What is the Best Option Between Primary Diverting Stoma or Endoscopic Stent as a Bridge to Surgery with a Curative Intent for Obstructed Left Colon Cancer? Results from a Propensity Score Analysis of the French Surgical Association Multicenter Cohort of 518 Patients

COMPASS: deCOMPressing stomA and two-Stage elective resection vs. emergency reSection in patients with left-sided obstructive colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer stands as a prevalent cause of cancer-related mortality, necessitating effective treatment strategies. Acute colonic obstruction occurs in approximately 20% of patients and represents a surgical emergency with substantial morbidity and mortality. The optimal approach for managing left-sided colon cancer with acute colonic obstruction remains debatable, with no consensus on whether emergency resection or bridge-to-surgery, involving initial decompressing stoma and subsequent elective resection after recovery, should be employed. Current studies show a decrease in morbidity and short-term mortality for the bridge-to-surgery approach, yet it remains unclear if the long-term oncological outcome is equivalent to emergency resection.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, multicenter trial aims to investigate the management of obstructive left-sided colon cancer in a comprehensive manner. The study will be conducted across 26 university hospitals and 40 academic hospitals in Germany. A total of 468 patients will be enrolled, providing a cohort of 420 evaluable patients, with an equal distribution of 210 patients in each treatment arm. Patients with left-sided colon cancer, defined as cancer between the left splenic flexure and > 12 cm ab ano and obstruction confirmed by X-ray or CT scan, are eligible. Randomization will be performed in a 1:1 ratio, assigning patients either to the oncological emergency resection group or the bridge-to-surgery group, wherein patients will undergo diverting stoma and subsequent elective oncological resection after recovery. The primary endpoint of this trial will be 120-day mortality, allowing for consideration of the time interval between diverting stoma and resection.

DISCUSSION

The findings derived from this trial possess the potential to reshape the current clinical approach of emergency resection for obstructive left-sided colon cancer by favoring the bridge-to-surgery practice, provided that a reduction in morbidity can be achieved without compromising the oncological long-term outcome.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) under the identifier DRKS00031827. Registered on May 15, 2023.

PROTOCOL

28.04.2023, protocol version 2.0F.

Predicting Mortality Within 90 Days of First Intervention in Patients With Left-Sided Obstructive Colon Cancer

BACKGROUND

Acute resection for left-sided obstructive colon carcinoma is thought to be associated with a higher mortality risk than a bridge-to-surgery approach using decompressing stoma or self-expandable metal stent, but prediction models are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the influence of treatment strategy on mortality within 90 days from the first intervention in patients presenting with left-sided obstructive colon carcinoma.

DESIGN

This was a national multicenter cohort study that used data from a prospective national audit.

SETTINGS

The study was performed in 75 Dutch hospitals.

PATIENTS

Patients were included if they underwent resection with curative intent for left-sided obstructive colon carcinoma between 2009 and 2016.

INTERVENTIONS

First intervention was either acute resection, bridge to surgery with self-expandable metallic stent, or bridge to surgery with decompressing stoma.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measure was 90-day mortality after the first intervention. Risk factors were identified using multivariable logistic analysis. Subsequently, a risk model was developed.

RESULTS

In total, 2395 patients were included, with the first intervention consisting of acute resection in 1848 patients (77%), stoma as bridge to surgery in 332 patients (14%), and stent as bridge to surgery in 215 patients (9%). Overall, 152 patients (6.3%) died within 90 days from the first intervention. A decompressing stoma was independently associated with lower 90-day mortality risk (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.094-0.62). Other independent predictors for mortality were age, ASA classification, tumor location, and index levels of serum creatinine and C-reactive protein. The constructed risk model had an area under the curve of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.81-0.87).

LIMITATIONS

Only patients who underwent surgical resection were included.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment strategy had a significant impact on 90-day mortality. A decompressing stoma considerably lowers the risk of mortality, especially in older and frail patients. The developed risk model needs further external validation. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B975 .PREDICCIÓN DE LA MORTALIDAD A 90 DÍAS POSTERIORES A LA PRIMERA CIRUGÍA EN PACIENTES CON CÁNCER DE COLON OBSTRUCTIVO DEL LADO IZQUIERDOANTECEDENTES:Se cree que la resección aguda para el carcinoma de colon obstructivo del lado izquierdo está asociada con un mayor riesgo de mortalidad que un enfoque puente a la cirugía que utiliza un estoma de descompresión o un stent metálico autoexpandible, pero faltan modelos de predicción.OBJETIVO:Determinar la influencia de la estrategia de tratamiento sobre la mortalidad dentro de los 90 días desde la primera intervención utilizando un modelo de predicción en pacientes que presentan carcinoma de colon obstructivo del lado izquierdo.DISEÑO:Un estudio de cohorte multicéntrico nacional, utilizando datos de una auditoría nacional prospectiva.ENTORNO CLINICO:El estudio se realizó en 75 hospitales holandeses.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron los pacientes que se sometieron a una resección con intención curativa de un carcinoma de colon obstructivo del lado izquierdo entre 2009 y 2016.INTERVENCIONES:La primera intervención fue resección aguda, puente a cirugía con stent metálico autoexpandible o puente a cirugía con estoma descompresor.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACIÓN:La principal medida de resultado fue la mortalidad a los 90 días después de la primera intervención. Los factores de riesgo se identificaron mediante análisis logístico multivariable. Posteriormente se desarrolló un modelo de riesgo.RESULTADOS:En total se incluyeron 2395 pacientes, siendo la primera intervención resección aguda en 1848 (77%) pacientes, estoma como puente a la cirugía en 332 (14%) pacientes y stent como puente a la cirugía en 215 (9%) pacientes. En general, 152 pacientes (6,3%) fallecieron dentro de los 90 días posteriores a la primera intervención. Un estoma de descompresión se asoció de forma independiente con un menor riesgo de mortalidad a los 90 días (HR: 0,27, IC: 0,094-0,62). Otros predictores independientes de mortalidad fueron la edad, la clasificación ASA, la ubicación del tumor y los niveles índice de creatinina sérica y proteína C reactiva. El modelo de riesgo construido tuvo un área bajo la curva de 0,84 (IC: 0,81-0,87).LIMITACIONES:Solo se incluyeron pacientes que se sometieron a resección quirúrgica.CONCLUSIONES:La estrategia de tratamiento tuvo un impacto significativo en la mortalidad a los 90 días. Un estoma descompresor reduce considerablemente el riesgo de mortalidad, especialmente en pacientes mayores y frágiles. Se desarrolló un modelo de riesgo, que necesita una mayor validación externa. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B975 . (Traducción-Dr. Ingrid Melo ).

