Postoperative delayed emptying after total, subtotal, or distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to examine the rate of delayed emptying and other 90-day postoperative complications after total, subtotal, and distal gastrectomies for gastric adenocarcinoma in a population-based setting. METHODS: This study included all patients who underwent total, subtotal, or distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer in Finland in 2005-2016, with follow-up until December 31, 2019. Logistic regression provided the odds ratios with 95% CIs of 90-day mortality. The results were adjusted for age, sex, year of surgery, comorbidities, pathologic stage, and neoadjuvant therapy. RESULTS: A total of 2058 patients underwent total (n = 1227), subtotal (n = 450), or distal (n = 381) gastrectomy. In the total, subtotal, and distal gastrectomy groups, the rates of 90-day delayed emptying were 1.7%, 1.3%, and 2.1% in the whole cohort and 1.6%, 1.8%, and 3.5% in the subgroup analysis of R0 resections, respectively. The resection type was not associated with the risk of delayed emptying. Subtotal gastrectomy was associated with a lower risk of major complications and reoperations, whereas distal gastrectomy was associated with a lower risk of anastomotic complications. CONCLUSION: The extent of resection did not affect delayed emptying, whereas fewer postoperative complications were observed after subtotal or distal gastrectomy than after total gastrectomy.

Comparison of Postoperative Complications After Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer with Antecolic Versus Retrocolic Reconstruction: A Population-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine the rates of 90-day anastomotic complications and other postoperative complications after total or partial gastrectomy with antecolic versus retrocolic reconstruction in a population-based setting. METHODS: This population-based nationwide retrospective cohort study included all patients undergoing total or partial gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma in Finland in 2005-2016, with follow-up until 31 December 2019. Logistic regression provided odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of 90-day mortality. Results were adjusted for age, sex, year of the surgery, comorbidities, tumor locations, pathological stage, and neoadjuvant therapy. RESULTS: A total of 2063 patients having gastrectomy with antecolic (n = 814) or retrocolic (n = 1249) reconstruction were identified from the registries. The anastomotic complication rate was 3.8% with antecolic reconstruction and 5.0% with retrocolic reconstruction. Antecolic reconstruction was not associated with a higher risk of anastomotic complications compared with retrocolic reconstruction in the adjusted analysis (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44-1.09) of the whole cohort or in the predefined subgroups. The reoperation rate was 8.2% with antecolic reconstruction and 7.7% with retrocolic reconstruction, without statistical significance. In subgroup analysis of total gastrectomy patients, the risk of major complications was lower with antecolic reconstruction compared with retrocolic reconstruction (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45-0.86). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of anastomotic complications did not differ after antecolic versus retrocolic reconstruction after total or partial gastrectomy. In total gastrectomies, the risk of major complications was lower after antecolic compared with retrocolic reconstruction.

Stapled vs handsewn anastomosis and anastomotic leaks in gastric cancer surgery-a population-based nationwide study in Finland.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of evidence regarding anastomotic technique and postoperative complications in gastric cancer surgery. This study aimed to evaluate whether there are differences between stapled and handsewn anastomosis and anastomotic leaks. METHODS: This was a population-based, retrospective, nationwide cohort study in Finland using the Finnish National Esophago-Gastric Cancer Cohort. Patients undergoing gastrectomy with available postoperative complication data were included. Logistic regression analysis was used to calculate the odds ratios with 95% CIs, adjusted for calendar period of surgery, age at surgery, sex, comorbidity, tumor stage, neoadjuvant therapy, minimally invasive surgery, type of gastrectomy, radical resection, and type of anastomosis. RESULTS: Of the 2164 patients, 472 of all patients (21.8%) had handsewn anastomosis and 1692 of all patients (78.2%) had stapled anastomosis. In the unadjusted analysis, anastomotic leaks were significantly lower in the handsewn group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.42; 95% CI, 0.22-0.79) than the stapled group, but after adjustment for known prognostic factors, this association was no longer significant (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.27-1.21). In the analysis stratified by gastrectomy type (distal or total), no differences in anastomotic leaks were observed between anastomotic techniques. CONCLUSION: In this population-based nationwide study, anastomotic technique (stapled or handsewn) was not associated with anastomotic leaks in any, distal or total, gastrectomy.

Postoperative Complications After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Versus Upfront Surgery in Gastric Adenocarcinoma: A Population-Based Nationwide Study in Finland.

