Nationwide standardization of minimally invasive right hemicolectomy for colon cancer and development and validation of a video-based competency assessment tool (the Right study).

BACKGROUND: Substantial variation exists when performing a minimally invasive right hemicolectomy (MIRH) due to disparities in training, expertise and differences in implementation of innovations. This study aimed to achieve national consensus on an optimal and standardized MIRH technique for colon cancer and to develop and validate a video-based competency assessment tool (CAT) for MIRH. METHOD: Statements covering all elements of MIRH were formulated. Subsequently, the Delphi technique was used to reach consensus on a standardized MIRH among 76 colorectal surgeons from 43 different centres. A CAT was developed based on the Delphi results. Nine surgeons assessed the same 12 unedited full-length videos using the CAT, allowing evaluation of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: After three Delphi rounds, consensus (≥80% agreement) was achieved on 23 of the 24 statements. Consensus statements included the use of low intra-abdominal pressure, detailed anatomical outline how to perform complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation, the creation of an intracorporeal anastomosis, and specimen extraction through a Pfannenstiel incision using a wound protector. The CAT included seven consecutive steps to measure competency of the MIRH and showed high consistency among surgeons with an overall ICC of 0.923. CONCLUSION: Nationwide consensus on a standardized and optimized technique of MIRH was reached. The CAT developed showed excellent interrater reliability. These achievements are crucial steps to an ongoing nationwide quality improvement project (the Right study).

A new surgical technique: robotic intracorporeal Kono-S anastomosis in Crohn's - a safety and feasibility case series on short-term outcomes.

AIM: The Kono-S anastomosis was introduced as a possible solution to the high surgical recurrence rates in Crohn's disease. However, this technique is known to be challenging, which is why it was originally performed in an extracorporeal setting. The aim of this case series was to assess safety, in terms of intra-/postoperative complications, and feasibility, in terms of successful performance of anastomosis, of a robot-assisted intracorporeal Kono-S anastomosis. METHOD: This is a prospective single-centre consecutive case series. Patients were considered eligible if they were diagnosed with refractory Crohn's disease with significant bowel stenosis of the terminal ileum. All patients underwent robot-assisted intracorporeal Kono-S anastomosis. Perioperative care was provided according to the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery® protocol. Follow-up for postoperative complications was 30 days. RESULTS: Twenty patients were included, of whom 11 (55%) were men. The median age was 30 years [interquartile range (IQR) 22-51 years] and the median BMI was 25 kg/m2 (IQR 19-28 kg/m2). Intracorporeal Kono-S anastomosis was successfully performed in all cases. The median operating time was 155 min (IQR 144-176 min) and the median length of stay was 3 days (IQR 1-5 days). No conversions or 30-day mortality were observed. One patient experienced anastomotic leakage, which was treated with radiologically guided drainage. A total of three patients experienced postoperative complications in the first 30 days. CONCLUSION: Performance of intracorporeal robot-assisted Kono-S anastomosis seems safe and feasible in this case series for Crohn's disease. Since this is a first case series, further research is required to confirm results in a larger population-based cohort.

Better stoma care using the Stoma App: does it help? A first randomized double-blind clinical trial on the effect of mobile healthcare on quality of life in stoma patients.

BACKGROUND: Receiving a stoma significantly impacts patients' quality of life. Coping with this new situation can be difficult, which may result in a variety of physical and psychosocial problems. It is essential to provide adequate guidance to help patients cope with their stoma, as this positively influences self-efficacy in return. Higher self-efficacy reduces psychosocial problems increasing patient's quality of life. This study investigates whether a new mobile application, the Stoma App, improves quality of life. And if personalized guidance, timed support, and peer contact offered as an in-app surplus makes a difference. METHODS: A double-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted between March 2021 and April 2023. Patients aged > 18 years undergoing ileostomy or colostomy surgery, in possession of a compatible smartphone were included. The intervention group received the full version of the app containing personalized and time guidance, peer support, and generic (non-personalized) stoma-related information. The control group received a restricted version with only generic information. Primary outcome was stoma quality of life. Secondary outcomes included psychological adaption, complications, re-admittance, reoperations, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: The intervention version of the app was used by 96 patients and the control version by 112 patients. After correction for confounding, the intervention group reported a significant 3.1-point improvement in stoma-related quality of life one month postoperatively (p = 0.038). On secondary outcomes, no significant improvements could be retrieved of the intervention group. CONCLUSION: The Stoma App improves the quality of life of stoma patients. Peer support and personalized guidance are of significant importance in building self-efficacy. It is to be recommended to implement Stoma app-freely available software qualifying as a medical device-in standard stoma care pathways for the benefits of both patients and healthcare providers.

