Long-term restoration of bowel continuity after rectal cancer resection and the influence of surgical technique: A nationwide cross-sectional study

AIM

Literature on nationwide long-term permanent stoma rates after rectal cancer resection in the minimally invasive era is scarce. The aim of this population-based study was to provide more insight into the permanent stoma rate with interhospital variability (IHV) depending on surgical technique, with pelvic sepsis, unplanned reinterventions and readmissions as secondary outcomes.

METHOD

Patients who underwent open or minimally invasive resection of rectal cancer (lower border below the sigmoid take-off) in 67 Dutch centres in 2016 were included in this cross-sectional cohort study.

RESULTS

Among 2530 patients, 1470 underwent a restorative resection (58%), 356 a Hartmann's procedure (14%, IHV 0%-42%) and 704 an abdominoperineal resection (28%, IHV 3%-60%). Median follow-up was 51 months. The overall permanent stoma rate at last follow-up was 50% (IHV 13%-79%) and the unintentional permanent stoma rate, permanent stoma after a restorative procedure or an unplanned Hartmann's procedure, was 11% (IHV 0%-29%). A total of 2165 patients (86%) underwent a minimally invasive resection: 1760 conventional (81%), 170 transanal (8%) and 235 robot-assisted (11%). An anastomosis was created in 59%, 80% and 66%, with corresponding unintentional permanent stoma rates of 12%, 24% and 14% (p = 0.001), respectively. When corrected for age, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, cTNM, distance to the anorectal junction and neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy, the minimally invasive technique was not associated with an unintended permanent stoma (p = 0.071) after a restorative procedure.

CONCLUSION

A remarkable IHV in the permanent stoma rate after rectal cancer resection was found. No beneficial influence of transanal or robot-assisted laparoscopy on the unintentional permanent stoma rate was found, although this might be caused by the surgical learning curve. A reduction in IHV and improving preoperative counselling for decision-making for restorative procedures are required.

Evolution of clinical nature, treatment and survival of locally recurrent rectal cancer: Comparative analysis of two national cross-sectional cohorts

BACKGROUND

In the Netherlands, use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy for rectal cancer declined after guideline revision in 2014. This decline is thought to affect the clinical nature and treatability of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). Therefore, this study compared two national cross-sectional cohorts before and after the guideline revision with the aim to determine the changes in treatment and survival of LRRC patients over time.

METHODS

Patients who underwent resection of primary rectal cancer in 2011 (n = 2094) and 2016 (n = 2855) from two nationwide cohorts with a 4-year follow up were included. Main outcomes included time to LRRC, synchronous metastases at time of LRRC diagnosis, intention of treatment and 2-year overall survival after LRRC.

RESULTS

Use of neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy for the primary tumour decreased from 88.5% to 60.0% from 2011 to 2016. The 3-year LRRC rate was not significantly different with 5.1% in 2011 (n = 114, median time to LRRC 16 months) and 6.3% in 2016 (n = 202, median time to LRRC 16 months). Synchronous metastasis rate did not significantly differ (27.2% vs 33.7%, p = 0.257). Treatment intent of the LRRC shifted towards more curative treatment (30.4% vs. 47.0%, p = 0.009). In the curatively treated group, two-year overall survival after LRRC diagnoses increased from 47.5% to 78.7% (p = 0.013).

CONCLUSION

Primary rectal cancer patients in 2016 were treated less often with neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy, while LRRC rates remained similar. Those who developed LRRC were more often candidate for curative intent treatment compared to the 2011 cohort, and survival after curative intent treatment also improved substantially.

Abandonment of Routine Radiotherapy for Nonlocally Advanced Rectal Cancer and Oncological Outcomes

Importance

Neoadjuvant short-course radiotherapy was routinely applied for nonlocally advanced rectal cancer (cT1-3N0-1M0 with >1 mm distance to the mesorectal fascia) in the Netherlands following the Dutch total mesorectal excision trial. This policy has shifted toward selective application after guideline revision in 2014.

Objective

To determine the association of decreased use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy with cancer-related outcomes and overall survival at a national level.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multicenter, population-based, nationwide cross-sectional cohort study analyzed Dutch patients with rectal cancer who were treated in 2011 with a 4-year follow-up. A similar study was performed in 2021, analyzing all patients that were surgically treated in 2016. From these cohorts, all patients with cT1-3N0-1M0 rectal cancer and radiologically unthreatened mesorectal fascia were included in the current study. The data of the 2011 cohort were collected between May and October 2015, and the data of the 2016 cohort were collected between October 2020 and November 2021. The data were analyzed between May and October 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes were 4-year local recurrence and overall survival rates.

Results

Among the 2011 and 2016 cohorts, 1199 (mean [SD] age, 68 [11] years; 430 women [36%]) of 2095 patients (57.2%) and 1576 (mean [SD] age, 68 [10] years; 547 women [35%]) of 3057 patients (51.6%) had cT1-3N0-1M0 rectal cancer and were included, with proportions of neoadjuvant radiotherapy of 87% (2011) and 37% (2016). Four-year local recurrence rates were 5.8% and 5.5%, respectively (P = .99). Compared with the 2011 cohort, 4-year overall survival was significantly higher in the 2016 cohort (79.6% vs 86.4%; P < .001), with lower non-cancer-related mortality (13.8% vs 6.3%; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that an absolute 50% reduction in radiotherapy use for nonlocally advanced rectal cancer did not compromise cancer-related outcomes at a national level. Optimizing clinical staging and surgery following the Dutch total mesorectal excision trial has potentially enabled safe deintensification of treatment.