Which treatment strategy is optimal for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction? A Bayesian meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine the best treatment for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction (ALMCO) among emergency surgery (ES), self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS), transanal drainage tube (TD), and decompressive stoma (DS).

METHOD

Articles that compared two or more treatments of ALMCO were searched from PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. Network meta-analyses were performed to calculate the outcomes of primary anastomosis, stoma creation, morbidity, mortality, and 5-year survival.

RESULTS

Fifty-one articles met inclusion criteria. TD was the optimal treatment in performing primary anastomosis [probability of ranking first (Pro-1) 0.96], while ES was the worst [probability of ranking fourth (Pro-4) 0.99]. More permanent stoma was formed in ES and TD groups than in SEMS and DS groups [OR (95%CI): TD vs SEMS: 4.12 (1.89, 9.45); TD vs DS: 3.39 (1.46, 8.75); ES vs DS: 2.55 (1.73, 4.17); SEMS vs ES: 0.33 (0.24, 0.42)]. More morbidity occurred in ES group than in SEMS group [OR (95%CI): ES vs SEMS: 1.44 (1.14, 1.82)]. Besides, SEMS was ranked first in avoiding infection (Pro-4 0.95). For in-hospital mortality, ES was ranked first (Pro-1 0.93). TD was ranked first in recurrence (Pro-1 0.97) and metastasis (Pro-1 0.98). There was no discrepancy in 5-year overall and disease-free survival among all strategies.

CONCLUSION

SEMS as a bridge to surgery reduces stoma formation, and morbidity especially the infection rate with relatively great oncological outcomes. Therefore, SEMS should be recommended first for ALMCO in the medical center with experience and conditions.

Nomogram for predicting the probability of permanent stoma in patients with acute obstructive colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Acute obstructive colorectal cancer is a high-risk emergency among colorectal cancer (CRC). Approximately 20% of CRC patients are associated with a permanent stoma, which greatly affects the lifestyle of patients. This study aimed to investigate risk factors for predicting permanent stoma (PS) in patients with acute obstructive colorectal cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical-pathological features of patients with acute obstructive colorectal cancer who underwent treatments from our hospital between January 2015 and December 2020. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the risk factors for predicting PS chances of CRC patients using a nomogram method. Furthermore, the operating characteristic (ROC) curve and area under the ROC curve (AUC) were used to assess the discrimination power of the nomogram. Calibration plot was used to evaluate nomogram's calibration.

RESULTS

A total of 98 patients with acute obstructive colorectal cancer were enrolled in this study, including 24 PS patients with permanent stoma and 74 non-PS patients. Multivariate analysis showed that age [odds ratio (OR): 1.068, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.006 ~ 1.135, P = 0.032], carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) [OR: 1.015, 95% CI: 1.003 ~ 1.028, P = 0.013], and surgical method [emergency group vs. stent group, OR: 14.066, 95% CI: 3.625 ~ 54.572, p < 0.001] were independent risk factors for PS. These risk factors were incorporated into a nomogram and showed that the AUC of the nomogram was 0.867 (95% CI: 0.782-0.951). The calibration plot got consistent with prediction for PS in the nomogram.

CONCLUSION

Age, CEA, and surgical method were independent risk factors for PS in patients with acute obstructive colorectal cancer. Our nomogram has favorable predictive power for PS in CRC patients.

Management of left-sided malignant colorectal obstructions with curative intent: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several management options exist for colonic decompression in the setting of malignant large bowel obstruction, including oncologic resection, surgical diversion, and SEMS as a bridge-to-surgery. Consensus has yet to be reached on optimal treatment pathways. The aim of the present study was to perform a network meta-analysis comparing short-term postoperative morbidity and long-term oncologic outcomes between oncologic resection, surgical diversion, and self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) in left-sided malignant colorectal obstruction with curative intent.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL were systematically searched. Articles were included if they compared two or more of the following in patients presenting with curative left-sided malignant colorectal obstruction: (1) emergent oncologic resection; (2) surgical diversion; and/or (3) SEMS. The primary outcome was overall 90-day postoperative morbidity. Pairwise meta-analyses were performed with inverse variance random effects. Random-effect Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

From 1277 citations, 53 studies with 9493 patients undergoing urgent oncologic resection, 1273 patients undergoing surgical diversion, and 2548 patients undergoing SEMS were included. Network meta-analysis demonstrated a significant improvement in 90-day postoperative morbidity in patients undergoing SEMS compared to urgent oncologic resection (OR0.34, 95%CrI0.01-0.98). Insufficient RCT data pertaining to overall survival (OS) precluded network meta-analysis. Pairwise meta-analysis demonstrated decreased five-year OS for patients undergoing urgent oncologic resection compared to surgical diversion (OR0.44, 95%CI0.28-0.71, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Bridge-to-surgery interventions may offer short- and long-term benefits compared to urgent oncologic resection for malignant colorectal obstruction and should be increasingly considered in this patient population. Further prospective study comparing surgical diversion and SEMS is needed.

