Role of Adjuvant Chemotherapy After Curative Resection in Stage II and III Rectal Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with resected locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and an incomplete total mesorectal excision (TME) have worse oncologic outcomes. The associations between TME grade, adjuvant therapy receipt, and oncologic outcomes have not been well-studied. We aimed to determine the association between adjuvant chemotherapy and oncologic outcomes in patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) or short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) followed by proctectomy and to evaluate this association stratified by TME grade. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed a retrospective multi-institutional cohort of primary LARC patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2018 who received neoadjuvant CRT/SCRT followed by proctectomy. Complete TME was defined as complete mesorectal excision, and noncomplete TME was defined as near-complete or incomplete TME. We used adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression to test the association between adjuvant chemotherapy and mortality or locoregional recurrence (LRR) across groups. RESULTS: We identified 746 eligible patients. On final pathology, 101 (13.5%) had noncomplete and 645 (86.5%) had complete TME. Rates of adjuvant chemotherapy receipt were similar between noncomplete and complete TME groups (70.3% and 69.5%, respectively). Mean follow-up interval was 35 mo. Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with lower risk of mortality (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.19-0.39, P < 0.001); the same association existed when stratifying patients by TME grade. For patients with a complete TME, adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with lower LRR (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01-0.56, P = 0.01). The LRR model for the noncomplete TME group did not converge due to few captured recurrences. CONCLUSIONS: These data show an association between adjuvant chemotherapy and positive outcomes in LARC patients receiving neoadjuvant CRT/SCRT followed by proctectomy.

Association of omental pedicled flap with anastomotic leak following low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Anastomotic leak following colorectal anastomosis adversely impacts short-term, oncologic, and quality-of-life outcomes. This study aimed to assess the impact of omental pedicled flap (OPF) on anastomotic leak among patients undergoing low anastomotic resection (LAR) for rectal cancer using a multi-institutional database. METHODS: Adult rectal cancer patients in the US Rectal Cancer Consortium, who underwent a LAR for stage I-III rectal cancer with or without an OPF were included. Patients with missing data for surgery type and OPF use were excluded from the analysis. The primary outcome was the development of anastomotic leaks. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the association. RESULTS: A total of 853 patients met the inclusion criteria and OPF was used in 106 (12.4%) patients. There was no difference in age, sex, or tumor stage of patients who underwent OPF versus those who did not. OPF use was not associated with an anastomotic leak (p = 0.82), or operative blood loss (p = 0.54) but was associated with an increase in the operative duration [ß = 21.42 (95% confidence interval = 1.16, 41.67) p = 0.04]. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing LAR for rectal cancer, OPF use was associated with an increase in operative duration without any impact on the rate of anastomotic leak.

Short-course radiation with consolidation chemotherapy does not increase operative morbidity compared to long-course chemoradiation: A retrospective study of the US rectal cancer consortium.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Neoadjuvant short-course radiation and consolidation chemotherapy (SC TNT) remains less widely used for rectal cancer in the United States than long-course chemoradiation (LCRT). SC TNT may improve compliance and downstaging; however, a longer radiation-to-surgery interval may worsen pelvic fibrosis and morbidity with total mesorectal excision (TME). A single, US-center retrospective analysis has shown comparable risk of morbidity after neoadjuvant short-course radiation with consolidation chemotherapy (SC TNT) and long-course chemoradiation (LCRT). Validation by a multi-institutional study is needed. METHODS: The US Rectal Cancer Consortium database (2010-2018) was retrospectively reviewed for patients with nonmetastatic, rectal adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant LCRT or SC TNT before TME. The primary endpoint was severe postoperative morbidity. Cohorts were compared by univariate analysis. Multivariable logistic regression modeled the odds of severe complication. RESULTS: Of 788 included patients, 151 (19%) received SC TNT and 637 (81%) LCRT. The SC TNT group had fewer distal tumors (33.8% vs. 50.2%, p < 0.0001) and more clinical node-positive disease (74.2% vs. 47.6%, p < 0.0001). The intraoperative complication rate was similar (SC TNT 5.3% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.65). There was no difference in overall postoperative morbidity (38.4% vs. 46.3%, p = 0.08). Severe morbidity was similar with low anterior resection (9.1% vs. 15.3%, p = 0.10) and abdominoperineal resection (24.4% vs. 29.7%, p = 0.49). SC TNT did not increase the odds of severe morbidity relative to LCRT on multivariable analysis (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.37-1.10). CONCLUSIONS: SC TNT does not increase morbidity after TME for rectal cancer relative to LCRT. Concern for surgical complications should not discourage the use of SC TNT when aiming to increase the likelihood of complete clinical response.

Is There a Role for Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Pathologic Node-Negative Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Therapy?

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (NCRT, 5-fluorouracil and radiation) followed by resection and adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) is one of the standard treatment paradigms for locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma. However, the utility of AC in patients with pathologic lymph node (pLN)-negative disease is unclear. Our aim is to assess the value of AC stratified by pLN status. METHODS: The US Rectal Cancer Consortium database (2007-2017) was retrospectively reviewed for patients with clinical stage II and III rectal adenocarcinoma who received neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NACR) and curative-intent resection. Those who received neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy or underwent local resection were excluded. Patients were categorized by pLN status. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of 213 patients, 70% had pLN-negative disease and 30% pLN-positive disease. Median age was 57 years, 65% were male, and median follow-up was 31 months. Among patients with pLN-negative disease, 74% received AC. Receipt of AC was not associated with improved 5-year OS (82% versus 74%, respectively; p = 0.16). This finding persisted on multivariable analysis. Of patients with pLN-positive disease, 83% received AC. Patients with pLN-positive disease demonstrated improved 5-year OS with receipt of AC (72% compared with 0% with no adjuvant chemotherapy, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: After receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiation, adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with pLN-negative disease does not appear to be associated with improved survival. Further validation and prospective studies are needed to evaluate the utility of adjuvant chemotherapy in this setting.