Short- and Long-term Outcomes After Laparoscopic Emergency Resection of Left-Sided Obstructive Colon Cancer: A Nationwide Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopy for emergency resection of left-sided obstructive colon cancer remains unclear, especially regarding impact on survival.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine short- and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic versus open emergency resection of left-sided obstructive colon cancer.

DESIGN

This observational cohort study compared patients who underwent laparoscopic emergency resection to those who underwent open emergency resection between 2009 and 2016 by using 1:3 propensity-score matching. Matching variables included sex, age, BMI, ASA score, previous abdominal surgery, tumor location, cT4, cM1, multivisceral resection, small-bowel distention on CT, and subtotal colectomy.

SETTING

This was a nationwide, population-based study.

PATIENTS

Of 2002 eligible patients with left-sided obstructive colon cancer, 158 patients who underwent laparoscopic emergency resection were matched with 474 patients who underwent open emergency resection.

INTERVENTIONS

The intervention was laparoscopic versus open emergency resection.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measures were 90-day mortality, 90-day complications, permanent stoma, disease recurrence, overall survival, and disease-free survival.

RESULTS

Intentional laparoscopy resulted in significantly fewer 90-day complications (26.6% vs 38.4%; conditional OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39-0.87) and similar 90-day mortality. Laparoscopy resulted in better 3-year overall survival (81.0% vs 69.4%; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37-0.79) and disease-free survival (68.3% vs 52.3%; HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47-0.87). Multivariable regression analyses of the unmatched 2002 patients confirmed an independent association of laparoscopy with fewer 90-day complications and better 3-year survival.

LIMITATIONS

Selection bias was the limitation that cannot be completely ruled out because of the retrospective nature of this study.

CONCLUSIONS

This population-based study with propensity score-matched analysis suggests that intentional laparoscopic emergency resection might improve outcomes in patients with left-sided obstructive colon cancer compared to open emergency resection. Management of those patients in the emergency setting requires proper selection for intentional laparoscopic resection if relevant expertise is available, thereby considering other alternatives to avoid open emergency resection (ie, decompressing stoma). See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B972 .

RESULTADOS A CORTO Y LARGO PLAZO DESPUS DE LA RESECCIN LAPAROSCPICA DE EMERGENCIA EN CNCER DE COLON IZQUIERDO OBSTRUCTIVO UN ANLISIS EMPAREJADO POR PUNTAJE DE PROPENSIN A NIVEL NACIONAL

ANTECEDENTES:El papel de la laparoscopia en la resección de emergencia en cáncer de colon izquierdo obstructivo sigue sin estar claro, especialmente con respecto al impacto en la supervivencia.OBJETIVO:El objetivo de este estudio fue determinar los resultados a corto y largo plazo después de la resección de emergencia laparoscópica versus abierta en cáncer de colon izquierdo obstructivo.DISEÑO:Estudio observacional de cohortes comparó pacientes que se sometieron a resección de laparoscópica de emergencia versus resección abierta de emergencia entre 2009 y 2016, mediante el uso de emparejamineto por puntaje de propensión 1: 3. Las variables emparejadas incluyeron sexo, edad, IMC, puntaje ASA, cirugía abdominal previa, ubicación del tumor, cT4, cM1, resección multivisceral, distensión del intestino delgado en la TAC y colectomía subtotal.ENTORNO CLINICO:A nivel nacional, basado en la población.PACIENTES:De 2002 pacientes elegibles con cáncer de colon izquierdo obstructivo, 158 pacientes con resección laparoscópica s de emergencia e emparejaron con 474 pacientes con resección abierta de emergencia.INTERVENCIONES:Resección laparoscópica de emergencia versus abierta.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Las medidas primarias fueron la mortalidad a 90 días, complicaciones a 90 días, estoma permanente, recurrencia de la enfermedad, supervivencia general y supervivencia libre de enfermedad.RESULTADOS:La laparoscopia intencional dió como resultado significativamente menos complicaciones a los 90 días (26,6 % vs 38,4 %, cOR 0,59, IC del 95 %: 0,39-0,87) y una mortalidad similar a los 90 días. La laparoscopia resultó en una mejor supervivencia general a los 3 años (81,0 % vs 69,4 %, HR 0,54, IC del 95 % 0,37-0,79) y supervivencia libre de enfermedad (68,3 % vs 52,3 %, HR 0,64, IC del 95 % 0,47-0,87). Los análisis de regresión multivariable de los 2002 pacientes no emparejados confirmaron una asociación independiente de la laparoscopia con menos complicaciones a los 90 días y una mejor supervivencia a los 3 años.LIMITACIONES:El sesgo de selección no se puede descartar por completo debido a la naturaleza retrospectiva de este estudio.CONCLUSIONES:Estudio poblacional con análisis emparejado por puntaje de propensión sugiere que la resección laparoscópica de emergencia intencional podría mejorar los resultados a corto y largo plazo en pacientes con cáncer de colon izquierdo obstructivo en comparación con resección abierta de emergencia, lo que justifica la confirmación en estudios futuros. El manejo de esos pacientes en el entorno de emergencia requiere una selección adecuada para la resección laparoscópica intencional si se dispone de experiencia relevante, considerando así otras alternativas para evitar la resección abierta de emergencia (es decir, ostomia descompresiva). Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B972 . (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon & Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy).

