Patient-reported outcomes after oesophagectomy in the multicentre LASER study.

BACKGROUND: Data on the long-term symptom burden in patients surviving oesophageal cancer surgery are scarce. The aim of this study was to identify the most prevalent symptoms and their interactions with health-related quality of life. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional cohort study of patients who underwent oesophageal cancer surgery in 20 European centres between 2010 and 2016. Patients had to be disease-free for at least 1 year. They were asked to complete a 28-symptom questionnaire at a single time point, at least 1 year after surgery. Principal component analysis was used to assess for clustering and association of symptoms. Risk factors associated with the development of severe symptoms were identified by multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: Of 1081 invited patients, 876 (81.0 per cent) responded. Symptoms in the preceding 6 months associated with previous surgery were experienced by 586 patients (66.9 per cent). The most common severe symptoms included reduced energy or activity tolerance (30.7 per cent), feeling of early fullness after eating (30.0 per cent), tiredness (28.7 per cent), and heartburn/acid or bile regurgitation (19.6 per cent). Clustering analysis showed that symptoms clustered into six domains: lethargy, musculoskeletal pain, dumping, lower gastrointestinal symptoms, regurgitation/reflux, and swallowing/conduit problems; the latter two were the most closely associated. Surgical approach, neoadjuvant therapy, patient age, and sex were factors associated with severe symptoms. CONCLUSION: A long-term symptom burden is common after oesophageal cancer surgery.

Gastrointestinal side effects of upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery.

In this chapter, we describe the gastrointestinal side effects of oesophagectomy, gastrectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer, with a focus on long-term functional impairments and their management. Improvements in upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery have led to a growing group of long-term survivors. The invasive nature of these surgeries profoundly alters the upper gastrointestinal anatomy, with lasting implications for long-term function, and how these impairments may be treated. Successfully maintaining a high quality of survivorship requires multidisciplinary approach, with survivorship care plans focused on function as much as the detection of recurrence.

Annual computed tomography scans do not improve outcomes following esophagectomy for cancer: a 10-year UK experience.

Evidence for the best approach to follow-up patients after esophagectomy for cancer is scant and conflicting, and has led to a wide variety in practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether our annual routine computed tomography (aCT) scan program changes outcomes. A retrospective review of 169 patients who underwent esophagectomy for cancer in our unit between 2001 and 2010 was performed. aCT scan was part of follow-up in all patients to 5 years. Minimum follow-up was 37 months. The primary outcome measure was survival. Recurrence was detected in 61 cases (36%). aCT scan diagnosed recurrence in only a minority of cases (17 cases, 28%). In the majority of patients, clinical evidence prompted an unplanned CT scan (uCT; 44 cases, 72%). There was no difference in unadjusted survival between the two groups (hazard ratio = 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.34-1.08, P = 0.090), nor was one more likely to receive secondary oncological treatment (aCT 41% vs. uCT 44%, P = 1.000). When we adjusted survival patterns for confounding covariates, the uCT cohort showed a protective effect (hazard ratio = 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.28-0.98, P = 0.042). These data suggest that aCT scans do not influence management or survival after esophagectomy. A consensus follow-up protocol for patients treated for esophageal cancer remains to be established.

Use of the surgical Apgar score to guide postoperative care.

INTRODUCTION: The surgical Apgar score (SAS) can predict 30-day major complications or death after surgery. Studies have validated the score in different patient populations and suggest it should be used to objectively guide postoperative care. We aimed to see whether using the SAS in a decisive approach in a future randomised controlled trial (RCT) would be likely to demonstrate an effect on postoperative care and clinical outcome. METHODS: A total of 143 adults undergoing general/vascular surgery in 9 National Health Service hospitals were recruited to a pilot single blinded RCT and the data for 139 of these were analysed. Participants were randomised to a control group with standard postoperative care or to an intervention group with care influenced (but not mandated) by the SAS (decisive approach). The notional primary outcome was 30-day major complications or death. RESULTS: Incidence of major complications was similar in both groups (control: 20/69 [29%], intervention: 23/70 [33%], p=0.622). Immediate admissions to the critical care unit was higher in the intervention group, especially in the SAS 0-4 subgroup (4/6 vs 2/7) although this was not statistically significant (p=0.310). Validity was also confirmed in area under the curve (AUC) analysis (AUC: 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study found that a future RCT to investigate the effect of using the SAS in a decisive approach may demonstrate a difference in postoperative care. However, significant changes to the design are needed if differences in clinical outcome are to be achieved reliably. These would include a wider array of postoperative interventions implemented using a quality improvement approach in a stepped wedge cluster design with blinded collection of outcome data.

Total mesorectal excision for cancer following ventral mesh rectopexy.

Since the introduction of ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse, concern exists as to how this may interfere with subsequent rectal cancer surgery. To our knowledge, this is the first report of total mesorectal excision for cancer after such a rectopexy. We discuss surgical technique, pitfalls encountered and oncological outcome.

The diagnostic value of white cell count, C-reactive protein and bilirubin in acute appendicitis and its complications.

INTRODUCTION: Inflammatory markers such as white cell count (WCC) and C-reactive protein (CRP) and, more recently, bilirubin have been used as adjuncts in the diagnosis of appendicitis. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the above markers in acute and perforated appendicitis as well as their value in excluding the condition. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 1,169 appendicectomies was performed. Patients were grouped according to histological examination of appendicectomy specimens (normal appendix = NA, acute appendicitis = AA, perforated appendicitis = PA) and preoperative laboratory test results were correlated. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve area analysis (area under the curve [AUC]) was performed to examine diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: ROC analysis of all laboratory variables showed that no independent variable was diagnostic for AA. Good diagnostic accuracy was seen for AA when all variables were combined (WCC/CRP/bilirubin combined AUC: 0.8173). In PA, the median CRP level was significantly higher than that of AA (158mg/l vs 30mg, p<0.0001). CRP also showed the highest sensitivity (100%) and negative predictive value (100%) for PA. CRP had the highest diagnostic accuracy in PA (AUC: 0.9322) and this was increased when it was combined with WCC (AUC: 0.9388). Bilirubin added no diagnostic value in PA. Normal levels of WCC, CRP and bilirubin could not rule out appendicitis. CONCLUSIONS: CRP provides the highest diagnostic accuracy for PA. Bilirubin did not provide any discriminatory value for AA and its complications. Normal inflammatory markers cannot exclude appendicitis, which remains a clinical diagnosis.