Discharge Prescribing Protocol Decreases Opioids in Circulation and Does Not Increase Refills After Colorectal Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Up to 10% of patients develop new, persistent opioid use after surgery. We aimed to assess our prescribing practices and patient utilization of opioids after colorectal surgery. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to implement an opioid-prescribing protocol that will minimize the number of postoperative opioids to decrease community circulation and persistent use by patients. DESIGN: This was a single-institution, prospective study based on questionnaires of postoperative patients in 2019 and 2020 to determine opioid prescribing and usage patterns. Based on these preliminary results, a protocol was implemented in which patients were discharged with 5 or 15 oxycodone 5 mg equivalents based on opioid usage in the 24 hours before discharge. Patients were surveyed after protocol implementation. SETTINGS: Our institution is a large referral center for surgical treatment of colorectal disease. PATIENTS: Adults who underwent inpatient abdominal colorectal procedures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: End points included the number of opioids prescribed, number of prescribed opioids taken, and refill rate. Nonparametric testing was used. RESULTS: Of 77 eligible patients, 61 were opioid naive. Preprotocol, opioid-naive patients (n = 29) were prescribed a median of 30 (interquartile range [IQR], 30-45) tablets but took only 10 (IQR, 0-10; p < 0.0001). Eighty-three percent took 20 or fewer tablets. After protocol implementation, opioid-naive patients (n = 32) were prescribed fewer tablets (median 15; IQR, 7-15; p < 0.0001) but took a similar number of tablets as the preprotocol group (median 10; IQR, 0-10; p = 0.21). The refill rate remained similar (13.8% vs 18.8%; p = 0.60). Protocol adherence was 90.6%. LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by sample size, cohort heterogeneity, and generalizability. CONCLUSIONS: Patients took significantly fewer opioids than were prescribed. Our protocol limited overprescribing and resulted in fewer opioids in the community without opportunity costs such as increased refills. Long-term studies are needed to assess the effects of persistent opioid use after surgery. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C93 .

ANTECEDENTES: Hasta el 10% de los pacientes desarrollan un nuevo uso persistente de opioides después de la cirugía. Nuestro objetivo fue evaluar nuestras prácticas de prescripción y la utilización de opioides por parte de los pacientes después de la cirugía colorrectal. OBJETIVO: Nuestro objetivo es implementar un protocolo de prescripción de opioides que minimice la cantidad de opioides posoperatorios para disminuir la circulación en la comunidad y el uso persistente por parte de los pacientes. DISEÑO: Estudio prospectivo, de una sola institución, basado en cuestionarios de pacientes postoperatorios en 2019 y 2020 para determinar los patrones de prescripción y uso de opioides. Con base en estos resultados preliminares, se implementó un protocolo en el que los pacientes eran dados de alta con 5 o 15 equivalentes de oxicodona de 5 mg según el uso de opioides en las 24 horas previas al alta. Los pacientes fueron encuestados después de la implementación del protocolo. AJUSTES: Nuestra institución es un gran centro de referencia para el tratamiento quirúrgico de la enfermedad colorrectal. PACIENTES: Adultos que se sometieron a procedimientos colorrectales abdominales con hospitalización. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Los criterios de valoración incluyeron el número de opioides recetados, el número de opioides recetados tomados y la tasa de reabastecimiento. Se utilizaron pruebas no paramétricas. RESULTADOS: De 77 pacientes elegibles, 61 no habian recibido opioides. A los pacientes sin tratamiento previo con opioides antes del protocolo (n = 29) se les prescribió una mediana de 30 (rango intercuartilico [RIC] 30­45) comprimidos, pero solo tomaron 10 (RIC 0.10, p < 0,0001). El ochenta y tres por ciento tomo ≤20 comprimidos. Despues de la implementacion del protocolo, a los pacientes sin tratamiento previo con opioides (n = 32) se les prescribieron menos comprimidos (15; RIC 7.15, p < 0,0001), pero tomaron un numero similar antes de la intervención (10; RIC 0­10, p = 0,21). La tasa de reabastecimiento se mantuvo similar (13,8% frente a 18,8%, p = 0,60). La adherencia al protocolo fue del 90,6%. LIMITACIONES: Este estudio está limitado por el tamaño de la muestra, la heterogeneidad de la cohorte y la generalización. CONCLUSIONES: Los pacientes tomaron significativamente menos opioides de los prescritos. Nuestro protocolo limitó la prescripción excesiva y dio como resultados menos opioides en la comunidad sin costos de oportunidad, como el aumento de reabastecimiento. Se necesitan estudios a largo plazo para evaluar los efectos sobre el uso persistente de opioides después de la cirugía. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C93 . (Traducción­Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon).

