model was obtained using data from 51 484 patients and the validation cohort consisted of 32 926 patients. Trends of decreased length of postoperative hospital stay and blood transfusions were found over the years. In stage I–III, postoperative complications declined from 34.3 per cent to 29.0 per cent (P < 0.001) over time, whereas in stage IV complications increased from 35.6 per cent to 39.5 per cent (P = 0.010). Mortality decreased in stage I–III from 3.0 per cent to 1.4 per cent (P < 0.001) and in stage IV from 7.6 per cent to 2.9 per cent (P < 0.001). Eight factors, including stage, age, sex, BMI, ASA grade, tumour location, timing, and surgical approach were included in a 30-day mortality prediction model. The results on the validation cohort documented a concordance C statistic of 0.82 (95 per cent c.i. 0.80 to 0.83) for the prediction model, indicating good discriminative ability.

Conclusion

Postoperative outcome improved in all stages of CRC surgery in the Netherlands. The developed model accurately predicts postoperative mortality risk and is clinically valuable for decision-making.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Colorectal Surgery in the Emergency Setting: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Objective

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare published outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open emergency colorectal surgery, with mortality as primary outcome.

Background

In contrast to the elective setting, the value of laparoscopic emergency colorectal surgery remains unclear.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were searched until January 6, 2021. Only comparative studies were included. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effect model. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used for quality assessment.

Results

Overall, 28 observational studies and 1 randomized controlled trial were included, comprising 7865 laparoscopy patients and 55,862 open surgery patients. Quality assessment revealed 'good quality' in 16 of 28 observational studies, and low to intermediate risk of bias for the randomized trial. Laparoscopy was associated with significantly lower postoperative mortality compared to open surgery (odds ratio [OR] 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35-0.54). Laparoscopy resulted in significantly less postoperative overall morbidity (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.43-0.65), wound infection (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45-0.88), wound dehiscence (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.18-0.77), ileus (OR, 0.68; 95% CI 0.51-0.91), pulmonary (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24-0.78) and cardiac complications (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.35-0.90), and shorter length of stay. No meta-analyses were performed for long-term outcomes due to scarcity of data.

Conclusions

The systematic review and meta-analysis suggest a benefit of laparoscopy for emergency colorectal surgery, with a lower risk of postoperative mortality and morbidity. However, the almost exclusive use of retrospective observational study designs with inherent biases should be taken into account.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of laparoscopic and open surgery in routine Swedish care for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer has been shown in clinical trials to be effective regarding short-term outcomes and oncologically safe. Health economic analyses have been performed early in the learning curve when adoption of laparoscopic surgery was not extensive. This cost-effectiveness analysis evaluates laparoscopic versus open colorectal cancer surgery in Swedish routine care.

METHODS

In this national retrospective cohort study, data were retrieved from the Swedish ColoRectal Cancer Registry. Clinical effectiveness, resource use and unit costs were derived from this and other sources with nationwide coverage. The study period was 2013 and 2014 with 1 year follow-up. Exclusion criterion comprised cT4-tumors. Clinical effectiveness was estimated in a composite endpoint of all-cause resource-consuming events in inpatient care, readmissions and deaths up to 90 days postoperatively. Up to 1 year, events predefined as related to the primary surgery were included. Costs included resource-consuming events, readmissions and sick leave and were estimated for both the society and healthcare. Multivariable regression analyses were used to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics between the groups.

RESULTS

After exclusion of cT4 tumors, the cohort included 7707 patients who underwent colorectal cancer surgery: 6060 patients in the open surgery group and 1647 patients in the laparoscopic group. The mean adjusted difference in clinical effectiveness between laparoscopic and open colorectal cancer surgery was 0.23 events (95% CI 0.12 to 0.33). Mean adjusted differences in costs (open minus laparoscopic surgery) were $4504 (95% CI 2257 to 6799) and $4480 (95% CI 2739 to 6203) for the societal and the healthcare perspective respectively. In both categories, resource consuming events in inpatient care were the main driver of the results.

CONCLUSION

In a national cohort, laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery was associated with both superior outcomes for clinical effectiveness and cost versus open surgery.

Clinical and oncological outcomes of single-incision vs. conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the clinical and oncological outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) vs. conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for patients with rectal cancer (RC) who underwent total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery.

METHODS

This was a retrospective case-control study of patients with RC operated between 12/2013 and 12/2017 in Ruijin Hospital North, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine. In total, 177 patients who underwent CLS and 51 who underwent SILS met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were matched 1:1 using propensity score matching method (PSM).