Ferric carboxymaltose infusion versus oral iron supplementation for preoperative iron deficiency anaemia in patients with colorectal cancer (FIT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

A third of patients with colorectal cancer who are eligible for surgery in high-income countries have concomitant anaemia associated with adverse outcomes. We aimed to compare the efficacy of preoperative intravenous and oral iron supplementation in patients with colorectal cancer and iron deficiency anaemia.

METHODS

In the FIT multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial, adult patients (aged 18 years or older) with M0 stage colorectal cancer scheduled for elective curative resection and iron deficiency anaemia (defined as haemoglobin level of less than 7·5 mmol/L (12 g/dL) for women and less than 8 mmol/L (13 g/dL) for men, and a transferrin saturation of less than 20%) were randomly assigned to either 1-2 g of ferric carboxymaltose intravenously or three tablets of 200 mg of oral ferrous fumarate daily. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with normalised haemoglobin levels before surgery (≥12 g/dL for women and ≥13 g/dL for men). An intention-to-treat analysis was done for the primary analysis. Safety was analysed in all patients who received treatment. The trial was registered at ClincalTrials.gov, NCT02243735, and has completed recruitment.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 31, 2014, and Feb 23, 2021, 202 patients were included and assigned to intravenous (n=96) or oral (n=106) iron treatment. Treatment began a median of 14 days (IQR 11-22) before surgery for intravenous iron and 19 days (IQR 13-27) for oral iron. Normalisation of haemoglobin at day of admission was reached in 14 (17%) of 84 patients treated intravenously and 15 (16%) of 97 patients treated orally (relative risk [RR] 1·08 [95% CI 0·55-2·10]; p=0·83), but the proportion of patients with normalised haemoglobin significantly increased for the intravenous treatment group at later timepoints (49 [60%] of 82 vs 18 [21%] of 88 at 30 days; RR 2·92 [95% CI 1·87-4·58]; p<0·0001). The most prevalent treatment-related adverse event was discoloured faeces (grade 1) after oral iron treatment (14 [13%] of 105), and no treatment-related serious adverse events or deaths were observed in either group. No differences in other safety outcomes were seen, and the most common serious adverse events were anastomotic leakage (11 [5%] of 202), aspiration pneumonia (5 [2%] of 202), and intra-abdominal abscess (5 [2%] 202).

INTERPRETATION

Normalisation of haemoglobin before surgery was infrequent with both treatment regimens, but significantly improved at all other timepoints following intravenous iron treatment. Restoration of iron stores was feasible only with intravenous iron. In selected patients, surgery might be delayed to augment the effect of intravenous iron on haemoglobin normalisation.

FUNDING

Vifor Pharma.

Prognostic importance of lymph node count and ratio in rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: Results from a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine the prognostic value of lymph node count (LNC) and lymph node ratio (LNR) in rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT).

METHODS

Patients who underwent neoadjuvant CRT and total mesorectal excision (TME) for Stage I-III rectal cancer were selected from a cross-sectional study including 71 Dutch centres. Primary outcome parameters were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Prognostic significance of LNC and LNR (cut-off values 0.15, 0.20, 0.30) was tested for different (sub)groups.

RESULTS

From 2095 registered patients, 458 were included, of which 240 patients with LNC < 12 and 218 patients with LNC ≥ 12. LNC was not significantly associated with DFS (p = 0.35) and OS (p = 0.59). In univariable analysis, LNR was significantly associated with DFS and OS in the whole cohort and LNC subgroups, but not in multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

LNC was not associated with long-term oncological outcome in rectal cancer patients treated with CRT, nor was LNR when corrected for N-stage. However, LNR might be used to identify subgroups of node-positive patients with a favourable outcome.

[Wearing surgical masks in the operation theatre: yes or no?]

OBJECTIVE

In the Netherlands, the surgical mask is part of the standard surgical attire even for the non-sterile personnel in the operation theatre. Solid evidence on the effect on postoperative infection rates is missing. Due to a national scarcity in surgical masks during the first wave of the COVID-19 crisis the usage of these masks was decreased. In our tertiary referral centre for Surgical Oncology, this led to the decision that, for a period of ten weeks, the surgical masks were only being used by the sterile surgical team and not by non-sterile operation theatre personnel. This retrospective study evaluates the influence of this intervention in terms of postoperative wound infection rates.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

METHOD

Consecutive patients undergoing surgery during the first COVID-19 wave (2-3-2020 until 11-05-2020) were compared with patients undergoing surgery in the same period a year earlier. Patients undergoing surgery for soft-tissue malignancies were included. Intra-abdominal surgery was excluded. Primary outcome measurement was wound infection rate within 30 days following surgery. Secondary, a cost reduction analysis was made.

RESULTS

In the COVID-19 wave, a total of 219 patients underwent surgery for soft-tissue malignancies, compared to 241 a year earlier. The incidence of postoperative wound infection was 58/460 (12.6%) for the total cohort. There was no difference in infection rate between the COVID-19 period and the same period in 2019; 25/219 (11,4%; 95% CI: 7,8-16,4)) vs. 33/241 (13,7%; 95% CI: 9,8-18,6), p = 0,46) respectively. During the COVID-19 wave, a total of 6.400 of surgical masks were used by the personnel in the operation theatre complex, compared to a total of 11.000 in the same period in 2019. This resulted in a reduction of 42% in usage of surgical masks.