Circumferential Resection Margin as Predictor of Nonclinical Complete Response in Nonoperative Management of Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Short-course radiation therapy and consolidation chemotherapy with nonoperative intent has emerged as a novel treatment paradigm for patients with rectal cancer, but there are no data on the predictors of clinical complete response. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the predictors of clinical complete response and survival. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTINGS: National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center. PATIENTS: Patients with stage I to III rectal adenocarcinoma treated between January 2018 and May 2019 (n = 86). INTERVENTIONS: Short-course radiation therapy followed by consolidation chemotherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Logistic regression was performed to assess for predictors of clinical complete response. The end points included local regrowth-free survival, regional control, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: A positive (+) circumferential resection margin by MRI at diagnosis was a significant predictor of nonclinical complete response (OR: 4.1, p = 0.009) when adjusting for CEA level and primary tumor size. Compared to patients with a negative (-) pathologic circumferential resection margin, patients with a positive (+) pathologic circumferential resection margin had inferior local regrowth-free survival (29% vs 87%, p < 0.001), regional control (57% vs 94%, p < 0.001), distant metastasis-free survival (43% vs 95%, p < 0.001), and overall survival (86% vs 95%, p < 0.001) at 2 years. However, the (+) and (-) circumferential resection margin by MRI subgroups in patients who had a clinical complete response both had similar regional control, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival of more than 90% at 2 years. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design, modest sample size, short follow-up, and the heterogeneity of treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Circumferential resection margin involvement by MRI at diagnosis is a strong predictor of nonclinical complete response. However, patients who achieve a clinical complete response after short-course radiation therapy and consolidation chemotherapy with nonoperative intent have excellent clinical outcomes regardless of the initial circumferential resection margin status. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C190 . EL MARGEN DE RESECCIN CIRCUNFERENCIAL COMO PREDICTOR NO CLNICO DE RESPUESTA COMPLETA EN EL MANEJO CONSERVADOR DEL CNCER DE RECTO: ANTECEDENTES:La radioterapia de corta duración y la quimioterapia de consolidación en el manejo conservador, han surgido como un nuevo paradigma de tratamiento, para los pacientes con cáncer de recto, lastimosamente no hay datos definitivos sobre los predictores de una respuesta clínica completa.OBJETIVO:Evaluar los predictores de respuesta clínica completa y de la sobrevida.DISEÑO:Estudio retrospectivo de cohortes.AJUSTES:Centro oncológico designado por el NCI.PACIENTES:Adenocarcinomas de recto estadio I-III tratados entre 01/2018 y 05/2019 (n = 86).INTERVENCIONES:Radioterapia de corta duración seguida de quimioterapia de consolidación.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se realizó una regresión logística para evaluar los predictores de respuesta clínica completa. Los criterios de valoración incluyeron la sobrevida libre de recidiva local, el control regional, la sobrevida libre de metástasis a distancia y la sobrevida general.RESULTADOS:Un margen de resección circunferencial positivo (+) evaluado por imagenes de resonancia magnética nuclear en el momento del diagnóstico fue un predictor no clínico muy significativo de respuesta completa (razón de probabilidades/ OR: 4,1, p = 0,009) al ajustar el nivel de antígeno carcinoembrionario y el tamaño del tumor primario. Comparando con los pacientes que presetaban un margen de resección circunferencial patológico negativo (-), los pacientes con un margen de resección circunferencial patológico positivo (+) tuvieron una sobrevida libre de recidiva local (29% frente a 87%, p < 0,001), un control regional (57% frente a 94%, p < 0,001), una sobrevida libre de metástasis a distancia (43% frente a 95%, p < 0,001) y una sobrevida global (86% frente a 95%, p < 0,001) inferior en 2 años de seguimiento. Sin embargo, los subgrupos de margen de resección circunferencial (+) y (-) evaluados por imágenes de resonancia magnética nuclear en pacientes que tuvieron una respuesta clínica completa tuvieron un control regional similar, una sobrevida libre de metástasis a distancia y una sobrevida general >90% en 2 años de seguimiento.LIMITACIONES:Diseño retrospectivo, tamaño modesto de la muestra, seguimiento corto y heterogeneidad de tratamientos.CONCLUSIONES:La afectación del margen de resección circunferencial evaluado por resonancia magnética nuclear al momento del diagnóstico es un fuerte factor predictivo no clínico de respuesta completa. Sin embargo, los pacientes que logran una respuesta clínica completa después de un curso corto de radioterapia y quimioterapia de consolidación como manejo conservador tienen excelentes resultados clínicos independientemente del estado del margen de resección circunferencial inicial. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C190 . (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo ).

Close distal margin is associated with locoregional rectal cancer recurrence: A multicenter study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The importance of the radial margin for rectal cancer resection is well understood. However, surgeons have deemphasized the distal margin, accepting very close distal margins to perform sphincter-preserving surgery. We hypothesized that distal margins < 1 cm would be an independent risk factor for locoregional recurrence. The objective was to determine whether close distal margins are associated with increased locoregional recurrence risk. METHODS: This was a multi-institutional retrospective cohort study conducted at six academic medical centers including patients who received low anterior resection surgery for primary rectal cancer between 2007 and 2018. RESULTS: Of 556 low anterior resection patients, the rate of close distal margin was 12.8% (n = 71), and the locoregional recurrence rate was 5.0% (n = 28). The locoregional recurrence rate for close distal margin cases was 9.9% (n = 7) compared to 4.3% (n = 21) for distal margins ≥1.0 cm. In multivariable analysis, the only factor significantly associated with locoregional recurrence was close distal margin (adjusted odds ratio: 2.80, confidence interval: 1.08-7.25, p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: Rectal cancer patients with close distal margins (<1 cm) following low anterior resection had a significantly higher risk for locoregional recurrence. Therefore, the decision to perform low anterior resection with margins < 1 cm should be taken with caution.

Perioperative Complications After Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer: Does Neoadjuvant Regimen Matter?

OBJECTIVE: Investigate the association between neoadjuvant treatment strategy and perioperative complications in patients undergoing proctectomy for nonmetastatic rectal cancer. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Neoadjuvant SC-TNT is an alternative to neoadjuvant CRT for rectal cancer. Some have argued that short-course radiation and extended radiation-to-surgery intervals increase operative difficulty and complication risk. However, the association between SC-TNT and surgical complications has not been previously investigated. METHODS: This single-center retrospective cohort study included patients undergoing total mesorectal excision for nonmetastatic rectal cancer after SC-TNT or CRT between 2010 and 2018. Univariate analysis of severe POM and multiple secondary outcomes, including overall POM, intraoperative complications, and resection margins, was performed. Logistic regression of severe POM was also performed. RESULTS: Of 415 included patients, 156 (38%) received SC-TNT and 259 (62%) received CRT. The cohorts were largely similar, though patients with higher tumors (69.9% vs 47.5%, P < 0.0001) or node-positive disease (76.9% vs 62.6%, P = 0.004) were more likely to receive SC-TNT. We found no difference in incidence of severe POM (9.6% SC-TNT vs 12.0% CRT, P = 0.46) or overall POM (39.7% SC-TNT vs 37.5% CRT, P = 0.64) between cohorts. Neoadjuvant regimen was also not associated with a difference in severe POM (odds ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.04-4.70, P = 0.48) in multivariate analysis. There was no significant association between neoadjuvant regimen and any secondary outcome. CONCLUSION: In rectal cancer patients treated with SC-TNT and proctectomy, we found no significant association with POM compared to patients undergoing CRT. SC-TNT does not significantly increase the risk of POM compared to CRT.