Oncologic impact of colonic stents for obstructive left-sided colon cancer

Colonic stenting has had a significant positive impact on the management of obstructive left-sided colon cancer (OLCC) in terms of both palliative treatment and bridge-to-surgery (BTS). Notably, many studies have convincingly demonstrated the effectiveness of stenting as a BTS, resulting in improvements in short-term outcomes and quality of life, safety, and efficacy in subsequent curative surgery, and increased cost-effectiveness, whereas the safety of chemotherapy after stenting and the long-term outcomes of stenting as a BTS are controversial. Several studies have suggested an increased risk of perforation in patients receiving bevacizumab chemotherapy after colonic stenting. In addition, several pathological analyses have suggested a negative oncological impact of colonic stenting. In contrast, many recent studies have demonstrated that colonic stenting for OLCC does not negatively impact the safety of chemotherapy or long-term oncological outcomes. The updated version of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines released in 2020 included colonic stenting as a BTS for OLCC as a recommended treatment. It should be noted that the experience of endoscopists is involved in determining technical and clinical success rates and possibly oncological outcomes. This review discusses the positive and negative impacts of colonic stenting on OLCC treatment, particularly in terms of oncology.

Self-expanding metal stent placement and pathological alterations among obstructive colorectal cancer cases

BACKGROUND

Experimental studies suggest that self-expanding metal stents (SEMSs) enhance the aggressive behavior of obstructive colorectal cancer. The influence of SEMS placement on pathological alterations remains to be elucidated.

AIM

To determine whether SEMS placement is associated with molecular or pathological features of colorectal carcinoma tissues.

METHODS

Using a nonbiased molecular pathological epidemiology database of patients with obstructive colorectal cancers, we examined the association of SEMS placement with molecular or pathological features, including tumor size, histological type, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)-pTNM stage, and mutation statuses in colorectal cancer tissues compared with the use of transanal tubes. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to adjust for potential confounders.

RESULTS

SEMS placement was significantly associated with venous invasion (P < 0.01), but not with the other features examined, including tumor size, disease stage, mutation status, and lymphatic invasion. In both the univariable and multivariable models with adjustment for potential factors including tumor location, histological type, and AJCC-pT stage, SEMS placement was significantly associated with severe venous invasion (P < 0.01). For the outcome category of severe venous invasion, the multivariable odds ratio for SEMS placement relative to transanal tube placement was 19.4 (95% confidence interval: 5.24–96.2). No significant differences of disease-free survival and overall survival were observed between SEMS and transanal tube groups.

CONCLUSION

SEMS placement might be associated with severe venous invasion in colorectal cancer tissue, providing an impetus for further investigations on the pathological alterations by SEMSs in colorectal cancer development.

Endoscopic stent versus diverting stoma as a bridge to surgery for obstructive colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS), an alternative to diverting stoma (DS), has been used as a "bridge to surgery" (BTS) to decompress acute obstruction of colorectal cancer (CRC) for decades. However, whether SEMS is a safe technique for obstruction of CRC without compromising the long-term survival of patients remains unidentified compared to those of DS. The aim of the present study was to elucidate the safety and survival outcomes of SEMS and DS.

METHODS

Embase, PubMed, and Medline were searched for qualified studies published until October, 2020, in which SEMS or DS was performed as a BTS without resection at the same stage. The last search was on December 5th, 2020. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of included studies. The major complication rate, mortality, 3-year overall survival (OS), and permanent stoma rate were estimated as outcomes.

RESULTS

The present study was registered on INPLASY (No. 2020100079). Seven eligible studies were included, involving 646 and 712 patients who underwent SEMS and DS treatments, respectively. The Clavien-Dindo I/II grade complication rate was significantly lower in the SEMS group than in the DS group (8.68 vs. 16.85%; RR, 0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41-0.84; P = 0.004). The Clavien-Dindo III/IV grade complication rate was comparable in two groups (7.69 vs. 8.79%; RR, 0.82; 95% CI 0.54-1.27; P = 0.37). There were no statistical differences in the short-term mortality (5.16 vs. 4.53%; RR, 1.25; 95% CI 0.75-2.08; P = 0.39), 3-year OS (71.91 vs. 76.60%; RR, 0.93; 95% CI 0.86-1.01; P = 0.10), and permanent stoma rate (22.08 vs. 27.54%; RR, 0.84; 95% CI 0.67-1.06; P = 0.14) between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

To some extent, SEMS is a safe BTS technique for acute obstructive CRC, without significant adverse effect on the survival of patients. Given the advantage of minimal invasion, SEMS may be a better alternative to DS for obstructive CRC. However, the conclusions remain to be discussed because of lacking high-quality randomized controlled trails.