CONCLUSION

Based on this mono-centric, explorative retrospective cohort study, it seems that omitting the surgical mask for the non-sterile operation theatre personnel does not influence the postoperative wound infection rate. Despite the fact that our sample size is small, the impressive reduction in usage of 42% demands further research initiatives on a larger scale.

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.

Effect of understaging on local recurrence of rectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Magnetic resonance imaging of the pelvis has a limited accuracy to detect positive lymph nodes but does dictate neoadjuvant treatment in rectal cancer. This study aimed to investigate preoperative lymph node understaging and its effects on postoperative local recurrence rate.

METHODS

Patients were selected from a retrospective cross-sectional snapshot study. Patients with emergency surgery, cM1 disease, or unknown cN- or (y)pN category were excluded. Clinical and pathologic N-categories were compared and the impact on local recurrence was determined by multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

Out of 1548 included patients, 233 had preoperatively underestimated lymph node staging based on (y)pN category. Out of the 695 patients staged cN0, 168 (24%) had positive lymph nodes at pathology, and out of the 594 patients staged cN1, 65 (11%) were (y)pN2. Overall 3-year local recurrence rate was 5%. Clinical N-category was not associated with local recurrence when corrected for pT-category, neoadjuvant therapy, and resection margin, neither in patients with (y)pN1 (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.67 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68-4.12) P = .263) nor (y)pN2-category (HR: 1.91 95% CI: [0.75-4.84], P = .175).

CONCLUSION

Preoperative understaging of nodal status in rectal cancer is not uncommon. No significant effect on local recurrence or overall survival rates were found in the present study.

Effect of understaging on local recurrence of rectal cancer

Background and Objectives

Magnetic resonance imaging of the pelvis has a limited accuracy to detect positive lymph nodes but does dictate neoadjuvant treatment in rectal cancer. This study aimed to investigate preoperative lymph node understaging and its effects on postoperative local recurrence rate.

Methods

Patients were selected from a retrospective cross‐sectional snapshot study. Patients with emergency surgery, cM1 disease, or unknown cN‐ or (y)pN category were excluded. Clinical and pathologic N‐categories were compared and the impact on local recurrence was determined by multivariable analysis.

Results

Out of 1548 included patients, 233 had preoperatively underestimated lymph node staging based on (y)pN category. Out of the 695 patients staged cN0, 168 (24%) had positive lymph nodes at pathology, and out of the 594 patients staged cN1, 65 (11%) were (y)pN2. Overall 3‐year local recurrence rate was 5%. Clinical N‐category was not associated with local recurrence when corrected for pT‐category, neoadjuvant therapy, and resection margin, neither in patients with (y)pN1 (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.67 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68‐4.12) P = .263) nor (y)pN2‐category (HR: 1.91 95% CI: [0.75‐4.84], P = .175).

Conclusion

Preoperative understaging of nodal status in rectal cancer is not uncommon. No significant effect on local recurrence or overall survival rates were found in the present study.

Treatment and survival of locally recurrent rectal cancer: A cross-sectional population study 15 years after the Dutch TME trial

INTRODUCTION

Optimized treatment of primary rectal cancer might have influenced treatment characteristics and outcome of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). Subgroup analysis of the Dutch TME trial showed that preoperative radiotherapy (PRT) for the primary tumour was an independent poor prognostic factor after diagnosis of LRRC. This cross-sectional population study aimed to evaluate treatment and overall survival (OS) of LRRC patients, stratified for prior preoperative radiotherapy (PRT) and intention of treatment of LRRC.

METHODS

All patients developing LRRC were selected from a collaborative Snapshot study on 2095 surgically treated rectal cancer patients from 71 Dutch hospitals in the year 2011. Cox proportional hazard analysis was performed to determine predictors for OS.

RESULTS

A total of 107 LRRC patients (5.1%) were included, of whom 88 (82%) underwent PRT for their primary tumour. LRRC was treated with initial curative intent in 31 patients (29%), with eventual resection in 20 patients (19%). Median OS was 22 and 8 months after curative and palliative intent treatment, respectively (p < 0.001). Initial CRM positivity and palliative intent treatment were associated with worse OS after LRRC, while prior PRT was not.

CONCLUSIONS

This cross-sectional study revealed that rectal cancer patients, who underwent curative resection in the Netherlands in 2011 and subsequently developed local recurrence, were amenable for again curative intent treatment in 29%, with a corresponding median survival of 22 months. Prior PRT was not significantly associated with survival after diagnosis of LRRC.

Propensity score-matched analysis of oncological outcome between stent as bridge to surgery and emergency resection in patients with malignant left-sided colonic obstruction

BACKGROUND

Although self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement as bridge to surgery (BTS) in patients with left-sided obstructing colonic cancer has shown promising short-term results, it is used infrequently owing to uncertainty about its oncological safety. This population study compared long-term oncological outcomes between emergency resection and SEMS placement as BTS.