Total Neoadjuvant Therapy With Short-Course Radiation: US Experience of a Neoadjuvant Rectal Cancer Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Short-course radiation followed by chemotherapy as total neoadjuvant therapy has been investigated primarily in Europe and Australia with increasing global acceptance. There are limited data on this regimen's use in the United States, however, potentially delaying implementation. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare clinical performance and oncologic outcomes of 2 rectal cancer neoadjuvant treatment modalities: short-course total neoadjuvant therapy versus standard chemoradiation. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. SETTING: This study was performed at a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center. PATIENTS: A total of 413 patients had locally advanced rectal cancers diagnosed from June 2009 to May 2018 and received either short-course total neoadjuvant therapy or standard chemoradiation. INTERVENTIONS: There were 187 patients treated with short-course total neoadjuvant therapy (5 × 5 Gy radiation followed by consolidation oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy) compared with 226 chemoradiation recipients (approximately 50.4 Gy radiation in 28 fractions with concurrent fluorouracil equivalent). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary end points were tumor downstaging, measured by complete response and "low" neoadjuvant rectal score rates, and progression-free survival. Secondary analyses included treatment characteristics and completion, sphincter preservation, and recurrence rates. RESULTS: Short-course total neoadjuvant therapy was associated with higher rates of complete response (26.2% vs 17.3%; p = 0.03) and "low" neoadjuvant rectal scores (40.1% vs 25.7%; p < 0.01) despite a higher burden of node-positive disease (78.6% vs 68.9%; p = 0.03). Short-course recipients also completed trimodal treatment more frequently (88.4% vs 50.4%; p < 0.01) and had fewer months with temporary stomas (4.8 vs 7.0; p < 0.01). Both regimens achieved comparable local control (local recurrence: 2.7% short-course total neoadjuvant therapy vs 2.2% chemoradiation, p = 0.76) and 2-year progression-free survival (88.2% short-course total neoadjuvant therapy (95% CI, 82.9-93.5) vs 85.6% chemoradiation (95% CI, 80.5-90.7)). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design, unbalanced disease severity, and variable dosing of neoadjuvant consolidation chemotherapy were limitations of this study. CONCLUSIONS: Short-course total neoadjuvant therapy was associated with improved downstaging and similar progression-free survival compared with chemoradiation. These results were achieved with shortened radiation courses, improved treatment completion, and less time with diverting ostomies. Short-course total neoadjuvant therapy is an optimal regimen for locally advanced rectal cancer. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B724.TERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE TOTAL CON RADIACIÓN DE CORTA DURACIÓN: EXPERIENCIA ESTADOUNIDENSE DE UNA TERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE CONTRA EL CÁNCER DE RECTO. ANTECEDENTES: La radiación de corta duración seguida de quimioterapia como terapia neoadyuvante total se ha investigado principalmente en Europa y Australia con una aceptación mundial cada vez mayor. Sin embargo, datos limitados sobre el uso de este régimen en los Estados Unidos, han potencialmente retrasando su implementación. OBJETIVO: Comparar el desempeño clínico y los resultados oncológicos de dos modalidades de tratamiento neoadyuvante del cáncer de recto: terapia neoadyuvante total de corta duración versus quimioradiación. estándar. DISEO: Cohorte retrospectivo. AJUSTE: Centro oncológico designado por el NCI. PACIENTES: Un total de 413 cánceres rectales localmente avanzados diagnosticados entre junio de 2009 y mayo de 2018 que recibieron cualquiera de los regímenes neoadyuvantes. INTERVENCIONES: Hubo 187 pacientes tratados con terapia neoadyuvante total de ciclo corto (radiación 5 × 5 Gy seguida de quimioterapia de consolidación basada en oxaliplatino) en comparación con 226 pacientes de quimiorradiación (aproximadamente 50,4 Gy de radiación en 28 fracciones con equivalente de fluorouracilo concurrente). PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Los criterios primarios de valoración fueron la disminución del estadio del tumor, medido por la respuesta completa y las tasas de puntuación rectal neoadyuvante "baja", y la supervivencia libre de progresión. Los análisis secundarios incluyeron las características del tratamiento y las tasas de finalización, conservación del esfínter y recurrencia. RESULTADOS: La terapia neoadyuvante total de corta duración, se asoció con tasas más altas de respuesta completa (26,2% versus 17,3%, p = 0,03) y puntuaciones rectales neoadyuvantes "bajas" (40,1% versus 25,7%, p < 0,01) a pesar de una mayor carga de enfermedad con ganglios positivos (78,6% versus 68,9%, p = 0,03). Los pacientes de ciclo corto también completaron el tratamiento trimodal con mayor frecuencia (88,4% versus 50,4%, p < 0,01) y tuvieron menos meses con estomas temporales (4,8 versus 7,0, p < 0,01). Ambos regímenes lograron un control local comparable (recidiva local: 2,7% de SC-TNT versus 2,2% de TRC, p = 0,76) y supervivencia libre de progresión a 2 años (88,2% de SC-TNT [IC: 82,9 - 93,5] versus 85,6% CRT [CI: 80,5 - 90,7]). LIMITACIONES: Diseño retrospectivo, gravedad de la enfermedad desequilibrada y dosificación variable de quimioterapia neoadyuvante de consolidación. CONCLUSIONES: La terapia neoadyuvante total de ciclo corto se asoció con una mejora en la reducción del estadio y una supervivencia libre de progresión similar en comparación con la quimioradiación. Estos resultados se lograron con ciclos de radiación más cortos, tratamientos mejor finalizados y menos tiempo en ostomías de derivación. La terapia neoadyuvante total de corta duración es un régimen óptimo para el cáncer de recto localmente avanzado. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B724. (Traducción- Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy).

Intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis for robotic-assisted and laparoscopic right colectomy: short-term outcomes of a multi-center prospective trial.