BACKGROUND: To date, no large population-based studies have compared complications and short-term outcomes between neoadjuvant chemotherapy and upfront surgery in gastric cancer. More nationwide studies with standardized reporting on complications are needed to enable international comparison between studies. This study aimed to compare postoperative complications between neoadjuvant therapy and upfront surgery after gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma in a population-based setting. METHODS: This population-based study based on the Finnish National Esophago-Gastric Cancer Cohort included all patients 18 years of age or older undergoing gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma in Finland during 2005-2016. Logistic regression provided odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), both crude and adjusted for key confounders. Different types of complications were graded based on the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group definitions, and major complications were assessed by the Clavien-Dindo scale. RESULTS: This study analyzed 769 patients. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not increase major postoperative complications after gastrectomy for gastric cancer compared with upfront surgery (OR, 1.12; 95% CI 0.81-1.56). Furthermore, it did not increase pneumonia, anastomotic complications, wound complications, or other complications. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant therapy is not associated with increased postoperative complications, reoperations, or short-term mortality compared with upfront surgery in gastric adenocarcinoma.

Population-based nationwide incidence of complications after gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma in Finland.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of postoperative complications after gastrectomy for gastric cancer is not well known. More population-based studies using established complication classifications are needed for international comparison. The aim of this study was to evaluate the population-based incidence of postoperative complications after gastrectomy for gastric cancer. METHODS: This population-based study based on the Finnish National Esophago-Gastric Cancer Cohort included all patients at least 18 years of age undergoing gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma in Finland during 2005-2016. The occurrence of complications 30 and 90 days after surgery was graded based on the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group definitions and the severity of complications was assessed using the Clavien-Dindo scale. RESULTS: This study included a total of 2196 patients. Postoperative complications occurred in 906 (41.3 per cent) of patients during 30 days after surgery and in 946 (43.1 per cent) during 90 days after surgery. Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher complications occurred in 375 (17.1 per cent) of patients. The most common complications 90 days after surgery by Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group upper-level categories were gastrointestinal (n = 438; 19.9 per cent), including anastomotic leak, infectious (n = 377; 17.2 per cent) and pulmonary (n = 335; 15.3 per cent) complications. Postoperative mortality rate was occurred in 72 (3.3 per cent) patients within 30 days and in 161 (7.3 per cent) patients within 90 days after surgery. The median duration of postoperative hospital stay was 9 days (interquartile range 4-14). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative complications are common across all types of gastrectomy and the majority occur during the first 30 postoperative days. This study informs the patients and caregivers of the expected outcomes of gastrectomy.

Preoperative Esophageal Stenting and 5-Year Survival in Patients Undergoing Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: a Population-Based Nationwide Study from Finland.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative esophageal stenting is proposed to have a negative effect on outcomes. The aim was to compare a 5-year survival in patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer with and without preoperative esophageal stent in a population-based nationwide cohort from Finland. The secondary outcome was 90-day mortality. METHODS: This study included curatively intended esophagectomies for esophageal cancer in Finland between 1999 and 2016, with follow-up until December 31, 2019. Cox proportional hazards models provided hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of overall 5-year and 90-day mortality. Model 1 was adjusted for age, sex, year of the surgery, comorbidities, histology, pathological stage, and neoadjuvant therapy. Model 2 included also albumin level and BMI. RESULT: Of 1064 patients, a total of 134 patients underwent preoperative stenting and 930 did not. In both adjusted models 1 and 2, higher 5-year mortality was seen in patients with preoperative stent with HRs of 1.29 (95% CI 1.00-1.65) and 1.25 (95% CI 0.97-1.62), respectively, compared to no stenting. The adjusted HR of 90-day mortality was 2.49 (95% CI 1.27-4.87) in model 1 and 2.49 (95% CI 1.25-4.99) in model 2. When including only neoadjuvant-treated patients, those with preoperative stent had a 5-year survival of 39.2% compared to 46.4% without stent (adjusted HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.00-1.80), and a 90-day mortality rate of 8.5% and 2.5% (adjusted HR 3.99, 95% CI 1.51-10.50). DISCUSSION: This nationwide study reports worse 5-year and 90-day outcomes in patients with preoperative esophageal stent. Since residual confounding remains possible, observed difference could be only an association rather than the cause.