Effect of self-expandable metal stent on morbidity and mortality and oncological prognosis in malignant colonic obstruction: retrospective analysis of its use as curative and palliative treatment

INTRODUCTION

Acute gastrointestinal obstruction due to colorectal cancer occurs in 7-30% of cases and is an abdominal emergency that requires urgent decompression. The safety and oncological effect of self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) in these patients remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate its impact on these variables and compare it with that of emergency surgery (ES).

METHODS

Descriptive, retrospective and single-centre study, performed between 2008 and 2015, with follow-up until 2017. One hundred eleven patients with diagnosis of left malignant colonic obstruction were included and divided according to the treatment received: stent as bridge to surgery (SBTS group: 39), palliative stent (PS group: 30) and emergency surgery with curative (ECS group: 34) or palliative intent (EPS group: 8). Treatment was decided by the attending surgeon in charge.

RESULTS

Technical and clinical general success rates for colorectal SEMS were 95.7% and 91.3%, respectively, with an associated morbimortality of 23.2%, which was higher in the PS group (p = 0.002). The SBTS group presented a higher laparoscopic approach and primary anastomosis (p < 0.001), as well as a lower colostomy rate than the ECS group (12.8% vs. 40%; p = 0.023). Postoperative morbidity and mortality were significantly lower in the SBTS group compared to the ECS group (41% vs. 67.6%; p = 0.025). Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were similar between the analysed groups.

CONCLUSION

Colonic stent placement is a safe and effective therapeutic alternative to emergency surgery in the management of left-sided malignant colonic obstruction in both curative and palliative fields. It presents a lower postoperative morbimortality and a similar oncological prognosis.

Is Adjuvant Chemotherapy Necessary for Obstructing Stage II Colon Cancer? Results From a Propensity Score Analysis of the French Surgical Association Database

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the survival of patients with stage II obstructing colon cancer (OCC) who had adjuvant chemotherapy with those who did not.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

The need for adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II colon cancer is still debated.

METHODS

All consecutive patients treated for a stage II OCC in a curative intent (with primary tumor resection) between January 2000 and December 2015 were included in this retrospective, multicenter cohort study which included a propensity score analysis using an odds of treatment weighting (Average Treatment effect on the Treated, ATT). The endpoint was the comparison between the 2 groups for overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) according to whether or not patients received adjuvant chemotherapy.

RESULTS

During the study period, 504 patients underwent a curative colectomy for a stage II OCC. Among these patients, 179 (35.5%) had adjuvant chemotherapy and 325 (64.5%) had no adjuvant treatment. Among the 179 patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy, 108 patients (60%) received oxaliplatin based regimen and 99 patients (55%) completed all scheduled cycles. At multivariate analysis, after weighting by the odds (ATT analysis) and adjustment, adjuvant chemotherapy after resection of a stage II OCC was associated with improvements in OS [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.42 (0.17-0.99), P = 0.0498] and DFS [HR = 0.57 (0.37-0.88), P = 0.0116].

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that adjuvant chemotherapy after curative resection of stage II OCC may improve oncological outcomes.

Does neoadjuvant FOLFOX chemotherapy improve the prognosis of high-risk Stage II and III colon cancers? Three years' follow-up results of the PRODIGE 22 phase II randomized multicentre trial

AIM

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy has proven valuable in locally advanced resectable colon cancer (CC) but its effect on oncological outcomes is uncertain. The aim of the present paper was to report 3-year oncological outcomes, representing the secondary endpoints of the PRODIGE 22 trial.

METHOD

PRODIGE 22 was a randomized multicentre phase II trial in high-risk T3, T4 and/or N2 CC patients on CT scan. Patients were randomized between 6 months of adjuvant FOLFOX (upfront surgery) or perioperative FOLFOX (four cycles before surgery and eight cycles after; FOLFOX perioperative). In wild-type RAS patients, a third arm testing perioperative FOLFOX-cetuximab was added. The primary endpoint was the tumour regression grade. Secondary endpoints were 3-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), recurrence-free survival (RFS) and time to recurrence (TTR).

RESULTS

Overall, 120 patients were enrolled. At interim analysis, the FOLFOX-cetuximab arm was stopped for futility. The remaining 104 patients represented our intention-to-treat population. In the perioperative group, 96% received the scheduled four neoadjuvant cycles and all but one had adjuvant FOLFOX for eight cycles. In the control arm, 38 (73%) patients received adjuvant FOLFOX. The median follow-up was 54.3 months. Three-year OS was 90.4% in both arms [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.85], 3-year DFS, RFS and TTR were, respectively, 76.8% and 69.2% (HR=0.94), 73% and 69.2% (HR = 0.86) and 82% and 72% (HR = 0.67) in the perioperative and control arms, respectively. Forest plots did not show any subgroup with significant difference for survival outcomes. No benefit from adding cetuximab was observed.

CONCLUSION

Perioperative FOLFOX has no detrimental effect on long-term oncological outcomes and may be an option for some patients with locally advanced CC.

Comparison of self-expandable metallic stent placement followed by laparoscopic resection and elective laparoscopic surgery without stent placement for left-sided colon cancer

AIM

Self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) placement for obstructive colon cancer is widely performed as a bridge to surgery (BTS) procedure before resection. This study aimed to investigate the surgical and oncological results of laparoscopic elective surgery with or without SEMS placement to assess the efficacy of SEMS placement as a BTS.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients with stage II, III, and IV left-sided colon cancer who underwent elective laparoscopic resection between 2013 and 2019. All patients were divided into two groups: with and without SEMS placement.

