Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) protocol in patients undergoing laparoscopic resection for stage IV colorectal cancer

Feasibility and outcomes of ERAS protocol in elective cT4 colorectal cancer patients: results from a single-center retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Programs of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery reduces morbidity and shorten recovery in patients undergoing colorectal resections for cancer. Patients presenting with more advanced disease such as T4 cancers are frequently excluded from undergoing ERAS programs due to the difficulty in applying established protocols. The primary aim of this investigation was to evaluate the possibility of applying a validated ERAS protocol in patients undergoing colorectal resection for T4 colon and rectal cancer and to evaluate the short-term outcome.

METHODS

Single-center, retrospective cohort study. All patients with a clinical diagnosis of stage T4 colorectal cancer undergoing surgery between November 2016 and January 2020 were treated following the institutional fast track protocol without exclusion. Short-term postoperative outcomes were compared to those of a control group treated with conventional care and that underwent surgical resection for T4 colorectal cancer at the same institution from January 2010 to October 2016. Data from both groups were collected retrospectively from a prospectively maintained database.

RESULTS

Eighty-two patients were diagnosed with T4 cancer, 49 patients were included in the ERAS cohort and 33 in the historical conventional care cohort. Both, the mean time of tolerance to solid food diet and postoperative length of stay were significantly shorter in the ERAS group than in the control group (3.14 ± 1.76 vs 4.8 ± 1.52; p < 0.0001 and 6.93 ± 3.76 vs 9.50 ± 4.83; p = 0.0084 respectively). No differences in perioperative complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this cohort study from a single-center registry support the thesis that the adoption of the ERAS protocol is effective and applicable in patients with colorectal cancer clinically staged T4, reducing significantly their length of stay and time of tolerance to solid food diet, without affecting surgical postoperative outcomes.

Clinical application of enhanced recovery after surgery in the treatment of choledocholithiasis by ERCP

This study aims to investigate the effect of applying enhanced recovery after surgery methods (ERAS) in perioperative nursing of choledocholithiasis following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for treatment of biliary calculus.Clinical data from 161 patients who underwent ERCP surgery in Wuhan Union Hospital from January 2017 to December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 78 patients received perioperative nursing using the ERAS concept (experimental group) and 83 patients received conventional perioperative nursing (control group). Group differences were compared for the time to first postoperative ambulation, exhausting time, time to first defecation and eating, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative complication incidence (pancreatitis, cholangitis, hemorrhage), white blood cell (WBC), and serum amylase (AMS) values at 24 hours, duration of nasobiliary duct indwelling, length of hospital stay, and hospitalization expenses.No significant between-group differences were noted for demographic characteristics (age, sex, BMI, ASA score, and comorbidity) (P > .05). Time to first ambulation, exhausting time, time to defecation and eating, and nasobiliary drainage time were shorter in the experimental group than the control group, and the differences were statistically significant (P < .05). There was no significant between-group difference in postoperative WBC values at 24 hours (P > .05), but the experimental group's AMS values at 24 hours postoperation were significantly lower than those of the controls (154.93 ± 190.01 vs 241.97 ± 482.64, P = .031). Postoperative complications incidence was 9.1% in the experimental group, which was significantly lower than the 20.4% in the control group, and this difference was statistically significant (P = .039). Compared with the control group, nasobiliary drainage time (26.53 ± 7.43 hours vs 37.56 ± 9.91 hours, P < .001), hospital stay (8.32 ± 1.55 days vs 4.56 ± 1.38 days, P < .001), and hospitalization expenses (36800 ± 11900 Yuan vs 28900 ± 6500 Yuan, P = .016) were significantly lower in the experimental group.ERAS is a safe and effective perioperative nursing application in ERCP for treating choledocholithiasis. It can effectively accelerate patients' recovery and reduce the incidence of complications; therefore, it is worthy of being applied and promoted in clinical nursing.

A systematic analysis highlighting deficiencies in reported outcomes for patients with stage IV colorectal cancer undergoing palliative resection of the primary tumour

BACKGROUND

Management of the primary tumour in the presence of unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is controversial. The role of primary tumour resection (PTR) has been investigated by a number of retrospective cohort studies, with a number on going randomised controlled trials. The aim of this study was to identify the clinical and patient-reported outcomes currently reported in studies that evaluate the role of PTR in mCRC.

METHODS

Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE (via OvidSP) (1966-June 2017), EMBASE (via OvidSP) and the Cochrane Library using terms related to colorectal cancer and primary tumour resection. All studies documenting outcomes following palliative PTR were included. Eligible articles were assessed using the Risk of Bias In Non-Randomised Studies of Intervention (ROBINS-I) tool.

RESULTS

Of 11,209 studies screened, 59 non-randomised studies reporting outcomes on 331,157 patients were included. Patient characteristics regarding performance status and co-morbidity were recorded in 26 (44.1%) and 17 (28.8%) studies. The chemotherapy regime used was reported in 27 (45.8%) studies. The operative setting and the operative approach was reported in 42 (71%) and 14 (23.7%) studies. Post-operative mortality and morbidity were reported in 33 (55.9%) and 35 (59.3%) studies. Overall survival was reported in 49 (83.1%) studies, with 5 different definitions identified. Quality of life was only reported in 1 (1.7%) study.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates significant heterogeneity in the selection and definition of outcomes reported following PTR in mCRC. There is significant heterogeneity with a significant under-reporting of important outcomes such as treatment related adverse events and patient reported outcomes.

Primary tumor resection in stage IV unresectable colorectal cancer: what has changed?

Most current guidelines do not recommend primary tumor resection in stage IV unresectable colorectal cancer. Rapid chemotherapy development over the last decade has substantially changed the decision making. However, results of recently published trials and meta-analyses suggest that primary tumor resection may in fact be beneficial, principally in terms of prolonged survival. Additional factors, such as use of minimally invasive approach or protocols of enhanced recovery after surgery, affect clinical outcomes as well, but are often neglected when discussing the state of the art in this area. There are still no randomized studies determining the legitimacy of upfront surgery in asymptomatic patients. Also, quality of life also plays an important role in choosing appropriate treatment. Having said that, there is no data that would prove whether primary tumor resection has an advantage on that issue. With all the uncertainty, currently decision making in unresectable stage IV colorectal cancer is primarily up to clinicians' knowledge, common sense and patients' preferences.