Five-year Survival after McKeown Compared to Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Population-based Nationwide Study in Finland.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of study was to compare overall 5-year survival of esophageal cancer patients undergoing transthoracic esophagectomy with either neck or intrathoracic anastomosis, that is, McKeown and Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. BACKGROUND: No national studies comparing long-term survival after McKeown and ivor-Lewis esophagectomies in the West exist. METHODS: This population-based nationwide study included all curatively intended transthoracic esophagectomies for esophageal adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma in Finland in 1987 to 2016, with follow-up until December 31, 2019. Cox proportional hazard models provided hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (ci) of all-cause 5-year mortality. The results were adjusted for age, sex, year of the operation, comorbidities, histology, stage, and neoadjuvant treatment. Adjusted model 2 included also tumor location and lymph node yield. RESULTS: A total of 990 patients underwent McKeown (n = 278) or Ivor-Lewis (n = 712) esophagectomy The observed overall 5-year survival was 43.1% after McKeown, and 45.9% after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. McKeown esophagectomy was not associated with the overall 5-year mortality (adjusted HR 1.11, 95% CI: 0.89-1.38), compared to Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. Additional adjustment for tumor location and lymphadenectomy further attenuated the point estimate (HR 1.06, 95% CI: 0.85-1.33). Surgical approach was not associated with 90-day mortality rate (adjusted HR 1.15, 95% CI: 0.67-1.97). CONCLUSIONS: This population-based nationwide study suggests that overall 5-year survival or 90-day survival with McKeown and Ivor-Lewis esopha-gectomy for esophageal cancer are comparable.

Long-Term Survival After Transhiatal Versus Transthoracic Esophagectomy: A Population-Based Nationwide Study in Finland.

BACKGROUND: No population-based studies comparing long-term survival after transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) and transthoracic esophagectomy (TTE) exist. This study aimed to compare the 5-year survival of esophageal cancer patients undergoing THE or TTE in a population-based nationwide setting. METHODS: This study included all curatively intended THE and TTE for esophageal cancer in Finland during 1987-2016, with follow-up evaluation until 31 December 2019. Cox proportional hazard models provided hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of 5-year and 90-day mortality. The results were adjusted for age, sex, year of operation, comorbidities, histology, neoadjuvant treatment, and pathologic stage. RESULTS: A total of 1338 patients underwent THE (n = 323) or TTE (n = 1015). The observed 5-year survival rate was 39.3% after THE and 45.0% after TTE (p = 0.072). In adjusted model 1, THE was not associated with greater 5-year mortality (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.82-1.20) than TTE. In adjusted model 2, including T stage instead of pathologic stage, the 5-year mortality hazard rates after THE (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72-1.05) and TTE were comparable. The 90-day mortality rate for THE was higher than for TTE (adjusted HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.45-1.14). In subgroup analyses, no differences between THE and TTE were observed in Siewert II gastroesophageal junction cancers, esophageal cancers, or pN0 tumors, nor in the comparison of THE and TTE with two-field lymphadenectomy. The sensitivity analysis, including patients with missing patient records, who underwent surgery during 1996-2016 mirrored the main analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This Finnish population-based nationwide study suggests no difference in 5-year or 90-day mortality after THE and TTE for esophageal cancer.

The association between appendicitis severity and patient age with appendiceal neoplasm histology-a population-based study.

PURPOSE: Recent studies have reported alarming appendiceal tumor rates associated with complicated acute appendicitis, especially in patients presenting with a periappendicular abscess. However, the data on histology of appendiceal tumors among acute appendicitis patients is limited, especially in patient cohorts differentiating between uncomplicated and complicated acute appendicitis. We have previously reported the association of increased appendiceal tumor prevalence with complicated acute appendicitis in this population-based study. The objective of this secondary analysis was to evaluate the association of both appendicitis severity and patient age with appendiceal tumor histology. METHODS: This nationwide population-based registry study (The Finnish Cancer Registry) was conducted from 2007 to 2013. All appendiceal tumors (n = 840) and available medical reports (n = 504) of these patients at eight study hospitals were previously evaluated, identifying altogether 250 patients with both acute appendicitis and appendiceal tumor. RESULTS: The severity of acute appendicitis was significantly associated with more malignant tumor histology. The risk of adenocarcinoma or pseudomyxoma was significantly higher among patients with periappendicular abscess (OR 15.05, CI 95% 6.98-32.49, p < 0.001) and patients presenting with perforated acute appendicitis (OR 4.09, CI 95% 1.69-9.90, p = 0.0018) compared to patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis. Similarly, patient age over 40 years was significantly associated with the risk of adenocarcinoma and pseudomyxoma (OR 26.46, Cl 95% 7.95-88.09, p < 0.001). Patient sex was not associated with a more malignant appendiceal tumor histology (p = 0.67). CONCLUSION: More malignant appendiceal tumor histology of adenocarcinoma or pseudomyxoma was significantly associated with patient age over 40 years and complicated acute appendicitis, especially periappendicular abscess.