RESULTS

The SEMS group included 24 patients, whereas the non-SEMS group included 86 patients. The serum hemoglobin and albumin levels were lower (P = .049, P = .03), and the serum leukocyte and C-reactive protein levels were higher (P < .0001, P = .022) in the SEMS group. The tumor diameter and tumor circumferential rate were higher in the SEMS group (both P < .0001). No significant differences were observed in operation time, blood loss, postoperative complications, or postoperative hospital stay. After 1:1 propensity score matching, 15 patients in the SEMS group were compared with 15 patients in the non-SEMS group. The 3-year overall survival rates of the SEMS and non-SEMS groups were 87.5% and 88.9%, respectively (P = .97). The 3-year recurrence-free survival rates of the SEMS and non-SEMS groups were 58.2% and 81.7%, respectively (P = .233). No significant difference was found in the sites of recurrence.

CONCLUSION

The perioperative and long-term outcomes of SEMS placement as a BTS before laparoscopic resection could be acceptable compared with other elective laparoscopic operations without SEMS placement.

Colonic Stent Use by Indication and Patient Outcomes: A Nationwide Inpatient Sample Study

BACKGROUND

Colonic stent placement can avoid urgent surgery for large bowel obstruction in selected patients. Population-wide stent utilization patterns and outcomes are unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using retrospective, population-based, Nationwide Inpatient Sample data, we studied patients with colonic stents discharged during 2010-2015. The primary outcome was ostomy creation during the same hospitalization. Other outcomes were perforation or peritonitis, and in-hospital death. Associations of outcomes with stent indication were investigated, adjusting for patient-, admission-, and hospital characteristics. We estimated annual population-wide stent use volumes.

RESULTS

Of 4257 patients with stent placement (52% male, mean age 64.6 years), 9.9% had non-metastatic colon cancer, 12.9% metastatic colon cancer, 37.8% extracolonic malignancy (ECM), and 39.3% had benign obstruction. In 8.1% of patients, ostomy creation surgery was performed. Perforation or peritonitis occurred in 16.7%, and in-hospital death in 4.5%. Relative to ECM, ostomy creation was several-fold more likely among nonmetastatic colon cancer (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 3.4; 95%CI, 2.1-5.5), metastatic colon cancer (adjusted OR 2.5; 95%CI, 1.7-3.7), and benign obstruction patients (adjusted OR 3.1; 95%CI, 2.1-4.7). Benign obstruction was associated with high risk of perforation/peritonitis (adjusted OR 3.1 relative to non-metastatic CC (95%CI, 2.1-4.5)). Perforation/peritonitis was highly associated with inpatient death (adjusted OR 6.8 (95%CI, 4.9-9.5)). Annually, about 3,580 patients underwent stent placement, with benign obstruction showing an increasing trend (P=0.0002).

CONCLUSIONS

Over 75% of stent placements were done for patients with benign disease and ECM obstruction. Subsequent ostomy creation during the hospitalization was least likely among ECM patients. Rates of perforation/peritonitis in benign obstructions were concerningly high. (22.2%).

Controversies of colonic stenting in obstructive left colorectal cancer: a critical analysis with meta-analysis and meta-regression

PURPOSE

After almost three decades since the first description of colonic stents, the controversies of its safe application continue to impede the readiness of adoption by clinicians for malignant left bowel obstruction. This review seeks to address some of the controversial aspects of stenting and its impact on surgical and oncological outcomes.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, and CNKI were searched for articles employing SEMS for left colonic obstruction. Outcomes analyzed include success rates, complications, and long-term survival. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated.

RESULTS

36 studies were included with 2002 patients across seven randomized controlled trials and 29 observational studies. High technical (92%) and clinical (82%) success rates, and low rates of complications, including perforation (5%), were found. Those with > 8% perforation rates had poorer technical success rates than those with ≤ 8%, but there were no significant differences in 90-day in-hospital mortality and three and 5-year overall and disease-free survival. A significant increase was found in technical (RR = 1.094; CI, 1.041-1.149; p < 0.001) and clinical (RR = 1.158; CI, 1.064-1.259; p = 0.001) success rates when the duration between stenting and surgery was ≥ 2 weeks compared to < 2 weeks, but there were no significant differences in perforation rates, 90-day in-hospital mortality, and long-term survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonic stenting is safe and effective with high success rates and low complication rates. However, outcomes of higher perforation rates and optimal timing from stent till surgery remain unclear, with only a few studies reporting on these outcomes, leaving areas for future research.

Colonic Stenting in the Emergency Setting

Nowadays, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most frequent cancer, and about a third of patients with CRC presents themselves with symptoms of large bowel obstruction. Historically, surgical resection was the treatment of choice for colonic obstruction, but this kind of approach is burdened by a high risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality. In recent times, the use of a colonic stent has been proposed to overcome the obstruction and transform an emergency surgical case into an elective one to avoid emergency surgery complications. Endoscopic stenting is the first-line treatment option in the palliative management of colonic obstruction, and there is sufficient scientific evidence to support this approach. However, endoscopic stent used as a bridge to surgery is not yet widely adopted because the concern was raised about the long-term survival and cancer safety of this approach. The recent scientific evidence has shown that this approach improves the short-term outcomes, such as postoperative complications and the stoma rate, without differences in long-term outcomes compared to emergency surgery. Therefore, the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in 2020 has reconsidered stenting as a bridge to surgery as a valid alternative to emergency surgery.