METHODS

Through a national collaborative research project, long-term outcome data were collected for all patients who underwent resection for left-sided obstructing colonic cancer between 2009 and 2016 in 75 Dutch hospitals. Patients were identified from the Dutch Colorectal Audit database. SEMS as BTS was compared with emergency resection in the curative setting after 1 : 2 propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Some 222 patients who had a stent placed were matched to 444 who underwent emergency resection. The overall SEMS-related perforation rate was 7·7 per cent (17 of 222). Three-year locoregional recurrence rates after SEMS insertion and emergency resection were 11·4 and 13·6 per cent (P = 0·457), disease-free survival rates were 58·8 and 52·6 per cent (P = 0·175), and overall survival rates were 74·0 and 68·3 per cent (P = 0·231), respectively. SEMS placement resulted in significantly fewer permanent stomas (23·9 versus 45·3 per cent; P < 0·001), especially in elderly patients (29·0 versus 57·9 per cent; P < 0·001). For patients in the SEMS group with or without perforation, 3-year locoregional recurrence rates were 18 and 11·0 per cent (P = 0·432), disease-free survival rates were 49 and 59·6 per cent (P = 0·717), and overall survival rates 61 and 75·1 per cent (P = 0·529), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Overall, SEMS as BTS seems an oncologically safe alternative to emergency resection with fewer permanent stomas. Nevertheless, the risk of SEMS-related perforation, as well as permanent stoma, might influence shared decision-making for individual patients.

Cross-Sectional Study on MRI Restaging After Chemoradiotherapy and Interval to Surgery in Rectal Cancer: Influence on Short- and Long-Term Outcomes

Background

The time interval between CRT and surgery in rectal cancer patients is still the subject of debate. The aim of this study was to first evaluate the nationwide use of restaging magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and its impact on timing of surgery, and, second, to evaluate the impact of timing of surgery after chemoradiotherapy (CRT) on short- and long-term outcomes.

Methods

Patients were selected from a collaborative rectal cancer research project including 71 Dutch centres, and were subdivided into two groups according to time interval from the start of preoperative CRT to surgery (< 14 and ≥ 14 weeks).

Results

From 2095 registered patients, 475 patients received preoperative CRT. MRI restaging was performed in 79.4% of patients, with a median CRT–MRI interval of 10 weeks (interquartile range [IQR] 8–11) and a median MRI–surgery interval of 4 weeks (IQR 2–5). The CRT–surgery interval groups consisted of 224 (< 14 weeks) and 251 patients (≥ 14 weeks), and the long-interval group included a higher proportion of cT4 stage and multivisceral resection patients. Pathological complete response rate (n = 34 [15.2%] vs. n = 47 [18.7%], p = 0.305) and CRM involvement (9.7% vs. 15.9%, p = 0.145) did not significantly differ. Thirty-day surgical complications were similar (20.1% vs. 23.1%, p = 0.943), however no significant differences were found for local and distant recurrence rates, disease-free survival, and overall survival.

Conclusions

These real-life data, reflecting routine daily practice in The Netherlands, showed substantial variability in the use and timing of restaging MRI after preoperative CRT for rectal cancer, as well as time interval to surgery. Surgery before or after 14 weeks from the start of CRT resulted in similar short- and long-term outcomes.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1245/s10434-018-07097-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Impact of an institutional change from routine to highly selective diversion of a low anastomosis after TME for rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

The need for routine diverting ileostomy following restorative total mesorectal excision (TME) is increasingly debated as the benefits might not outweigh the disadvantages. This study evaluated an institutional shift from routine (RD) to highly selective diversion (HSD) after TME surgery for rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients having TME with primary anastomosis and HSD for low or mid rectal cancer between December 2014 and March 2017 were compared with a historical control group with RD in the preceding period since January 2011. HSD was introduced in conjunction with uptake of transanal TME.

RESULTS

In the RD group, 45/50 patients (90%) had a primary diverting stoma, and 3/40 patients (8%) in the HSD group. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 10 (20%) and three (8%) cases after a median follow-up of 36 and 19 months after RD and HSD, respectively. There was no postoperative mortality. An unintentional stoma beyond 1 year postoperative was present in six and two patients, respectively. One-year stoma-related readmission and reoperation rate (including reversal) after RD were 84% and 86%, respectively. Corresponding percentages were significantly lower after HSD (17% and 17%; P < 0.001). Total hospital stay within one year was median 11 days (IQR 8-19) versus 5 days (IQR 4-11), respectively (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This single institutional comparative cohort study shows that highly selective defunctioning of a low anastomosis in rectal cancer patients did not adversely affect incidence or consequences of anastomotic leakage with a substantial decrease in 1-year readmission and reintervention rate, leading to an overall significantly reduced hospital stay.

Redo coloanal anastomosis for anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: an analysis of 59 cases

AIM

The construction of a new coloanal anastomosis (CAA) following anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection (LAR) is challenging. The available literature on this topic is scarce. The aim of this two-centre study was to determine the clinical success and morbidity after redo CAA.

METHOD

This retrospective cohort study included all patients with anastomotic leakage after LAR for rectal cancer who underwent a redo CAA between 2010 and 2014 in two tertiary referral centres. Short- and long-term morbidity were analysed, including both anastomotic leakage and permanent stoma rates on completion of follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 59 patients were included, of whom 45 (76%) were men, with a mean age of 59 years (SD ± 9.4). The median interval between index and redo surgery was 14 months [interquartile range (IQR) 8-27]. The median duration of follow-up was 27 months (IQR 17-36). The most frequent complication was anastomotic leakage of the redo CAA occurring in 24 patients (41%), resulting in a median of three reinterventions (IQR 2-4) per patient. At the end of follow-up, bowel continuity was restored in 39/59 (66%) patients. Fourteen (24%) patients received a definitive colostomy and six (10%) still had a diverting ileostomy. In a multivariable model, leakage of the redo CAA was the only risk factor for permanent stoma (OR 0.022; 95% CI 0.004-0.122).