BACKGROUND: Studies to date show contrasting conclusions when comparing intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomoses for minimally invasive right colectomy. Large multi-center prospective studies comparing perioperative outcomes between these two techniques are needed. The purpose of this study was to compare intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomoses outcomes for robotic assisted and laparoscopic right colectomy. METHODS: Multi-center, prospective, observational study of patients with malignant or benign disease scheduled for laparoscopic or robotic-assisted right colectomy. Outcomes included conversion rate, gastrointestinal recovery, and complication rates. RESULTS: There were 280 patients: 156 in the robotic assisted and laparoscopic intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) group and 124 in the robotic assisted and laparoscopic extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) group. The EA group was older (mean age 67 vs. 65 years, p = 0.05) and had fewer white (81% vs. 90%, p = 0.05) and Hispanic (2% vs. 12%, p = 0.003) patients. The EA group had more patients with comorbidities (82% vs. 72%, p = 0.04) while there was no significant difference in individual comorbidities between groups. IA was associated with fewer conversions to open and hand-assisted laparoscopic approaches (p = 0.007), shorter extraction site incision length (4.9 vs. 6.2 cm; p ≤ 0.0001), and longer operative time (156.9 vs. 118.2 min). Postoperatively, patients with IA had shorter time to first flatus, (1.5 vs. 1.8 days; p ≤ 0.0001), time to first bowel movement (1.6 vs. 2.0 days; p = 0.0005), time to resume soft/regular diet (29.0 vs. 37.5 h; p = 0.0014), and shorter length of hospital stay (median, 3 vs. 4 days; p ≤ 0.0001). Postoperative complication rates were comparable between groups. CONCLUSION: In this prospective, multi-center study of minimally invasive right colectomy across 20 institutions, IA was associated with significant improvements in conversion rates, return of bowel function, and shorter hospital stay, as well as significantly longer operative times compared to EA. These data validate current efforts to increase training and adoption of the IA technique for minimally invasive right colectomy.

Impact of Postoperative Complications on Oncologic Outcomes After Rectal Cancer Surgery: An Analysis of the US Rectal Cancer Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative complications (POCs) are associated with worse oncologic outcomes in several cancer types. The implications of complications after rectal cancer surgery are not well studied. METHODS: The United States Rectal Cancer Consortium (2007-2017) was reviewed for primary rectal adenocarcinoma patients who underwent R0/R1 resection. Ninety-day POCs were categorized as major or minor and were grouped into infectious, cardiopulmonary, thromboembolic, renal, or intestinal dysmotility. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). RESULTS: Among 1136 patients, the POC rate was 46% (n = 527), with 63% classified as minor and 32% classified as major. Of all POCs, infectious complications comprised 20%, cardiopulmonary 3%, thromboembolic 5%, renal 9%, and intestinal dysmotility 19%. Compared with minor or no POCs, major POCs were associated with both worse RFS and worse OS (both p < 0.01). Compared with no POCs, a single POC was associated with worse RFS (p < 0.01), while multiple POCs were associated with worse OS (p = 0.02). Regardless of complication grade, infectious POCs were associated with worse RFS (p < 0.01), while cardiopulmonary and thromboembolic POCs were associated with worse OS (both p < 0.01). Renal POCs were associated with both worse RFS (p < 0.001) and worse OS (p = 0.01). After accounting for pathologic stage, neoadjuvant therapy, and final margin status, Multivariable analysis (MVA) demonstrated worse outcomes with cardiopulmonary, thromboembolic, and renal POCs for OS (cardiopulmonary: hazard ratio [HR] 3.6, p = 0.01; thromboembolic: HR 19.4, p < 0.01; renal: HR 2.4, p = 0.01), and renal and infectious POCs for RFS (infectious: HR 2.1, p < 0.01; renal: HR 3.2, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Major complications after proctectomy for cancer are associated with decreased RFS and OS. Given the association of infectious complications and postoperative renal dysfunction with earlier recurrence of disease, efforts must be directed towards defining best practices and standardizing care.

A US Rectal Cancer Consortium Study of Inferior Mesenteric Artery Versus Superior Rectal Artery Ligation: How High Do We Need to Go?

BACKGROUND: The optimal level of pedicle ligation during proctectomy for rectal cancer, either at the origin of the inferior mesenteric artery or the superior rectal artery, is still debated. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to determine whether superior rectal artery ligation portends equivalent technical or oncologic outcomes. DESIGN: This was a retrospective analysis of a rectal cancer database (2007-2017). SETTINGS: The study was conducted at 6 tertiary referral centers in the United States (Emory University, University of Michigan, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, and Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis). PATIENTS: Patients with primary, nonmetastatic rectal cancer who underwent low anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Anastomotic leak, lymph node harvest, locoregional recurrence-free survival, recurrence-free survival, and overall survival were measured. RESULTS: Of 877 patients, 86% (n = 755) received an inferior mesenteric artery ligation, whereas 14% (n = 122) received a superior rectal artery ligation. A total of 12%, 33%, 24%, and 31% were pathologic stage 0, I, II, and III. Median follow-up was 31 months. Superior rectal artery ligation was associated with a similar anastomotic leak rate compared with inferior mesenteric artery ligation (9% vs 8%; p = 1.0). The median number of lymph nodes removed was identical (15 vs 15; p = 0.38). On multivariable analysis accounting for relevant clinicopathologic factors, superior rectal artery ligation was not associated with increased anastomotic leak rate, worse lymph node harvest, or worse locoregional recurrence-free survival, recurrence-free survival, or overall survival (all p values >0.1). LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with inferior mesenteric artery ligation, superior rectal artery ligation is not associated with either worse technical or oncologic outcomes. Given the potential risks of inadequate blood flow to the proximal limb of the anastomosis and autonomic nerve injury, we advocate for increased use of superior rectal artery ligation. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B646. ESTUDIO DEL CONSORCIO DE CNCER DE RECTO DE ESTADOS UNIDOS DE LIGADURA BAJA DE LA ARTERIA MESENTRICA INFERIOR CONTRA LIGADURA ALTA DE LA ARTERIA MESENTRICA INFERIOR QU TAN ALTO DEBEMOS EXTENDERNOS: ANTECEDENTES:el nivel óptimo de la ligadura del pedículo en la proctectomía para el cáncer de recto, ya sea en el origen de la arteria mesentérica inferior o en la arteria rectal superior aún no esta definido.OBJETIVO:El objetivo era determinar si la ligadura de la arteria rectal superior pronostica resultados técnicos u oncológicos similares.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo de una base de datos de cáncer de recto (2007-2017).ESCENARIO:el estudio se realizó en seis centros de referencia de tercer nivel en los Estados Unidos (Universidad de Emory, Universidad de Michigan, Centro médico de la Universidad de Pittsburgh, Centro médico Wexner de la Universidad Estatal de Ohio, Centro médico de la Universidad de Vanderbilt y Escuela de Medicina de la Universidad de Washington en St. Louis).PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes con cáncer de recto primario no metastásico que se sometieron a resección anterior baja o resección abdominoperineal.PRINCIPALES VARIABLES ANALIZADAS:Se midió la fuga anastomótica, los ganglios linfáticos recuperados, la sobrevida sin recidiva locorregional, la sobrevida sin recidiva y la sobrevida global.RESULTADOS:De 877 pacientes, en el 86% (n = 755) se realizó una ligadura de la arteria mesentérica inferior, y en el 14% (n = 122) se realizó una ligadura de la arteria rectal superior. El 12%, 33%, 24% y 31% estaban en estadio patológico 0, I, II y III respectivamente. La mediana de seguimiento fue de 31 meses. La ligadura de la arteria rectal superior se asoció con una tasa de fuga anastomótica similar a la ligadura de la arteria mesentérica inferior (9 vs 8%, p = 1,0). La mediana del número de ganglios linfáticos extirpados fue idéntica (15 contra 15, p = 0,38). En el análisis multivariado que tiene en cuenta los factores clínico-patológicos relevantes, la ligadura de la arteria rectal superior no se asoció con una mayor tasa de fuga anastomótica, una peor cosecha de ganglios linfáticos o una peor sobrevida libre de recurrencia locorregional, sobrevida libre de recurrencia o sobrevida global (todos p> 0,1).LIMITACIONES:Diseño retrospectivo.CONCLUSIONES:En comparación con la ligadura de la arteria mesentérica inferior, la ligadura de la arteria rectal superior no se asocia a peores resultados técnicos ni oncológicos. Debido a los riesgos potenciales de un flujo sanguíneo inadecuado del muñon proximal de la anastomosis y la lesión de los nervios autonómicos, proponemos una mayor realización de la ligadura de la arteria rectal superior. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B646.