Evaluation of National Surgical Practice for Lateral Lymph Nodes in Rectal Cancer in an Untrained Setting.

BACKGROUND: Involved lateral lymph nodes (LLNs) have been associated with increased local recurrence (LR) and ipsi-lateral LR (LLR) rates. However, consensus regarding the indication and type of surgical treatment for suspicious LLNs is lacking. This study evaluated the surgical treatment of LLNs in an untrained setting at a national level. METHODS: Patients who underwent additional LLN surgery were selected from a national cross-sectional cohort study regarding patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery in 69 Dutch hospitals in 2016. LLN surgery consisted of either 'node-picking' (the removal of an individual LLN) or 'partial regional node dissection' (PRND; an incomplete resection of the LLN area). For all patients with primarily enlarged (≥7 mm) LLNs, those undergoing rectal surgery with an additional LLN procedure were compared to those  undergoing only rectal resection. RESULTS: Out of 3057 patients, 64 underwent additional LLN surgery, with 4-year LR and LLR rates of 26% and 15%, respectively. Forty-eight patients (75%) had enlarged LLNs, with corresponding recurrence rates of 26% and 19%, respectively. Node-picking (n = 40) resulted in a 20% 4-year LLR, and a 14% LLR after PRND (n = 8; p = 0.677). Multivariable analysis of 158 patients with enlarged LLNs undergoing additional LLN surgery (n = 48) or rectal resection alone (n = 110) showed no significant association of LLN surgery with 4-year LR or LLR, but suggested higher recurrence risks after LLN surgery (LR: hazard ratio [HR] 1.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.7-3.2, p = 0.264; LLR: HR 1.9, 95% CI 0.2-2.5, p = 0.874). CONCLUSION: Evaluation of Dutch practice in 2016 revealed that approximately one-third of patients with primarily enlarged LLNs underwent surgical treatment, mostly consisting of node-picking. Recurrence rates were not significantly affected by LLN surgery, but did suggest worse outcomes. Outcomes of LLN surgery after adequate training requires further research.

Patient- and physician-reported radiation-induced toxicity of short-course radiotherapy with a prolonged interval to surgery for rectal cancer.

AIM: A prolonged interval (>4 weeks) between short-course radiotherapy (25 Gy in five fractions) (SCRT-delay) and total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer has been associated with a decreased postoperative complication rate and offers the possibility of organ preservation in the case of a complete tumour response. This prospective cohort study systematically evaluated patient-reported bowel dysfunction and physician-reported radiation-induced toxicity for 8 weeks following SCRT-delay. METHOD: Patients who were referred for SCRT-delay for intermediate risk, oligometastatic or locally advanced rectal cancer were included. Repeated measurements were done for patient-reported bowel dysfunction (measured by the low anterior resection syndrome [LARS] questionnaire and categorized as no, minor or major LARS) and physician-reported radiation-induced toxicity (according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0) before start of treatment (baseline), at completion of SCRT and 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 weeks thereafter. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were included; 31 (61%) were men and the median age was 67 years (range 44-91). Patient-reported bowel dysfunction and physician-reported radiation-induced toxicity peaked at weeks 1-2 after completion of SCRT and gradually declined thereafter. Major LARS was reported by 44 patients (92%) at some time during SCRT-delay. Grade 3 radiation-induced toxicity was reported in 17 patients (33%) and concerned predominantly diarrhoea. No Grade 4-5 radiation-induced toxicity occurred. CONCLUSION: During SCRT-delay, almost every patient experiences temporary mild-moderate radiation-induced toxicity and major LARS, but life-threatening toxicity is rare. SCRT-delay is a safe alternative to SCRT-direct surgery that should be proposed when counselling rectal cancer patients on neoadjuvant strategies.