CONCLUSION

Redo CAA is a viable option in selected patients with persisting leakage after LAR for rectal cancer who want their bowel continuity restored. However, patients should be fully informed about the relatively high morbidity and reintervention rates.

Snapshot Study on the Value of Omentoplasty in Abdominoperineal Resection with Primary Perineal Closure for Rectal Cancer

Background

Perineal wound complications are often encountered following abdominoperineal resection (APR). Filling of the pelvic space by omentoplasty (OP) might prevent these complications, but there is scant evidence to support its routine application.

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of OP on perineal wound complications.

Methods

All patients undergoing APR with primary perineal closure (PPC) for non-locally advanced rectal cancer in 71 Dutch centers in 2011 were selected from a cross-sectional snapshot study. Outcomes were compared between PPC with or without OP, which was based on variability in practice among surgeons.

Results

Of 639 patients who underwent APR for rectal cancer, 477 had a non-locally advanced tumor and PPC was performed. Of those, 172 (36%) underwent OP. Patients with OP statistically more often underwent an extralevator approach (32% vs. 14%). Median follow-up was 41 months (interquartile range 22–47). There were no significant differences with or without OP in terms of non-healing of the perineal wound at 30 days (47% vs. 48%), non-healing at the end of follow-up (9% vs. 5%), pelvic abscess (12% vs. 13%) or re-intervention for ileus (5% vs. 3%). Perineal hernia developed significantly more often after OP (13% vs. 7%), also by multivariable analysis (odds ratio 2.61, 95% confidence interval 1.271–5.364; p = 0.009).

Conclusions

In contrast to previous assumptions, OP after APR with PPC appeared not to improve perineal wound healing and seemed to increase the occurrence of perineal hernia. These findings question the routine use of OP for primary filling of the pelvic space.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1245/s10434-017-6273-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Laparoscopic surgery for T4 colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In colon cancer, T4 stage is still assumed to be a relative contraindication for laparoscopic surgery considering the oncological safety. The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to evaluate short- and long-term oncological outcomes after laparoscopic surgery for T4 colon cancer, and to compare these with open surgery.

METHODS

Using systematic review of literature, studies reporting on radicality of resection, disease-free survival (DFS), and/or overall survival (OS) after laparoscopic surgery for T4 colon cancer were identified, with or without a control group of open surgery. Pooled proportions and risk ratios were calculated using an inverse variance method.

RESULTS

Thirteen observational cohort studies published between 2012 and 2017 were included, together consisting of 1217 patients that received laparoscopic surgery and 1357 with an open procedure. The proportion of multivisceral resections was larger in the open group in five studies. Based on 11 studies, the pooled proportion of R0 resection was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.91-0.99) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.90-0.98) after laparoscopic and open surgery, respectively. Analysing (mainly) T4a subgroups in 6 evaluable studies revealed pooled R0 resection rates of 0.94 in both groups. No significant differences were found between laparoscopic and open surgery for any survival measure: RR 1.07 (95% CI: 0.96-1.20) for 3-year DFS, RR 1.04 (95% CI: 0.95-1.15) for 5-year DFS, RR 1.07 (95% CI: 0.99-1.14) for 3-year OS, and RR 1.05 (95% CI: 0.98-1.12) for 5-year OS.

CONCLUSION

Literature on laparoscopic surgery for T4 colon cancer is restricted to non-randomized comparisons with substantial allocation bias. Laparoscopic surgery for T4a tumours might be safe, whereas for T4b colon cancer requiring multivisceral resection it should be applied with caution.

The influence of hospital volume on long-term oncological outcome after rectal cancer surgery

PURPOSE

The association between hospital volume and outcome in rectal cancer surgery is still subject of debate. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of hospital volume on outcomes of rectal cancer surgery in the Netherlands in 2011.

METHODS

In this collaborative research with a cross-sectional study design, patients who underwent rectal cancer resection in 71 Dutch hospitals in 2011 were included. Annual hospital volume was stratified as low (< 20), medium (20-50), and high (≥ 50).

RESULTS

Of 2095 patients, 258 patients (12.3%) were treated in 23 low-volume hospitals, 1329 (63.4%) in 40 medium-volume hospitals, and 508 (24.2%) in 8 high-volume hospitals. Median length of follow-up was 41 months. Clinical tumor stage, neoadjuvant therapy, extended resections, circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity, and 30-day or in-hospital mortality did not differ significantly between volume groups. Significantly, more laparoscopic procedures were performed in low-volume hospitals, and more diverting stomas in high-volume hospitals. Three-year disease-free survival for low-, medium-, and high-volume hospitals was 75.0, 74.8, and 76.8% (p = 0.682). Corresponding 3-year overall survival rates were 75.9, 79.1, and 80.3% (p = 0.344). In multivariate analysis, hospital volume was not associated with long-term risk of mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant impact of hospital volume on rectal cancer surgery outcome could be observed among 71 Dutch hospitals after implementation of a national audit, with the majority of patients being treated at medium-volume hospitals.