Comparison of the prognosis of four different treatment strategies for acute left malignant colonic obstruction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

There is controversy regarding the efficacy of different treatment strategies for acute left malignant colonic obstruction. This study investigated the 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of several treatment strategies for acute left malignant colonic obstruction.

Methods

We searched for articles published in PubMed, Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), Web of Science, and Cochrane Library between January 1, 2000, and July 1, 2020. We screened out the literature comparing different treatment strategies. Evaluate the primary and secondary outcomes of different treatment strategies. The network meta-analysis summarizes the hazard ratio, odds ratio, mean difference, and its 95% confidence interval.

Results

The network meta-analysis involved 48 articles, including 8 (randomized controlled trials) RCTs and 40 non-RCTs. Primary outcomes: the 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of the CS-BTS strategy and the DS-BTS strategy were significantly better than those of the ES strategy, and the 5-year OS of the DS-BTS strategy was significantly better than that of CS-BTS. The long-term survival of TCT-BTS was not significantly different from those of CS-BTS and ES. Secondary outcomes: compared with emergency resection (ER) strategies, colonic stent-bridge to surgery (CS-BTS) and transanal colorectal tube-bridge to surgery (TCT-BTS) strategies can significantly increase the primary anastomosis rate, CS-BTS and decompressing stoma-bridge to surgery (DS-BTS) strategies can significantly reduce mortality, and CS-BTS strategies can significantly reduce the permanent stoma rate. The hospital stay of DS-BTS is significantly longer than that of other strategies. There was no significant difference in the anastomotic leakage levels of several treatment strategies.

Conclusion

Comprehensive literature research, we find that CS-BTS and DS-BTS strategies can bring better 5-year OS and DFS than ER. DS-BTS strategies have a better 5-year OS than CS-BTS strategies. Without considering the hospital stays, DS-BTS strategy is the best choice.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13017-021-00355-2.

The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland consensus guidelines in emergency colorectal surgery

AIM

There is a requirement for an expansive and up to date review of the management of emergency colorectal conditions seen in adults. The primary objective is to provide detailed evidence-based guidelines for the target audience of general and colorectal surgeons who are responsible for an adult population and who practise in Great Britain and Ireland.

METHODS

Surgeons who are elected members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland Emergency Surgery Subcommittee were invited to contribute various sections to the guidelines. They were directed to produce a pathology-based document using literature searches that were systematic, comprehensible, transparent and reproducible. Levels of evidence were graded. Each author was asked to provide a set of recommendations which were evidence-based and unambiguous. These recommendations were submitted to the whole guideline group and scored. They were then refined and submitted to a second vote. Only those that achieved >80% consensus at level 5 (strongly agree) or level 4 (agree) after two votes were included in the guidelines.

RESULTS

All aspects of care (excluding abdominal trauma) for emergency colorectal conditions have been included along with 122 recommendations for management.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines provide an up to date and evidence-based summary of the current surgical knowledge in the management of emergency colorectal conditions and should serve as practical text for clinicians managing colorectal conditions in the emergency setting.

Comparison of Decompressing Stoma vs Stent as a Bridge to Surgery for Left-Sided Obstructive Colon Cancer

Importance

Bridge to elective surgery using self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement is a debated alternative to emergency resection for patients with left-sided obstructive colon cancer because of oncologic concerns. A decompressing stoma (DS) might be a valid alternative, but relevant studies are scarce.

Objective

To compare DS with SEMS as a bridge to surgery for nonlocally advanced left-sided obstructive colon cancer using propensity score matching.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This national, population-based cohort study was performed at 75 of 77 hospitals in the Netherlands. A total of 4216 patients with left-sided obstructive colon cancer treated from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2016, were identified from the Dutch Colorectal Audit and 3153 patients were studied. Additional procedural and intermediate-term outcome data were retrospectively collected from individual patient files, resulting in a median follow-up of 32 months (interquartile range, 15-57 months). Data were analyzed from April 7 to October 28, 2019.

Exposures

Decompressing stoma vs SEMS as a bridge to surgery.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary anastomosis rate, postresection presence of a stoma, complications, additional interventions, permanent stoma, locoregional recurrence, disease-free survival, and overall survival. Propensity score matching was performed according to age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, prior abdominal surgery, tumor location, pN stage, cM stage, length of stenosis, and year of resection.

Results

A total of 3153 of the eligible 4216 patients were included in the study (mean [SD] age, 69.7 [11.8] years; 1741 [55.2%] male); after exclusions, 443 patients underwent bridge to surgery (240 undergoing DS and 203 undergoing SEMS). Propensity score matching led to 2 groups of 121 patients each. Patients undergoing DS had more primary anastomoses (104 of 121 [86.0%] vs 90 of 120 [75.0%], P = .02), more postresection stomas (81 of 121 [66.9%] vs 34 of 117 [29.1%], P < .001), fewer major complications (7 of 121 [5.8%] vs 18 of 118 [15.3%], P = .02), and more subsequent interventions, including stoma reversal (65 of 113 [57.5%] vs 33 of 117 [28.2%], P < .001). After DS and SEMS, the 3-year locoregional recurrence rates were 11.7% for DS and 18.8% for SEMS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.30-1.28; P = .20), the 3-year disease-free survival rates were 64.0% for DS and 56.9% for SEMS (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.61-1.33; P = .60), and the 3-year overall survival rates were 78.0% for DS and 71.8% for SEMS (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.48-1.22; P = .26).