Correction to: Appendicolith appendicitis is clinically complicated acute appendicitis-is it histopathologically different from uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

The authors regrets that a typo error found on their published paper. The correction are as follows.

The Accuracy of Low-dose Computed Tomography Protocol in Patients With Suspected Acute Appendicitis: The OPTICAP Study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare diagnostic accuracy of contrast enhanced low-dose computed tomography (CT) accomplished in the OPTICAP trial phantom phase to standard CT in patients with suspected acute appendicitis. BACKGROUND: Increasing use of CT as the gold standard in diagnosing acute appendicitis has raised concerns regarding radiation exposure. Unenhanced low-dose CT protocols have shown similar diagnostic accuracy with standard CT for diagnosing appendicitis. To our knowledge, there are no other trials in which the same patient with suspected acute appendicitis underwent both standard and low-dose CT allowing interpatient comparison. METHODS: OPTICAP is an interpatient protocol sequence randomized noninferiority single-center trial performed at Turku University Hospital between November, 2015 and August, 2016. Sixty patients with suspected acute appendicitis and body mass index <30 kg/m were enrolled to undergo both standard and low-dose contrast enhanced CT scans, which were categorized as normal, uncomplicated or complicated appendicitis by 2 radiologists in blinded manner. All patients with CT confirmed appendicitis underwent appendectomy to obtain histopathology. RESULTS: The low-dose protocol was not inferior to standard protocol in terms of diagnostic accuracy; 79% [95% confidence interval (CI) 66%-89%) accurate diagnosis in low-dose and 80% (95% CI 67%-90%) in standard CT by primary radiologist. Accuracy to categorize appendicitis severity was 79% for both protocols. The mean radiation dose of low-dose CT was significantly lower compared with standard CT (3.33 and 4.44 mSv, respectively). CONCLUSION: Diagnostic accuracy of contrast enhanced low-dose CT was not inferior to standard CT in diagnosing acute appendicitis or distinguishing between uncomplicated and complicated acute appendicitis in patients with a high likelihood of acute appendicitis. Low-dose CT enabled significant radiation dose reduction.

Appendicolith appendicitis is clinically complicated acute appendicitis-is it histopathologically different from uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

PURPOSE: Acute appendicitis may present as uncomplicated and complicated and these disease forms differ both epidemiologically and clinically. Complicated acute appendicitis has traditionally been defined as an appendicitis complicated by perforation or a periappendicular abscess, and an appendicolith represents a predisposing factor of complicated disease. There are histopathological differences between uncomplicated acute appendicitis and the previously established traditional forms of complicated acute appendicitis, but to our knowledge, the histopathological differences between uncomplicated acute appendicitis and complicated acute appendicitis presenting with an appendicolith have not yet been reported. The study purpose was to assess these differences with two prospective patient cohorts: (1) computed tomography (CT) confirmed uncomplicated acute appendicitis patients enrolled in the surgical treatment arm of the randomized APPAC trial comparing appendectomy with antibiotics for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis and (2) patients with CT-verified acute appendicitis presenting with an appendicolith excluded from the APPAC trial. METHODS: The following histopathological parameters were assessed: appendiceal diameter, depth of inflammation, micro-abscesses, density of eosinophils, and neutrophils in appendiceal wall and surface epithelium degeneration. RESULTS: Using multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for age, gender, and symptom duration, statistically significant differences were detected in the depth of inflammation ≤ 2.8 mm (adjusted OR 2.18 (95%CI: 1.29-3.71, p = 0.004), micro-abscesses (adjusted OR 2.16 (95%CI: 1.22-3.83, p = 0.008), the number of eosinophils and neutrophils ≥ 150/mm2 (adjusted OR 0.97 (95%CI: 0.95-0.99, p = 0.013), adjusted OR 3.04 (95%CI: 1.82-5.09, p < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These results corroborate the known clinical association of an appendicolith to complicated acute appendicitis.

Appendiceal neoplasm risk associated with complicated acute appendicitis-a population based study.