Organ preservation in rectal cancer: a synopsis of current guidelines

BACKGROUND

The high morbidity associated with radical resection for rectal cancer is an incentive for surgeons to adopt strategies aimed at organ preservation, particularly for early disease. There are a number of different approaches to achieve this. In this study we have collated current national and international guidelines to produce a synopsis to support this changing practice.

METHODS

The databases PubMed, Embase, Trip database, national guideline clearinghouse, BMJ Best practice were interrogated. Guidelines published before 2010 were excluded. The AGREE-II tool was used for quality assessment.

RESULTS

24 guidelines were drawn from 2278 potential publications. A consensus exists for local excision for "low risk" T1 rectal cancer but there is no agreement how to stratify the risk of treatment failure. There is a low level of agreement for rectal preservation for more advanced disease but when mentioned is recommended for unfit patients or in th context of a clinical trial. Guidelines are inconsistent with respect to surveillance in node negative disease and after, complete response to chemoradiotherapy CONCLUSION: According to current guidelines and consensus statements organ preservation for rectal cancer beyond low risk T1, is still considered experimental and only indicated in patients unsuitable for radical surgery.. Follow up strategies and cN0 staging deserve attention and highlight the need for high quality clinical trials. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Vacuum-assisted early transanal closure of leaking low colorectal anastomoses: the CLEAN study

Introduction

Non-healing of anastomotic leakage can be observed in up to 50% after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. This study investigates the efficacy of early transanal closure of anastomotic leakage after pre-treatment with the Endosponge^® therapy.

Methods

In this prospective, multicentre, feasibility study, transanal suturing of the anastomotic defect was performed after vacuum-assisted cleaning of the presacral cavity. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a healed anastomosis at 6 months after transanal closure. Secondary, healing at last follow-up, continuity, direct medical costs, functionality and quality of life were analysed.

Results

Between July 2013 and July 2015, 30 rectal cancer patients with a leaking low colorectal anastomosis were included, of whom 22 underwent neoadjuvant radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 14 (7–29) months. At 6 months, the anastomosis had healed in 16 (53%) patients. At last follow-up, anastomotic integrity was found in 21 (70%) and continuity was restored in 20 (67%) patients. Non-healing at 12 months was observed in 10/29 (34%) patients overall, and in 3/14 (21%) when therapy started within three weeks following the index operation. Major LARS was reported in 12/15 (80%) patients. The direct medical costs were €8933 (95% CI 7268–10,707) per patient.

Conclusion

Vacuum-assisted early transanal closure of a leaking anastomosis after total mesorectal excision with 73% preoperative radiotherapy showed that acceptable anastomotic healing rates and stoma reversal rates can be achieved. Early diagnosis and start of treatment seems crucial.

A multi-centred randomised trial of radical surgery versus adjuvant chemoradiotherapy after local excision for early rectal cancer

Background

Rectal cancer surgery is accompanied with high morbidity and poor long term functional outcome. Screening programs have shown a shift towards more early staged cancers. Patients with early rectal cancer can potentially benefit significantly from rectal preserving therapy. For the earliest stage cancers, local excision is sufficient when the risk of lymph node disease and subsequent recurrence is below 5 %. However, the majority of early cancers are associated with an intermediate risk of lymph node involvement (5–20 %) suggesting that local excision alone is not sufficient, while completion radical surgery, which is currently standard of care, could be a substantial overtreatment for this group of patients.

Methods/Study design

In this multicentre randomised trial, patients with an intermediate risk T1-2 rectal cancer, that has been locally excised using an endoluminal technique, will be randomized between adjuvant chemo-radiotherapylimited to the mesorectum and standard completion total mesorectal excision (TME). To strictly monitor the risk of locoregional recurrence in the experimental arm and enable early salvage surgery, there will be additional follow up with frequent MRI and endoscopy. The primary outcome of the study is three-year local recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes are morbidity, disease free and overall survival, stoma rate, functional outcomes, health related quality of life and costs. The design is a non inferiority study with a total sample size of 302 patients.

Discussion

The results of the TESAR trial will potentially demonstrate that adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is an oncological safe treatment option in patients who are confronted with the difficult clinical dilemma of a radically removed intermediate risk early rectal cancer by polypectomy or transanal surgery that is conventionally treated with subsequent radical surgery. Preserving the rectum using adjuvant radiotherapy is expected to significantly improve morbidity, function and quality of life if compared to completion TME surgery.

Trial registration

NCT02371304, registration date: February 2015

Meta-analysis of oncological outcomes after local excision of pT1-2 rectal cancer requiring adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy or completion surgery

BACKGROUND

Completion total mesorectal excision (TME) is advised for high-risk early (pT1/pT2) rectal cancer following transanal removal. The main objective of this meta-analysis was to determine oncological outcomes of adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy as a rectum-preserving alternative to completion TME.

METHODS

A literature search using PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library was performed in February 2015. Studies had to include at least ten patients with pT1/pT2 adenocarcinomas that were removed transanally and followed by either adjuvant chemoradiotherapy or completion surgery. A weighted average of the logit proportions was determined for the pooled analyses of subgroups according to treatment modality and pT category.