Perioperative Blood Transfusions Are Associated With Worse Overall Survival But Not Disease-Free Survival After Curative Rectal Cancer Resection: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The effects of blood transfusions on oncologic outcomes after surgery remain inconclusive. Thus, we examined the association between receiving a perioperative blood transfusion and oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing curative rectal cancer resection. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the association between receiving a perioperative blood transfusion with disease-free and overall survival in patients undergoing curative resection of clinical stage I to III rectal cancer. We hypothesized that blood transfusion is associated with worse disease-free and overall survival in this patient cohort. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study using a propensity score-matched analysis. SETTINGS: The study involved 6 tertiary academic medical centers in the United States contributing to the United States Rectal Cancer Consortium. PATIENTS: Patients who underwent curative resection for rectal cancer from 2010 to 2018 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was disease-free survival. The secondary outcomes were overall survival, intensive care unit length of stay, hospital length of stay, surgical site infection, and readmission. RESULTS: Of the 924 patients eligible for matching, 312 patients were matched, including 100 patients who received a transfusion and 212 who did not. In a propensity score-matched analysis, receiving a perioperative blood transfusion was not associated with worse 5-year disease-free survival (transfused, 78%; not transfused, 83%; p = 0.32) but was associated with worse 5-year overall survival (transfused 65% vs not transfused 86%; p < 0.001) and increased hospital length of stay (transfused, 9.9 d; not transfused, 7.6 d; p = 0.001). LIMITATIONS: Despite propensity matching, confounding may remain. Propensity matching may limit the power to detect a difference in disease-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Receiving a perioperative blood transfusion is not associated with worse disease-free survival but is associated with worse overall survival. Such findings are important for clinicians and patients to understand when considering perioperative blood transfusions. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B531. LAS TRANSFUSIONES DE SANGRE PERIOPERATORIAS SE ASOCIAN CON UNA PEOR SOBREVIDA GLOBAL, PERO NO CON LA SOBREVIDA LIBRE DE ENFERMEDAD POSTERIOR A LA RESECCIN CURATIVA DEL CNCER DE RECTO UN PUNTAJE DE PROPENSIN POR ANLISIS DE CONCORDANCIA: ANTECEDENTES:El impacto de las transfusiones de sangre en los resultados oncológicos posteriores a la cirugía no son concluyentes. Por lo anterior, estudiamos la asociación entre recibir una transfusión de sangre perioperatoria y los resultados oncológicos en pacientes llevados a resección curativa de cáncer de recto.OBJETIVO:El propósito de este estudio fue evaluar la asociación entre recibir una transfusión de sangre perioperatoria con la sobrevida libre de enfermedad y la sobrevida general en pacientes llevados a resección curativa de cáncer de recto en estadio clínico I-III. Nuestra hipótesis es que la transfusión de sangre se asocia con una peor sobrevida global y libre de enfermedad en esta cohorte de pacientes.DISEÑO:Es un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo que utilizó un puntaje de propensión por análisis de concordancia.AMBITO:El estudio se realizó en seis centros médicos académicos de tercer nivel en los Estados Unidos que contribuían al Consorcio de Cáncer de Recto de los Estados Unidos.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes que fueron llevados a resección curativa por cáncer de recto entre 2010 y 2018.PRINCIPALES VARIABLES EVALUADAS:El objeitvo principal fue la sobrevida libre de enfermedad. Los objetivos secundarios fueron la sobrevida global, el tiempo de estancia en la unidad de cuidados intensivos, el tiempo de la estancia hospitalaria, la infección del sitio quirúrgico y el reingreso.RESULTADOS:De los 924 pacientes elegibles para el emparejamiento, se emparejaron 312 pacientes, incluidos 100 pacientes que recibieron una transfusión y 212 que no. En el puntaje de propensión por análisis de concordancia, recibir una transfusión de sangre perioperatoria no se asoció con una peor sobrevida libre de enfermedad a 5 años (TRANSFUSIÓN 78%; NO TRANSFUSIÓN 83%; p = 0,32), pero se asoció con una peor sobrevida global a 5 años (TRANSFUSION 65% vs NO TRANSFUSION 86%; p <0,001) y aumento de la estancia hospitalaria (TRANSFUSIÓN 9,9 días; NO TRANSFUSION 7,6 días; p = 0,001).LIMITACIONES:A pesar de la concordancia de propensión, pueden existir desviaciones. El emparejamiento de propensión puede limitar el poder para detectar una diferencia en la sobrevida libre de enfermedad.CONCLUSIONES:Recibir una transfusión de sangre perioperatoria no se asocia con una peor sobrevida libre de enfermedad, pero sí con una peor sobrevida global. Es importante que los médicos y los pacientes comprendan estos hallazgos al considerar las transfusiones de sangre perioperatorias. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B531. (Traducción-Dr Lisbeth Alarcon-Bernes).