PURPOSE: Appendiceal tumors are rare, but high neoplasm rates have been reported at interval appendectomy after periappendicular abscess. Non-operative management of uncomplicated acute appendicitis has shown promising results. The data on appendiceal tumor incidence and presentation among acute appendicitis patients is limited, especially in patient cohorts differentiating between uncomplicated and complicated acute appendicitis. Objective was to assess appendiceal tumor incidence and tumor association to appendicitis in patients with uncomplicated and complicated acute appendicitis. METHODS: This nationwide population-based registry study was conducted from 2007 to 2013. The Finnish Cancer Registry and the National Institute for Health Registry were used to combine data on all appendiceal tumors and acute appendicitis diagnosis with medical reports evaluated at eight study hospitals. RESULTS: Altogether, 840 appendiceal tumors were identified, and out of these, 504 patient reports were reviewed, including 472 patients in this study. Tumor was diagnosed at appendectomy for suspected acute appendicitis in 276 patients (58%). In the whole study, histologically acute appendicitis and tumor were both present in 53% (n = 250), and out of these, 41% (n = 102) were complicated and 59% (n = 148) uncomplicated acute appendicitis. The associated tumor risk was significantly higher in complicated acute appendicitis compared with uncomplicated cases (3.24% vs. 0.87%, p < 0.001). Overall tumor prevalence among acute appendicitis patients was 1.24%. CONCLUSIONS: Appendiceal tumor prevalence in acute appendicitis was low. Tumor risk was significantly higher in complicated acute appendicitis compared with uncomplicated acute appendicitis. The risk of missed appendiceal tumors related to antibiotic therapy of uncomplicated acute appendicitis is very low.

Is preoperative distinction between complicated and uncomplicated acute appendicitis feasible without imaging?

BACKGROUND: One of the main aims of appendicitis research is the differential diagnostics between complicated and uncomplicated acute appendicitis that enable provision of the optimal treatment for each patient. METHODS: Data in the present study were collected prospectively in our randomized antibiotic treatment for uncomplicated acute appendicitis trial (APPAC) comparing surgery and antibiotic treatment for uncomplicated acute appendicitis (NCT01022567). We evaluated 705 patients who had acute appendicitis on computed tomography. Patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis (n = 368) were compared with all complicated acute appendicitis patients (n = 337), and subgroup analyses were performed between uncomplicated acute appendicitis and an appendicolith appendicitis (CA1; n = 256) and uncomplicated acute appendicitis and perforation and/or abscess (CA2; n = 78). Age, sex, body temperature (°C), duration of symptoms, white blood cell count (E9/L), and C-reactive protein (mg/L) were recorded on admission. Receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated for white blood cell count, C-reactive protein, and temperature. RESULTS: CA2 patients had significantly greater C-reactive protein levels (mean 122 and 47, respectively, P < .001) and longer duration of symptoms than uncomplicated acute appendicitis patients; 81% of CA2 patients and 38% of uncomplicated acute appendicitis patients had symptoms >24 hours before admission (P < .001). In receiver operating characteristic analysis, C-reactive protein and temperature had clinically significant results only in comparison with uncomplicated acute appendicitis and CA2 (area under the curve >0.7), but no optimum cutoff points could be identified. CONCLUSION: In clinical decision making, neither clinical findings nor laboratory markers are reliable enough to estimate the severity of the acute appendicitis accurately or to determine the presence of an appendicolith. The current results emphasize the role of computed tomography in the differential diagnosis of complicated and uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

Clinical and laboratory findings in the diagnosis of right lower quadrant abdominal pain: outcome analysis of the APPAC trial.

BACKGROUND: The current research on acute appendicitis aims to improve the diagnostics and to clarify to whom antibiotic treatment might be the treatment of choice. METHODS: The present study is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected data in our randomized multicenter trial comparing surgery and antibiotic treatment for acute uncomplicated appendicitis (APPAC trial, NCTO1022567). We evaluated 1321 patients with a clinical suspicion of acute appendicitis, who underwent computed tomography (CT). Age, gender, body temperature, pain scores, the duration of symptoms, white blood cell count (WBC) and C-reactive protein (CRP) were recorded on admission. RESULTS: CT confirmed the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in 73% (n=970) and in 27% (n=351) it revealed no or other diagnosis. Acute appendicitis patients had significantly higher WBC levels than patients without appendicitis (median 12.2 and 10.0, respectively, p<0.0001), whereas CRP levels did not differ between the two groups. Ideal cut-off points were assessed with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, but neither these markers or neither their combination nor any clinical characteristic could accurately differentiate between patients with acute appendicitis and those without. The proportion of patients with normal WBC count and CRP was significantly (p=0.0007) lower in patients with acute appendicitis than in patients without appendicitis. CONCLUSIONS: Both clinical findings and laboratory tests are unable to reliably distinguish between patients with acute appendicitis and those without. If both WBC count and CRP are normal, acute appendicitis is very unlikely. The current results emphasize the role of CT imaging in patients with suspected acute appendicitis.