System-based factors influencing intraoperative decision-making in rectal cancer by surgeons: an international assessment

Hartmann's procedure in rectal cancer surgery is often an intraoperative decision: a retrospective multicenter study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate patient-related factors predicting the selection of rectal cancer patients to Hartmann's procedure as well as to investigate how often, and on what grounds, anterior resection is intraoperatively changed to Hartmann's procedure.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry regarding patients with rectal cancer operated upon from January 1 2007 to June 30 2017 in the county of Skåne were retrospectively reviewed. Data were expanded with further details from medical charts. A univariable analysis was performed to investigate variables associated with unplanned HP and significant variables included in a multivariable logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Altogether, 1141 patients who underwent Hartmann's procedure (275 patients, 24%), anterior resection (491 patients, 43%), or abdominoperineal resection (375 patients, 33%) were included. Patients undergoing Hartmann's procedure were significantly older and had more frequently comorbidity. The decision to perform Hartmann's procedure was made preoperatively in 209 (76%) patients, most commonly because of a comorbidity (27%) or oncological reasons (25%). Patient preference was noted in 8% of cases. In 64 cases (23%), the decision was made intraoperatively, most often due to anastomotic difficulties (60%) and oncological reasons (22%). Anastomotic difficulties were most often reported due to technical difficulties, a low tumor or neoadjuvant radiotherapy. Male gender was a significant risk factor for undergoing unplanned Hartmann's procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision to perform Hartmann's procedure was frequently made intraoperatively. Hartmann's procedure should be considered and discussed preoperatively in old and frail patients, especially in the presence of mid-rectal cancer and/or male gender, since these factors increase the risk of intraoperative anastomotic difficulties.

The effect of a diverting stoma on morbidity and risk of permanent stoma following anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND

Diverting stomata (DS) have been shown to mitigate the clinical impact of anastomotic leakage (AL) but not without complications, and their routine use remains a matter of international debate. The objective of this study was to examine the association between stomata and the clinical consequences of AL.

METHODS

This was a nationwide retrospective cohort study including all patients suffering from AL after low anterior resection from 2001 to 2010.

RESULTS

Four thousand sixty-three patients were treated in the period of whom 581 (11.9%) developed AL. In case of AL, patients without a diverting stoma had a slightly higher 90-day mortality rate (13.5% versus 8.7%, p = 0.089). Patients suffered more complications due to AL, both surgical (52% versus 28%, p < 0.001) and non-surgical (48% versus 35%, p = 0.004) with a higher Clavien-Dindo score. Twenty percent of patients developed stoma-related complications prior to stoma reversal. Mortality related to stoma reversal was 2.4%. Factors associated with a risk of a permanent stoma were age (HR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.08), blood transfusion during primary surgery (HR 2.35, 95% CI 1.16-4-78), conserved anastomosis after AL (HR 0.019, 95% CI 0.009-0.04), and a diverting stoma fashioned at the index operation (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.26-0.97).

CONCLUSION

The use of diverting stomata during low anterior resection mitigates the clinical impact of AL. However, this benefit needs to be balanced against the risk of stoma-related complications, seen in 20%, and mortality with stoma reversal (2.4%). Where practical, the decision to divert should be made pre-operatively in a multidisciplinary setting.

Decision-making in rectal and colorectal cancer: systematic review and qualitative analysis of surgeons' preferences

Surgeons are experiencing difficulties implementing recommendations not only owing to incomplete, confusing or conflicting information but also to the increasing involvement of patients in decisions relating to their health. This study sought to establish which common factors including heuristic factors guide surgeons' decision-making in colon and rectal cancers. We conducted a systematic literature review of surgeons' decision-making factors related to colon and rectal cancer treatment. Eleven of 349 identified publications were eligible for data analyses. Using the IRaMuTeQ (Interface of R for the Multidimensional Analyses of Texts and Questionnaire), we carried out a qualitative analysis of the significant factors collected in the studies reviewed. Several validation procedures were applied to control the robustness of the findings. Five categories of factors (i.e. patient, surgeon, treatment, tumor and organizational cues) were found to influence surgeons' decision-making. Specifically, all decision criteria including biomedical (e.g. tumor information) and heuristic (e.g. surgeons' dispositional factors) criteria converged towards the factor 'age of patient' in the similarity analysis. In the light of the results, we propose an explanatory model showing the impact of heuristic criteria on medical issues (i.e. diagnosis, prognosis, treatment features, etc.) and thus on decision-making. Finally, the psychosocial complexity involved in decision-making is discussed and a medico-psycho-social grid for use in multidisciplinary meetings is proposed.

Conversations for providers caring for patients with rectal cancer: Comparison of long-term patient-centered outcomes for patients with low rectal cancer facing ostomy or sphincter-sparing surgery

For some patients with low rectal cancer, ostomy (with elimination into a pouch) may be the only realistic surgical option. However, some patients have a choice between ostomy and sphincter-sparing surgery. Sphincter-sparing surgery has been preferred over ostomy because it offers preservation of normal bowel function. However, this surgery can cause incontinence and bowel dysfunction. Increasingly, it has become evident that certain patients who are eligible for sphincter-sparing surgery may not be well served by the surgery, and construction of an ostomy may be better. No validated assessment tool or decision aid has been published to help newly diagnosed patients decide between the two surgeries or to help physicians elicit long-term surgical outcomes. Furthermore, comparison of long-term outcomes and late effects after the two surgeries has not been synthesized. Therefore, this systematic review summarizes controlled studies that compared long-term survivorship outcomes between these two surgical groups. The goals are: 1) to improve understanding and shared decision-making among surgeons, oncologists, primary care providers, patients, and caregivers; 2) to increase the patient's participation in the decision; 3) to alert the primary care provider to patient challenges that could be addressed by provider attention and intervention; and 4) ultimately, to improve patients' long-term quality of life. This report includes discussion points for health care providers to use with their patients during initial discussions of ostomy and sphincter-sparing surgery as well as questions to ask during follow-up examinations to ascertain any long-term challenges facing the patient. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:387-397. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Surgery for rectal cancer-what is on the horizon?

The management of rectal cancer has improved considerably in recent decades. Surgery remains the cornerstone of the treatment. However, the role of preoperative imaging has made it possible to optimize the treatment plan in rectal patients. Neoadjuvant treatment may be indicated in efforts to sterilize possible tumor deposits outside the surgical field, or may be used to downsize and downstage the tumor itself. The optimal sequence of treatment modalities can be determined by a multidisciplinary team, who not only use pretreatment imaging, but also review pathologic results after surgery. The pathologist plays a pivotal role in providing feedback about the success of surgery, i.e., the distance between the tumor and the circumferential resection margin, the quality of surgery, and the effect of neoadjuvant treatment. Registry and auditing of all treatment variables can further improve outcomes. In this century, rectal cancer treatment has become a team effort.