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings suggest that DS as bridge to resection of left-sided obstructive colon cancer is associated with advantages and disadvantages compared with SEMS, with similar intermediate-term oncologic outcomes. The existing equipoise indicates the need for a randomized clinical trial that compares the 2 bridging techniques.

Impact of hospital volume on outcomes after emergency management of obstructive colon cancer: a nationwide study of 1957 patients

PURPOSE

Volume-outcome relationship is well established in elective colorectal surgery for cancer, but little is known for patients managed for obstructive colon cancer (OCC). We aimed to compare the management and outcomes according to the hospital volume in this particular setting.

METHODS

Patients managed for OCC between 2005 and 2015 in centers of the French National Surgical Association were retrospectively analyzed. Hospital volume was dichotomized between low and high volume on the median number of patients included per center during the study period.

RESULTS

A total of 1957 patients with OCC were managed in 56 centers with a median number of 28 (1-123) patients per center: 298 (15%) were treated in low-volume hospitals (LVHs) and 1659 (85%) in high-volume hospitals (HVHs). Patients in LVH were significantly younger, and had fewer comorbidities and synchronous metastases. Proximal diverting stoma was the preferred surgical option in LVH (p < 0.0001), whereas tumor resection with primary anastomosis was more frequently performed in HVH (p < 0.0001). Cumulative morbidity (59 vs. 50%, p = 0.003), mortality (13 vs. 8%, p = 0.03), and length of hospital stay (22 ± 19 vs. 18 ± 14 days, p = 0.002) were significantly higher in LVH. At multivariate analysis, LVH was a predictor for cumulative morbidity (p < 0.0001) and mortality (p = 0.03). There was no difference between the two groups for tumor resection and stoma rates, and for oncological outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The hospital volume has no impact on outcomes after the first-stage surgery in OCC patients. When all surgical stages are considered, hospital volume influences cumulative postoperative morbidity and mortality but has no impact on oncological outcomes.

Comparison of colonic stents, stomas and resection for obstructive left colon cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Emergency surgery (ES) is the standard-of-care for left-sided obstructing colon cancer, with self-expanding metallic stents (SEMSs) and diverting colostomies (DCs) being alternative approaches. The aim of this study was to review the short- and long-term outcomes of SEMS versus ES or DC.

METHODS

Embase and Medline were searched for articles comparing SEMS versus ES or DC. Primary outcomes were survival and recurrence rates. Secondary outcomes were peri- and postoperative outcomes. SEMS-specific outcomes include success and complication rates. Pooled odds ratio and 95% confidence interval were estimated with DerSimonian and Laird random effects used to account for heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies were included, involving 15,224 patients in 8 randomized controlled trials and 25 observational studies. There were high technical and clinical success rates for SEMS, with low rates of complications. Our meta-analysis revealed increased odds of laparoscopic surgery and anastomosis, and decreased stoma creation with SEMS compared to ES. SEMS led to fewer complications, including anastomotic leak, wound infection, ileus, myocardial infarction, and improved 90-day in-hospital mortality. There were no significant differences in 3- and 5-year overall, cancer-specific and disease-free survival. SEMS, compared to DC, led to decreased rates of stoma creation, higher rates of ileus and reoperation, and led to longer hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

SEMS leads to better short-term outcomes but confers no survival advantage over ES. It is unclear whether SEMS has better short-term outcomes compared to DC. There is a lack of randomized trials with long-term outcomes for SEMS versus DC, hence results should be interpreted with caution.

Comparison of short-term outcome between diverting colostomy and colonic stent as a bridge to surgery for left colonic malignant obstruction

The self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) has been comprehensively investigated as a bridge to surgery. SEMS enables the control of acute colonic obstruction. However, comparison between SEMS and diverting colostomy as another bridge procedure was still challenging issue. Thus, the aim of this study was to compare these 2 procedures.In this retrospective cohort study, patients who received diverting colostomy and SEMS for acute left colonic obstruction between February 2016 and August 2018 were included. They were classified into the colostomy group (n = 27), including 5 patients who had SEMS failure previously, and the SEMS group (n = 23). The clinicopathologic parameters, pathologic results, and short-term outcomes were compared.No significant differences were found in clinicopathologic characteristics and complication rates between the 2 groups. After the bridge procedures, the SEMS group showed a higher rate of laparoscopic colonic resection than the colostomy group (100% vs 76%, P = .023). The colostomy group showed a higher rate of rectal cancer (24.0% vs 9.1%, P = .019) and later recovery of flatus (3 vs 2 days, P = .011) than the SEMS group. Additionally, the length of resected colon was longer in the colostomy group than in the SEMS group (33.9 vs 23.4 cm, P = .007).Although SEMS might permit higher laparoscopic resection rates and faster recovery of bowel habits than diverting colostomy, SEMS showed meaningful failure rate including migration and perforation. In addition, diverting colostomy showed acceptable complication rates and feasible performance. An individualized approach is necessary considering the advantages and disadvantages of both procedures.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Pathological Characteristics of Self-Expandable Stent Bridge to Surgery and Emergency Surgery in Obstructive Colon Cancer

Aim

Obstructive colon cancer can be treated by self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) prior to definitive surgery. However, the oncological outcome remains controversial, especially regarding whether stent placement or obstruction results in more perineural invasion (PNI) or lymphovascular invasion (LVI). This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes of emergency surgery (ES) and stent as bridge to surgery (SBTS) in patients with obstructive colon cancer. The pathological characteristics were also compared between obstructive and nonobstructive cancer.