RESULTS

Compared with the CLS group, the SILS group showed shorter operation time [105 (40) vs. 125 (55) min, P = 0.045], shorter total incision length [4 (1) vs. 6.5 (1.5) cm, P < 0.001], lower VAS score on POD2 [1 (1) vs. 2 (1), P < 0.001], shorter time to soft diet [7 (1) vs. 8 (2) days, P = 0.048], and shorter length of hospital stay [9 (2) vs. 11 (3) days, P < 0.001]. The postoperative complications were similar between two groups [1(2%) vs. 5 (9.8%), P = 0.205]. No readmissions or mortality in either group occurred within 30 days of surgery. All 102 specimens met the requirements of TME. No significant differences were observed in the pathologic outcomes between the two groups. The median follow-up period was 32.6 months in the SILS group and 36.8 months in the CLS group (P = 0.053). The 3-year disease-free survival rates and overall survival rates of the SILS and CLS groups were 89.8% vs. 96.0% (P = 0.224) and 90.9% vs. 96.9% (P = 0.146), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with CLS, TME surgery for rectal cancer can be performed safely and effectively using the SILS technique with better cosmetic results, less postoperative pain, faster postoperative recovery, and acceptable clinical and oncological outcomes.

The American Society of Anesthesiologists score influences on postoperative complications and total hospital charges after laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery

The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores on postoperative complication rates and total hospital charges following laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.All patients (n = 664) underwent laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. A group of patients with an ASA score of 1 or 2 (n = 575) and a group of patients with an ASA score of 3 (n = 89) were compared.The mean age was higher in the group of patients with an ASA score of 3 than in the group of patients with an ASA score of 1 or 2 (70 vs 67 years). The rate of ICU admission (27% vs 15%) was higher in the ASA score 3 group. The mean hospital stay (14 vs 12 days) was longer in the ASA score 3 group. Postoperative 30-day complications (38% vs 27%), 30-day mortality (2% vs 0%), and a Clavien-Dindo classification of ≥3 (21% vs 11%) occurred more frequently in the ASA score 3 group. Mean total hospital charges were significantly higher in the ASA score 3 group (13,906 vs 11,575 USD). Independent risk factors that affected postoperative complications were older age [≥80 years, hazard ratio (HR) = 2.8], an ASA score of 3 (HR = 1.6), and the presence of a primary rectal tumor (HR = 1.6). Postoperative complication rates were 21.9%, 28.5%, and 38.2% in the ASA score 1, 2, and 3 groups, respectively. Total hospital charges were 14,376 USD and 10,877 USD in the groups with and without postoperative complications, respectively. Mean total hospital charges were 10,769 USD, 11,756 USD, and 13,906 USD in the ASA score 1, 2, and 3 groups, respectively.Preoperative ASA scores may be a predictor of postoperative complications and hospital costs when planning laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.

Histologic Factors Associated With Need for Surgery in Patients With Pedunculated T1 Colorectal Carcinomas

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Most patients with pedunculated T1 colorectal tumors referred for surgery are not found to have lymph node metastases, and were therefore unnecessarily placed at risk for surgery-associated complications. We aimed to identify histologic factors associated with need for surgery in patients with pedunculated T1 colorectal tumors.

METHODS

We performed a cohort-nested matched case-control study of 708 patients diagnosed with pedunculated T1 colorectal tumors at 13 hospitals in The Netherlands, from January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2014, followed for a median of 44 months (interquartile range, 20-80 months). We identified 37 patients (5.2%) who required surgery (due to lymph node, intramural, or distant metastases). These patients were matched with patients with pedunculated T1 colorectal tumors without a need for surgery (no metastases, controls, n = 111). Blinded pathologists analyzed specimens from each tumor, stained with H&E. We evaluated associations between histologic factors and patient need for surgery using univariable conditional logistic regression analysis. We used multivariable least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO; an online version of the LASSO model is available at: http://t1crc.com/calculator/) regression to develop models for identification of patients with tumors requiring surgery, and tested the accuracy of our model by projecting our case-control data toward the entire cohort (708 patients). We compared our model with previously developed strategies to identify high-risk tumors: conventional model 1 (based on poor differentiation, lymphovascular invasion, or Haggitt level 4) and conventional model 2 (based on poor differentiation, lymphovascular invasion, Haggitt level 4, or tumor budding).

RESULTS

We identified 5 histologic factors that differentiated cases from controls: lymphovascular invasion, Haggitt level 4 invasion, muscularis mucosae type B (incompletely or completely disrupted), poorly differentiated clusters and tumor budding, which identified patients who required surgery with an area under the curve (AUC) value of 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.90). When we used a clinically plausible predicted probability threshold of ≥4.0%, 67.5% (478 of 708) of patients were predicted to not need surgery. This threshold identified patients who required surgery with 83.8% sensitivity (95% confidence interval, 68.0%-93.8%) and 70.3% specificity (95% confidence interval, 60.9%-78.6%). Conventional models 1 and 2 identified patients who required surgery with lower AUC values (AUC, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.60-0.74; P = .002 and AUC, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.58-0.70; P < .001, respectively) than our LASSO model. When we applied our LASSO model with a predicted probability threshold of ≥4.0%, the percentage of missed cases (tumors mistakenly assigned as low risk) was comparable (6 of 478 [1.3%]) to that of conventional model 1 (4 of 307 [1.3%]) and conventional model 2 (3 of 244 [1.2%]). However, the percentage of patients referred for surgery based on our LASSO model was much lower (32.5%, n = 230) than that for conventional model 1 (56.6%, n = 401) or conventional model 2 (65.5%, n = 464).