Travel Time to a High Volume Center Negatively Impacts Timing of Care in Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Regionalization of rectal cancer surgery may lead to worse disease free survival owing to longer travel time to reach a high volume center yet no study has evaluated this relationship at a single high volume center volume center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective review of rectal cancer patients undergoing surgery from 2009 to 2019 at a single high volume center. Patients were divided into two groups based on travel time. The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS). Additional outcomes included treatment within 60 d of diagnosis, completeness of preoperative staging, and evaluation by a colorectal surgeon prior to initiation of treatment. RESULTS: A lower proportion of patients with long travel time began definitive treatment within 60 d of diagnosis (74.0% versus 84.0%, P= 0.01) or were seen by the treating colorectal surgeon before beginning definitive treatment (74.8% versus 85.4%, P < 0.01). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, patients with long travel time were significantly less likely to begin definitive treatment within 60 d of diagnosis (OR = 0.54; 95% CI = 0.31-0.93) or to be evaluated by a colorectal surgeon prior to initiating treatment (OR = 0.45; 95% CI = 0.25-0.80). There were no significant differences in DFS based on travel time. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients with long travel times may be vulnerable to delayed, lower quality rectal cancer care, there is no difference in DFS when definitive surgery is performed at a high volume canter. Ongoing research is needed to identify explanations for delays in treatment to ensure all patients receive the highest quality care.

Radiological assessment of persistent retroperitoneal and lateral pelvic lymph nodes after neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer: An analysis of the United States Rectal Cancer Consortium.

INTRODUCTION: Management of retroperitoneal and lateral pelvic lymph nodes (RLPN) in rectal cancer remains unclear. With total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT), more patients have radiologic complete clinical response (rCR). We sought to evaluate the impact of radiographic persistent RLPN after neoadjuvant therapy on survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with rectal adenocarcinoma with isolated RLPN metastasis, who received neoadjuvant therapy before surgery were included from the United States Rectal Cancer Consortium database. Primary outcomes were recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of 77 patients, all received neoadjuvant therapy, with 35 (46%) receiving TNT. Posttreatment, 33 (43%) had rCR while 44 (57%) had radiographic persistent RLPN. Median number of radiographic positive RLPN was 1 (IQR 1-2). Receipt of TNT was associated with radiographic RLPN rCR (OR 4.77, 95% CI 1.81-12.60, p < .01). However, there was no difference in RFS and OS between patients who achieved rCR or with persistent RLPN (all p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Radiographic persistence of RLPN was not associated with worse survival in well-selected patients and may not be a reliable indicator of pathological response. TNT may be the preferred management strategy to select patients given its association with rCR. Radiographic persistence of RLPN after preoperative therapy should not necessarily preclude surgery.

Thoracic Epidural Analgesia: Does It Enhance Recovery?

BACKGROUND: Thoracic epidural analgesia has been shown to be an effective method of pain control. The utility of epidural analgesia as part of an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol is debatable. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine if the use of thoracic epidural analgesia in an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol decreases hospital length of stay or inpatient opioid consumption after elective colorectal resection. DESIGN: This is a single-institution retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: The study was performed at a high-volume, tertiary care center in the Midwest. An institutional database was used to identify patients. PATIENTS: All patients undergoing elective transabdominal colon or rectal resection by board-certified colon and rectal surgeons from 2013 to 2017 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was length of stay. The secondary outcome was oral morphine milligram equivalents consumed during the first 48 hours. RESULTS: There were 1006 patients (n = 815 epidural, 191 no epidural) included. All patients received multimodal analgesia with opioid-sparing agents. Univariate analysis demonstrated no difference in length of stay between those who received thoracic epidural analgesia and those who did not (median, 4 vs 5 days; p = 0.16), which was substantiated by multivariable linear regression. Subgroup analysis showed that the addition of epidural analgesia resulted in no difference in length of stay regardless of an open (n = 362; p = 0.66) or minimally invasive (n = 644; p = 0.46) approach. Opioid consumption data were available after 2015 (n = 497 patients). Univariate analysis demonstrated no difference in morphine milligram equivalents consumed in the first 48 hours between patients who received epidural analgesia and those who did not (median, 135 vs 110 oral morphine milligram equivalents; p = 0.35). This was also confirmed by multivariable linear regression. LIMITATIONS: The retrospective observational design was a limitation of this study. CONCLUSION: The use of thoracic epidural analgesia within an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol was not found to be associated with a reduction in length of stay or morphine milligram equivalents consumed within the first 48 hours. We cannot recommend routine use of thoracic epidural analgesia within enhanced recovery after surgery protocols. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A765.

Benchmarking rectal cancer care: institutional compliance with a longitudinal checklist.

BACKGROUND: In 2012, the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons published the Rectal Cancer Surgery Checklist, a consensus document listing 25 essential elements of care for all patients undergoing radical surgery for rectal cancer. The authors herein examine checklist adherence in a mature, multisurgeon specialty academic practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective medical record review of patients undergoing elective radical resection for rectal adenocarcinoma over a 23-mo period was conducted. Checklists were completed post hoc for each patient, and these results were tabulated to determine levels of compliance. Subgroup analyses by compliance and experience levels of the treating surgeon were performed. RESULTS: A total of 161 patients underwent resection, demonstrating a median completion rate of 84% per patient. Poor compliance was noted consistently in documenting baseline sexual function (0%), multidisciplinary discussion of treatment plans (16.8%), pelvic nerve identification (8.7%) and leak testing (52.9%), and radial margin status reporting (57.5%). Junior surgeons achieved higher rates of compliance and were more likely to restage after neoadjuvant therapy (67.9% versus 29.4%, P < 0.001), discuss patients at tumor board (31.3% versus 13.2%, P = 0.014), and document leak testing (86.7% versus 47.2%, P = 0.005) compared with senior surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: Checklist compliance within a high-volume, specialty academic practice remains varied. Only surgeon experience level was significantly associated with high checklist compliance. Junior surgeons achieved greater compliance with certain items, particularly those that reinforce decision-making. Further efforts to standardize rectal cancer care should focus on checklist implementation, targeted surgeon outreach, and assessment of checklist compliance correlation to clinical outcomes.

