Comparison of quality of life, symptom and functional outcomes following surgical treatment for colorectal neoplasia

BACKGROUND

Colorectal surgical procedures can have a significant impact on quality-of-life (QoL), functional and symptom outcomes. This retrospective study conducted in a tertiary care center evaluated the influence of four colorectal surgical procedures on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHODS

512 patients undergoing colorectal neoplasia surgery between June 2015 and December 2017 were identified via the Cabrini Monash Colorectal Neoplasia database. Primary outcomes measured were the mean changes in PROMs following surgery utilizing the International Consortium of Health Outcome Measures colorectal cancer (CRC) PROMs.

RESULTS

242 patients from 483 eligible patients responded (50% participation rate). Responders and non-responders were comparable in median age (72 vs. 70 years), gender (48% vs. 52% male), time from surgery (<1 and >1 year), overall stage at diagnosis and type of surgery. Respondents underwent either a right hemicolectomy, ultra-low anterior resection, abdominoperineal resection or a transanal endoscopic microsurgery/transanal minimally invasive surgery. Right hemicolectomy patients reported the best post-operative function and reduced symptoms, significantly better (P < 0.01) than ultra-low anterior resection patients who reported the worst outcomes in multiple areas (body image, embarrassment, flatulence, diarrhoea, stool frequency). Furthermore, patients undergoing an abdominoperineal resection reported the worst scores for body image, urinary frequency, urinary incontinence, buttock pain, faecal incontinence and male impotence.

CONCLUSIONS

The differences in PROMs in CRC surgical procedures is demonstrable. The worst post-operative functional and symptom scores were reported after either an ultra-low anterior resection or an abdominoperineal resection. Implementation of PROMs will identify and aid early patient referral to allied health and support services.

Surgical Techniques for Abdominoperineal Resection for Rectal Cancer: One Size Does Not Fit All

Abdominoperineal resection (APR) of rectal cancer is associated with poorer oncological outcomes than anterior resection. This may be due to higher rates of intra-operative perforation (IOP) and circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement causing higher recurrence rates and surgical complications. To address these concerns, several centers advocated a change in technique from a standard APR to a more radical extra-levator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE). Initial reports showed that ELAPE reduced IOP rates and CRM involvement but increased wound complications and longer surgical duration. However, many of these studies had unacceptable rates of IOP and CRM before retraining in ELAPE. This may indicate that it was a sub-optimal surgical technique, which improved upon training, that had influenced the high CRM and IOP rates rather than the technique itself. Subsequent studies demonstrated that the CRM involvement rate for ELAPE was not always lower than for standard APR and, in some cases, significantly higher. The morbidity of ELAPE can be high, with studies reporting higher adverse events than APR, especially in terms of wound complications from the larger perineal incision required in ELAPE. Whether ELAPE improves short- or long-term oncological outcomes for patients has not been clearly demonstrated. The authors propose that all centers performing rectal cancer surgery audit surgical outcomes of patients undergoing APR or ELAPE and examine CRM involvement, IOP rates, and local recurrence rates, preferably through a national body. If rates of adverse technical or oncological outcomes exceed acceptable levels, then retraining in the appropriate surgical techniques may be indicated.

Australasian ACPGBI risk prediction model for 30-day mortality after colorectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Postoperative mortality after colorectal cancer surgery varies across hospitals and countries. The aim of this study was to test the Association of Coloproctologists of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) models as predictors of 30-day mortality in an Australian cohort.

METHODS

Data from patients who underwent surgery in six hospitals between 1996 and 2015 (CRC data set) were reviewed to test ACPGBI models, and patients from 79 hospitals in the Bi-National Colorectal Cancer Audit between 2007 and 2016 (BCCA data set) were analysed to validate model performance. Recalibrated models based on ACPGBI risk models were developed, tested and validated on a data set of Australasian patients.

RESULTS

Of 18 752 patients observed during the study, 6727 (CRC data set) and 3814 (BCCA data set) were analysed. The 30-day mortality rate was 1·1 and 3·5 per cent in the CRC and BCCA data sets respectively. Both the original and revised ACPGBI models overestimated 30-day mortality for the CRC data set (observed to expected (O/E) ratio 0·17 and 0·21 respectively). Their ability to correctly predict mortality risk was poor (P < 0·001, Hosmer-Lemeshow test); however, the area under the curve for both models was 0·88 (95 per cent c.i. 0·85 to 0·92) showing good discriminatory power to classify 30-day mortality. The recalibrated original model performed well for calibration and discrimination, whereas the recalibrated revised model performed well for discrimination but not for calibration. Risk prediction was good for both recalibrated models. On external validation using the BCCA data set, the recalibrated models underestimated mortality risk (O/E ratio 3·06 and 2·98 respectively), whereas both original and revised ACPGBI models overestimated the risk (O/E ratio 0·48 and 0·69). All models showed similar good discrimination.

CONCLUSION

The original and revised ACPGBI models overpredicted risk of 30-day mortality. The new Australasian calibrated ACPGBI model needs to be tested further in clinical practice.

The Effect of Diabetes on the Perioperative Outcomes of Colorectal Cancer Surgery Patients

There are approximately 1.3 million patients in Australia with diabetes. Conflicting reports exist in the literature as to the effect of diabetes on the outcomes of colorectal cancer patients. We hypothesized that patients with diabetes would have poorer perioperative outcomes, and that diabetes was an independent risk factor for both 30-day mortality and perioperative morbidity. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of diabetes on perioperative colorectal cancer surgery outcomes, as compared to a diabetes-free reference population, and to examine factors affecting perioperative risk. We conducted an analysis of a prospectively collected, clinician-led colorectal cancer database of patients from 2010–2015. Patients with diabetes were compared to patients without diabetes on a range of perioperative outcomes. Pearson χ-squared tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests and t-tests were employed for univariate analyses. Confounding factors were controlled for by separate logistic and linear regression analyses. The Huber-White Sandwich Estimator was used to calculate robust standard errors. A total of 1725 patients were analysed over 1745 treatment episodes in the study period with 267 patients (268 episodes) with diabetes studied. Diabetes contributed to medical, surgical complications, and increased length of inpatient stay in univariate analyses. Multivariable analysis adjusted for variables independently associated with each outcome revealed that diabetes was an independent contributor to an increased risk of surgical complications, with no significant effect on medical complications, return to the operating room, 30-day mortality, or readmission within 30 days. In this study, where overall baseline morbidity and mortality levels are low, the effect of diabetes alone on perioperative surgical outcomes appears to be overstated with control of associated perioperative risk factors such as cardiac, renal and respiratory factors being more important.