RESULTS

In total, 14 studies comprising 405 patients treated with adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy and seven studies comprising 130 patients treated with completion TME were included. Owing to heterogeneity it was not possible to compare the two strategies directly. However, the weighted average local recurrence rate for locally excised pT1/pT2 rectal cancer treated with adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy was 14 (95 per cent c.i. 11 to 18) per cent, and 7 (4 to 14) per cent following completion TME. The weighted averages for distance recurrence were 9 (6 to 14) and 9 (5 to 16) per cent respectively. Weighted averages for local recurrence rate after adjuvant chemo(radiotherapy) and completion TME for pT1 were 10 (4 to 21) and 6 (3 to 15) per cent respectively. Corresponding averages for pT2 were 15 (11 to 21) and 10 (4 to 22) per cent respectively.

CONCLUSION

A higher recurrence rate after transanal excision and adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy must be balanced against the morbidity and mortality associated with mesorectal excision. A reasonable approach is close follow-up and salvage mesorectal surgery as needed.

Feasibility of the TAMIS technique for redo pelvic surgery

AIM

The aim of this study was to report on the feasibility of transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) as a novel approach to redo colorectal or ileoanal anastomoses.

METHODS

From October 2014, a prospective institutional database was created for all consecutive patients who underwent redo surgery by TAMIS for presacral sinus or anastomotic stenosis after low anterior resection or pouch-related problems following restorative proctocolectomy. Intra-operative feasibility, 30-day postoperative outcomes, intestinal continuity and complications after 6-month follow-up were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 17 included patients, 14 underwent anastomotic reconstruction and three completion proctectomy. The median operation time was 265 min (range 201-413). A successful rendezvous with simultaneous transabdominal access was achieved in 15 patients, and the procedure was completed by TAMIS alone in two. Five patients were readmitted within 30 days (29 %). Two (14 %) patients developed an anastomotic leakage within 30 days and 4 (24 %) developed a pelvic abscess requiring reintervention. One patient developed an urethra stenosis and was managed with a suprapubic catheter. Median follow-up was 9 (6-15) months. Within 6-month follow-up, the redo-TAMIS 1 patient developed a delayed anastomotic leak and 1 patient had a recurrent presacral abscess after stoma closure. Intestinal continuity was reached in 71 % of the patients at 6-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

TAMIS is a valuable approach in redo pelvic surgery, but is still associated with high complication rates related to the complexity of the underlying problem.

Iron therapy for the treatment of preoperative anaemia in patients with colorectal carcinoma: a systematic review

AIM

Preoperative anaemia is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the efficacy of preoperative iron supplementation in the treatment of anaemia, and its effect on the postoperative recovery of patients undergoing surgery for colorectal carcinoma.

METHOD

This systematic review was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane library to assess current evidence on the role of iron supplementation in the treatment of preoperative anaemia. Our main outcomes were absolute increase in haemoglobin, blood transfusion rate and postoperative morbidity. Main inclusion criteria were: preoperative iron supplementation, presence of colorectal carcinoma and elective surgery. The Downs-Black questionnaire was used for quality assessment of the included studies.

RESULTS

Of the 605 studies analysed, seven, three randomized controlled trials and four cohort studies, were included. Despite iron supplementation, the three randomized controlled trials showed a decrease in haemoglobin level. This was contrary to the four cohort studies which all showed a significant increase. All studies showed a decreased blood transfusion rate following iron supplementation. None of the included studies assessed postoperative morbidity. Due to heterogeneity in study design, duration of treatment, dosages and variation in iron substrates, we were unable to perform a meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

In anaemic patients who require surgery for colorectal carcinoma, current evidence is of inadequate quality to draw a definitive conclusion on the efficacy of the various measures to treat preoperative anaemia.

Multicentre randomized controlled trial comparing ferric(III)carboxymaltose infusion with oral iron supplementation in the treatment of preoperative anaemia in colorectal cancer patients

Background

At least a third of patients with a colorectal carcinoma who are candidate for surgery, are anaemic preoperatively. Preoperative anaemia is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. In general practice, little attention is paid to these anaemic patients. Some will have oral iron prescribed others not. The waiting period prior to elective colorectal surgery could be used to optimize a patients’ physiological status. The aim of this study is to determine the efficacy of preoperative intravenous iron supplementation in comparison with the standard preoperative oral supplementation in anaemic patients with colorectal cancer.

Methods/Design

In this multicentre randomized controlled trial, patients with an M0-staged colorectal carcinoma who are scheduled for curative resection and with a proven iron deficiency anaemia are eligible for inclusion. Main exclusion criteria are palliative surgery, metastatic disease, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (5 × 5 Gy = no exclusion) and the use of Recombinant Human Erythropoietin within three months before inclusion or a blood transfusion within a month before inclusion. Primary endpoint is the percentage of patients that achieve normalisation of the haemoglobin level between the start of the treatment and the day of admission for surgery. This study is a superiority trial, hypothesizing a greater proportion of patients achieving the primary endpoint in favour of iron infusion compared to oral supplementation. A total of 198 patients will be randomized to either ferric(III)carboxymaltose infusion in the intervention arm or ferrofumarate in the control arm. This study will be performed in ten centres nationwide and one centre in Ireland.

Discussion

This is the first randomized controlled trial to determine the efficacy of preoperative iron supplementation in exclusively anaemic patients with a colorectal carcinoma. Our trial hypotheses a more profound haemoglobin increase with intravenous iron which may contribute to a superior optimisation of the patient’s condition and possibly a decrease in postoperative morbidity.

Trial registration

ClincalTrials.gov: NCT02243735.