Methods

This study included 880 patients (including 47 ES and 45 SBTS) admitted to Peking University Third Hospital from January 2010 to December 2018. Short-term and long-term outcomes were compared. The pathological differences between an equal number of obstructive and nonobstructive patients matched using propensity scores were investigated.

Results

SBTS patients had less intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.001), shorter ICU stay time (P = 0.007), lower incidence of colostomy (P < 0.001), and higher laparoscopic achievement (P < 0.001) than did ES patients. No pathological difference was found between the two groups. SBTS patients showed better overall survival (86.7% vs 68.1%, P = 0.029), but not disease-free survival (68.9% vs 59.6%, P = 0.211) than did ES patients. PNI was significantly higher in obstructive cancer than in nonobstructive cancer (29.3% vs 16.3%, P = 0.035).

Conclusion

SBTS had a lower incidence of short-term complications and did not affect long-term prognosis compared with that of ES, indicating that SBTS is a safe and effective treatment. Further, PNI may be associated with obstruction, but not with stent insertion.

How best to palliate and treat emergency conditions in geriatric patients with colorectal cancer

Almost one third of colorectal cancer (CRC) cases are diagnosed in an emergency setting, mostly among geriatric patients. Clinical scenarios are often complex and decision making delicate. Besides the obvious need to consider the patient's and/or family and care givers' desires, the surgeon should be able to make the best educated guess on future outcomes in three areas: oncological prognosis, morbidity and mortality risk, and long-term functional loss. Using simple and brief tools for frailty screening reasonable treatment goals with curative or palliative intent can be planned. The most frequent clinical scenarios of CRC in emergency are bowel obstruction and perforation. We propose treatment algorithms based on assessment of the patient's overall reserve and discuss the indications, techniques and impact of a stoma in the geriatric patient. Bridge to surgery strategies may be best adapted to help the frail geriatric patient overcome the acute disease and maybe return to previous state of function. Post-operative morbidity and mortality rates are high in emergency surgery for CRC, but if the geriatric patient survives the post-operative period, oncological prognosis seems to be similar to younger patients. Because the occurrence of complications is the strongest predictor of functional decline and death, post-operative care plays a major role to optimize outcomes. Future studies should further investigate emergency surgery of CRC in the older adults focusing in particular on functional outcomes in order to help physicians counsel patients and families for a tailored treatment.

Prognostic factors and patterns of recurrence after emergency management for obstructing colon cancer: multivariate analysis from a series of 2120 patients

PURPOSE

At equal TNM stage, obstructing colon cancer (OCC) is associated with worse prognosis in comparison with uncomplicated cancer. Our aim was to identify prognostic factors of overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in patients treated for OCC.

METHODS

From 2000 to 2015, 2325 patients were treated for OCC in French surgical centers, members of the French National Surgical Association (AFC). Patients with palliative management were excluded. The main endpoints were OS and DFS. A multivariate analysis, using Cox proportional hazards regression model, was performed to determine independent prognostic factors.

RESULTS

The cohort included 2120 patients. The median of follow-up was 13.2 months. In multivariate analysis, age > 75 years, ASA score ≥ 3, ECOG score ≥ 3, right-sided colon cancer, presence of synchronous metastases, anastomotic leakage, and absence of adjuvant chemotherapy were independent OS factors. Age > 75 years, ASA score ≥ 3, right-sided colon cancer, presence of synchronous metastases, and absence of postoperative chemotherapy were independent factors of poor OS after exclusion of patients who died postoperatively. Age ≥ 75 years, ASA score ≥ 3, ECOG score ≥ 3, right-sided colon cancer, lymph node involvement, presence of vascular, lymphatic or perineural invasion, less than 12 harvested lymph nodes, and absence of adjuvant chemotherapy were independent DFS factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Management of OCC should take into account prognostic factors related to the patient (age, comorbidities), tumor location, and tumor stage. Adjuvant chemotherapy administration plays an important role. For patients undergoing initial defunctionning stoma, neoadjuvant chemotherapy could be an option to improve prognosis.

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

PURPOSE

Few studies compared management and outcomes of obstructing colonic cancer (OCC), according to the tumor site. Our aim was to compare patient and tumor characteristics, postoperative and pathological results, and oncological outcomes after emergency management of right-sided vs. left-sided OCC.

METHODS

A national cohort study including all consecutive patients managed for OCC from 2000 to 2015 in French surgical centers members of the French National Surgical Association (AFC).

RESULTS

During the study period, 2325 patients with OCC were divided in right-sided (n = 819, 35%) and left-sided (n = 1506, 65%) locations. Patients with right-sided OCC were older, more frequently females, and associated with comorbidities, history of cancer, or previous laparotomy. Surgical management was more frequently performed for right-sided than left-sided OCC (99 vs. 96%, p < 0.0001). Tumor resection was more frequently performed in right-sided OCC (95 vs. 90%, p < 0.0001). Among the resected patients, primary anastomosis was more frequently performed in case of right-sided OCC (86 vs. 62%, p < 0.0001). Definitive stoma rate was lower in right-sided location (17 vs. 46%, p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference between locations in terms of cumulative morbidity, anastomotic leak, unplanned reoperation, and mortality. Five-year overall and disease-free survival rates were significantly lower in right-sided OCC (43 and 36%) than in left-sided OCC (53 and 46%, p < 0.0001 and p = 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Although patients with right-sided OCC are frailer than left-sided OCC, tumor resection and anastomosis are more frequently performed, without difference in surgical results. However, right-sided OCC is associated with worse prognosis than distal location.