Combined rectopexy and sacrocolpopexy is safe for correction of pelvic organ prolapse.

PURPOSE: Pelvic floor abnormalities often affect multiple organs. The incidence of concomitant uterine/vaginal prolapse with rectal prolapse is at least 38%. For these patients, addition of sacrocolpopexy to rectopexy may be appropriate. Our aim was to determine if addition of sacrocolpopexy to rectopexy increases the procedural morbidity over rectopexy alone. METHODS: We utilized the ACS-NSQIP database to examine female patients who underwent rectopexy from 2005 to 2014. We compared patients who had a combined procedure (sacrocolpopexy and rectopexy) to those who had rectopexy alone. Thirty-day morbidity was compared and a multivariable model constructed to determine predictors of complications. RESULTS: Three thousand six hundred patients underwent rectopexy; 3394 had rectopexy alone while 206 underwent a combined procedure with the addition of sacrocolpopexy. Use of the combined procedure increased significantly from 2.6 to 7.7%. Overall morbidity did not differ between groups (14.8% rectopexy alone vs. 13.6% combined procedure, p = 0.65). Significant predictors of morbidity included addition of resection to a rectopexy procedure, elevated BMI, smoking, wound class, and ASA class. After controlling for these and other patient factors, the addition of sacrocolpopexy to rectopexy did not increase overall morbidity (OR 1.00, p = 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference in operative morbidity when adding sacrocolpopexy to a rectopexy procedure. Despite a modest increase in utilization of combined procedures over time, the overall rate remains low. These findings support the practice of multidisciplinary evaluation of patients presenting with rectal prolapse, with the goal of offering concurrent surgical correction for all compartments affected by pelvic organ prolapse disorders.

Preoperative Chemotherapy and Survival for Large Anorectal Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A National Analysis of 333 Cases.

PURPOSE: Anorectal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are exceedingly rare, and management remains controversial in regard to local resection (LR) and preoperative chemotherapy. METHODS: The National Cancer Data Base was queried from 1998 to 2012 for cases of GIST resection in the rectum or anus. Patient demographics, type of surgery (LR vs. radical excision [RE]), short-term outcomes, and overall survival (OS) were analyzed. Preoperative chemotherapy was recorded following the US FDA approval of imatinib in 2002. RESULTS: Overall, 333 patients with resection of anorectal GISTs were included. Mean age at presentation was 62.3 years (range 22-90), and median tumor size was 4.0 cm (interquartile range 2.2-7.0). Five-year OS for all patients was 77.6%. In a multivariable survival analysis, only age and tumor size >5 cm (hazard ratio 2.48, 95% confidence interval 1.50-4.01; p = 0.004) were associated with increased mortality. One hundred and sixty-three (49.0%) patients underwent LR, compared with 158 (47.4%) who underwent RE. For tumors smaller than 5 cm, no difference in 5-year survival by surgical approach was observed (LR 82.3% vs. RE 82.6%; p = 0.71). Fifty-nine patients (17.7%) received preoperative chemotherapy; for patients undergoing RE with tumors >5 cm, there was decreased mortality in the group who received preoperative chemotherapy (5-year OS with chemotherapy 79.2% vs. no chemotherapy 51.2%; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Size is the most important determinant in survival following resection. Local excision is common, with resection split between LR and RE. For smaller tumors, LR may be adequate therapy. Preoperative chemotherapy may result in improved survival for large tumors treated with radical resection, but the data are imperfect.

Omission of Adjuvant Chemotherapy Is Associated With Increased Mortality in Patients With T3N0 Colon Cancer With Inadequate Lymph Node Harvest.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemotherapy for T3N0 colon cancer is controversial. National guidelines recommend its use in patients with stage II with high-risk features, including lymph node harvest of less than 12, yet this treatment is underused. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to demonstrate that the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with T3N0 adenocarcinoma with inadequate lymph node harvest is beneficial. DESIGN: This was a retrospective population-based study of patients with resected T3N0 adenocarcinoma of the colon. SETTINGS: The National Cancer Database was queried from 2003 to 2012. PATIENTS: A total of 134,567 patients with T3N0 colon cancer were included in this analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The use of chemotherapy, short-term outcomes, and overall survival was evaluated. Clinicopathologic factors associated with omission of chemotherapy were also analyzed. RESULTS: Inadequate lymph node harvest was observed in 23.3% of patients, and this rate decreased over the study period from 46.8% in 2003 to 12.5% in 2012 (p < 0.0001). Overall 5-year survival for patients with T3N0 cancer was 66.8%. Inadequate lymph node harvest among these patients was associated with lower overall 5-year survival (58.7% vs 69.8%; p < 0.001). The use of adjuvant chemotherapy among patients with T3N0 cancer after inadequate lymph node harvest was only 16.7%. In a multivariable analysis, factors associated with failure to receive chemotherapy included advanced age (OR = 0.44 (95% CI, 0.43-0.45)), increased comorbidities (OR = 0.7 (95% CI, 0.66-0.76)), and postoperative readmission (OR = 0.78 (95% CI, 0.67-0.91)). Patients with inadequate lymph node harvest who received adjuvant chemotherapy had improved 5-year survival (chemotherapy, 78.4% vs no chemotherapy, 54.7%; p < 0.001). Even when controlling for all of the significant variables, the administration of chemotherapy remained a predictor of decreased mortality (HR = 0.57 (95% CI, 0.54-0.60); p < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective, population-based design. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with T3N0 colon cancer with inadequate lymph node harvest who receive adjuvant chemotherapy have increased overall survival. Despite this survival benefit, a fraction of these patients receive adjuvant chemotherapy. Barriers to chemotherapy are multifactorial.