Organ Preservation in Rectal Cancer: An Overview of the Dutch Perspective and Recent Developments.

Although current guidelines on rectal cancer treatment often recommend rectal resection with or without neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy, there is growing interest in organ-preserving treatment approaches among patients and clinicians in the Netherlands. Currently, multiple ongoing studies are investigating the value of different non-operative treatment modalities to improve tumour response rates and increase the chance of successful organ preservation. Papillon contact X-ray brachytherapy is a promising treatment modality to improve the chance of organ preservation, which seems especially relevant for elderly and frail patients unable or refusing to undergo total mesorectal excision surgery. The elderly and frail patient with rectal cancer poses a significant challenge and warrants a thorough multidisciplinary approach to provide the most optimal organ-preserving treatment. In this overview, an insight into the Dutch perspectives and developments within the field of organ preservation and the set-up of a Papillon facility to complete the spectrum of organ-preserving treatment options in a tertiary referral centre for rectal cancer treatment has been provided.

Outcomes on diverting ostomy formation and reversal after low anterior resection in the older more advanced rectal cancer patient.

BACKGROUND: To decrease morbidity caused by anastomotic leakages after a low anterior resection (LAR) with primary anastomosis, a diverting ostomy is often created. Reversal of a diverting ostomy is associated with morbidity, which may result in non-reversal, particularly in the elderly. This study aimed to describe the diverting ostomy-related outcomes in elderly patients with more advanced rectal cancer after LAR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All rectosigmoid and rectal cancer patients ≥70 years who underwent LAR with primary anastomosis between 2006 and 2019 in the Catharina Hospital (Eindhoven, The Netherlands) were included for analyses. Reversal rates, ostomy-related complications, morbidity and mortality after ostomy reversal, and definitive ostomy rates were evaluated. RESULTS: In total 164 patients were included, of which 150 (91.5%) underwent primary or secondary ostomy creation. Ostomy-related complications were reported in 34.7% (95%-CI 27.1-42.9%). In total, 72.5% (95%-CI 64.2-79.7%) reversed their diverting ostomy. Non-reversal was mostly due to relapsing disease (52.6%). Median time to ostomy reversal was 3.2 months (IQR 2.3-5.0). No or minor complications after ostomy reversal were observed in 84.0% (95%-CI 75.3-90.6%). Over time, ostomy recreation was performed in 15.0% (95%-CI 8.6-23.5%), and ultimately 65.8% (95%-CI 57.8-73.2%) were ostomy-free after the median follow-up of 3.8 years. CONCLUSION: Although most elderly successfully reversed their diverting ostomy after LAR with limited morbidity, attention should be paid for the risk of non-reversal and ostomy recreation over time. Preoperative patient counselling is important in every individual to be able to decide if LAR with primary anastomosis or a permanent end colostomy is preferred.

Age-related differences in morbidity and mortality after surgery for primary clinical T4 and locally recurrent rectal cancer.

AIM: Outcomes in elderly patients (≥75 years) with non-advanced colorectal cancer have improved. It is unclear whether this is also true for elderly patients with clinical T4 rectal cancer (cT4RC) or locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). We aimed to compare age-related differences in morbidity and mortality after curative treatment for cT4RC and LRRC. METHODS: All cT4RC and LRRC patients without distant metastasis who underwent curative surgery between 2005 and 2017 in the Catharina Hospital (Eindhoven, The Netherlands) were included. Morbidity and mortality were evaluated based on age (<75 and ≥75 years) and date of surgery (2005-2011 and 2012-2017). RESULTS: Overall, 72 of 474 (15.2%) cT4RC and 53 of 293 (18.1%) LRRC patients were ≥75 years. No significant differences in the incidence of Clavien-Dindo I-IV complications were observed between age groups. However, in elderly cT4RC patients, cerebrovascular accidents occurred more frequently (4.2% vs. 0.5%, P = 0.03). Between 2005-2011 and 2012-2017, 30-day mortality improved from 7.5% to 3.1% and from 10.0% to 0.0% in elderly cT4RC and LRRC patients, respectively. The 1-year mortality during 2012-2017 was worse in elderly than in younger patients (28.1% vs. 6.2%, P = 0.001 for cT4RC and 27.3% vs. 13.8%, P = 0.06 for LRRC). In elderly cT4RC and LRRC patients, 44.4% and 46.2% died due to non-cancer-related causes, while only 27.8% and 23.1% died due to disease recurrence, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although the 30-day mortality in elderly cT4RC and LRRC patients improved after curative treatment, the 1-year mortality in elderly patients continued to be high, which requires more awareness for the elderly after hospitalization.

When and how should surgery be performed in senior colorectal cancer patients?

Older studies reported high rates of postoperative morbidity and mortality in the senior population, which lead to a tendency to withhold curative surgery in the older population. However, more recent studies showed impressing developments in postoperative outcomes in seniors. Probably, these improvements are due to enhancements in both surgical and non-surgical aspects in the pre-, peri- and postoperative period, such as minimally invasive techniques and anesthesiological insights. The postoperative survival gap seen earlier between younger and older patients is fading. For optimal treatment in the older population, special awareness and care on several aspects is needed. As only a minority of the seniors are frail, a quick frailty assessment is crucial to distinguish the fit from the frail in the decision-making process. In addition, it could be valuable to improve the lacks in physical condition in the preoperative period with the use of prehabilitation programs. Furthermore, it is important to evolve an emergency to an elective setting by postponing emergency surgery to prevent any high-risk situation. In conclusion, based on modern insights, surgery is a valid option in the curative treatment of colorectal cancer in seniors, however individual attention and care is required.

Significant improvement in postoperative and 1-year mortality after colorectal cancer surgery in recent years.

BACKGROUND: In earlier studies an association between older patients and higher morbidity and mortality after colorectal surgery is shown, especially in the first postoperative year. We conducted this study to investigate if there is improvement in postoperative morbidity and mortality in senior CRC patients over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients, except those with distant metastasis, who received curative CRC surgery between 2006 and 2017 in the Catharina Hospital (Eindhoven, the Netherlands) were selected retrospectively. Differences in mortality and relative survival between different age groups (<75 and ≥ 75 years), period of surgery (2006-2012 and 2013-2017) and type of tumor (colon and rectum) were investigated. RESULTS: In total 2018 patients, of whom 57.4% is male, were selected (n = 1037 colon and n = 981 rectum). 615 (30.5%) patients were ≥75 years old. For electively treated CRC patients aged ≥75 years 30- and 90-day mortality improved from 5.8% to 1.2% (p = 0.004) and 9.1% to 4.6% (p = 0.043) respectively, in favour of the latest time period. Relative one-year survival rates of all electively treated CRC patients were not significantly different between younger and older patients in the latest time period (95.5% vs. 94.3%, p = n.s.). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows significant improvement in postoperative morbidity and mortality over time for both age and treatment groups. Relative survival rates improved especially for older patients and no significant differences were seen between both age groups. Senior CRC patients should not be withheld curative treatment based on age or comorbidities alone.