CONCLUSIONS

In a cohort-nested matched case-control study of 708 patients with pedunculated T1 colorectal carcinomas, we developed a model based on histologic features of tumors that identifies patients who require surgery (due to high risk of metastasis) with greater accuracy than previous models. Our model might be used to identify patients most likely to benefit from adjuvant surgery.

Clinical and Economic Impact of an Enhanced Recovery Pathway for Open and Laparoscopic Rectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

The short-term benefits of laparoscopy for rectal surgery are equivocal. The objective of this study was to determine the clinical and economic impact of an enhanced recovery pathway (ERP) for laparoscopic and open rectal surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients who underwent elective rectal resection with primary anastomosis between January 2009 and March 2012 at two tertiary-care, university-affiliated institutions were identified. Patients who met inclusion criteria were divided into four groups, according to surgical approach (laparoscopic [lap] or open) and perioperative management (ERP or conventional care [CC]). Length of stay (LOS), postoperative complications, and hospital costs were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 381 patients were included in the analysis (201 open-CC, 34 lap-CC, 38 open-ERP, and 108 lap-ERP). Patients were mostly similar at baseline. ERPs significantly reduced median LOS after both open cases (open-CC 10 days versus open-ERP 7.5 days, P = .003) and laparoscopic cases (lap-CC 5 days versus lap-ERP 4.5 days, P = .046). ERPs also reduced variability in LOS compared with CC. There was no difference in postoperative complications with the use of ERPs (open-CC 51% versus open-ERP 50%, P = .419; lap-CC 32% versus lap-ERP 36%, P = .689). On multivariate analysis, both ERP (-3.6 days [95% confidence interval, CI -6.0 to -1.3]) and laparoscopy (-3.6 days [95% CI -5.9 to -1.0]) were independently associated with decreased LOS. Overall costs were only lower when lap-ERP was compared with open-CC (mean difference -2420 CAN$ [95% CI -5628 to -786]).

CONCLUSIONS

ERPs reduced LOS after rectal resections, and the combination of laparoscopy and ERPs significantly reduced overall costs compared to when neither strategy was used.

A comparative study of short-term outcomes of colorectal cancer surgery in the elderly population

BACKGROUND

Colorectal Cancer (CRC) is a disease of the elderly, and with an ageing population, oncological surgical procedures for CRC in the elderly is expected to increase. However, the balance between surgical benefits and risks associated with age and comorbidities in elderly patients is obscure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective database of consecutive patients who received CRC surgery was used to compare short-term surgical and oncological outcomes between patients aged ≥75 and <75 years old undergoing CRC resection.

RESULTS

There were 54 patients (63.5%) in the <75 group and 31 patients (36.5%) in the ≥75 group. Overall, there were no differences between the <75 and ≥75 groups in postoperative HDU/ITU stay, median hospital LOS or 30-day mortality rates. Patients ≥75 had a higher preoperative performance status (25.9% versus 71.0%, p < .001), but no difference in ASA Grade and referral pattern, proportion of emergency operations, cancer staging, resection margins, achievement of curative resection or median lymph node yield. There was a significantly higher use of adjuvant chemotherapy in the <75 age group (48.1% versus 25.8%, p = .043).

CONCLUSIONS

With adequate patient selection, CRC resection in elderly patients is not associated with higher postoperative mortality or worse short-term oncological benefits.

Does postoperative morbidity worsen the oncological outcome after radical surgery for gastrointestinal cancers? A systematic review of the literature

PURPOSE

The impact of postoperative complications on survival after radical surgery for esophageal, gastric, and colorectal cancers remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review of recent publications to examine the effect of postoperative complications on oncological outcome.

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE was performed using the keywords "esophageal cancer," "gastric cancer," and "colorectal cancer," obtaining 27 reports published online up until the end of April 2016. Articles focusing on (i) postoperative morbidity and oncological outcome; and (ii) body mass index (BMI), postoperative morbidity, and oncological outcome, were selected. Univariate and multivariate analyses (Cox proportional hazards model) were performed.

RESULTS

Patients with postoperative complications had significantly poorer long-term survival than those without complications. Complications were associated with impaired oncological outcomes. The hazard ratios for overall survival were 1.67 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-2.12), 1.59 (95% CI, 1.13-2.24), and 1.55 (95% CI, 1.28-1.87) in esophageal, gastric, and colorectal cancers, respectively. High BMI was associated with postoperative morbidity rate but not with poor oncological outcome. Low BMI was significantly associated with inferior oncological outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Complications after radical surgery for esophageal, gastric, and colorectal cancers are associated with patient prognosis. Avoiding such complications might improve the outcomes.