Impact of a diverting ileostomy in total mesorectal excision with primary anastomosis for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of diverting ileostomy in total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer with primary anastomosis is debated. The aim of this study is to gain insight in the clinical consequences of a diverting ileostomy, with respect to stoma rate at one year and stoma-related morbidity. METHODS: Patients undergoing TME with primary anastomosis for rectal cancer between 2015 and 2017 in eleven participating hospitals were included. Retrospectively, two groups were compared: patients with or without diverting ileostomy construction during primary surgery. Primary endpoint was stoma rate at one year. Secondary endpoints were severity and rate of anastomotic leakage, overall morbidity rate within thirty days and stoma (reversal) related morbidity. RESULTS: In 353 out of 595 patients (59.3%) a diverting ileostomy was constructed during primary surgery. Stoma rate at one year was 9.9% in the non-ileostomy group and 18.7% in the ileostomy group (p = 0.003). After correction for confounders, multivariate analysis showed that the construction of a diverting ileostomy during primary surgery was an independent risk factor for stoma at one year (OR 2.563 (95%CI 1.424-4.611), p = 0.002). Anastomotic leakage rate was 17.8% in the non-ileostomy group and 17.2% in the ileostomy group (p = 0.913). Overall 30-days morbidity rate was 37.6% in the non-ileostomy group and 56.1% in the ileostomy group (p < 0.001). Stoma reversal related morbidity rate was 17.9%. CONCLUSIONS: The stoma rate at one year was higher in patients with ileostomy construction during primary surgery. The incidence and severity of anastomotic leakage were not reduced by construction of an ileostomy. The morbidity related to the presence and reversal of a diverting ileostomy was substantial.

SPONGE-assisted versus Trendelenburg position surgery in laparoscopic sigmoid and rectal cancer surgery (SPONGE trial): randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: In minimally invasive surgery of the sigmoid colon and rectum a retractor sponge has been introduced as an alternative to the Trendelenburg position. This randomized clinical trial (RCT) compared postoperative duration of hospital stay and perioperative outcomes in patients with sigmoid or rectal cancer undergoing sponge-assisted versus Trendelenburg position surgery. METHODS: The SPONGE trial is a single-centre RCT nested within the Dutch nationwide prospective observational cohort of patients with colorectal cancer, and follows the Trials within Cohorts (TwiCs) design. Patients with sigmoid or rectal cancer undergoing elective laparoscopic or robotic surgery were randomized to either sponge-assisted or Trendelenburg surgery on a 1:1 basis using block randomization. Duration of postoperative hospital stay was the primary outcome and was compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of complications, readmissions, or mortality versus the χ2 test in intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. This trial was not blinded for patients in the intervention arm or physicians. RESULTS: Between November 2015 and June 2021, 82 patients were randomized to sponge-assisted surgery and 81 to Trendelenburg surgery. After post-randomization exclusion, 150 patients remained for analyses (75 patients per arm). There was no statistically significant difference in median duration of hospital stay (5 days versus 4 days, respectively; P = 0.06), 30-day postoperative complications (30 per cent versus 31 per cent; P = 1.00), readmission rate (8 per cent versus 15 per cent; P = 0.30), or mortality (0 per cent versus 1 per cent, P = 1.00). The per-protocol analysis showed similar results. No adverse device events were seen. CONCLUSION: Sponge-assisted laparoscopic/robotic surgery does not reduce the duration of hospital stay, or perioperative morbidity or mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02574013 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Robot-Assisted Total Mesorectal Excision Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision: A Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Analysis in Experienced Centers.

BACKGROUND: The superiority of robot-assisted over laparoscopic total mesorectal excision has not been proven. Most studies do not consider the learning curve while comparing the surgical technique. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare laparoscopic with robot-assisted total mesorectal excision performed by surgeons who completed the learning curve of the technique. DESIGN: This is a multicenter retrospective propensity score-matched analysis. SETTINGS: The study was performed in 2 large, dedicated robot-assisted hospitals and 5 large, dedicated laparoscopic hospitals. PATIENTS: Patients were included if they underwent a robot-assisted or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer with curative intent at a dedicated center for the minimally invasive technique between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017. INTERVENTIONS: We compared robot-assisted with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was conversion to laparotomy during surgery. Secondary outcomes were postoperative morbidity and positive circumferential resection margin. RESULTS: A total of 884 patients were included and, after matching, 315 patients per treatment group remained. Conversion was similar between laparoscopic and robot-assisted total mesorectal excision (4.4% vs 2.5% (p = 0.20)). Positive circumferential resection margin was equal (3.2% vs 4.4% (p = 0.41)). Overall morbidity was comparable as well, although a lower rate of wound infections was observed in the robot-assisted group (5.7% vs 1.9% (p = 0.01)). More primary anastomoses were constructed in the robot-assisted group (50.8% vs 68.3% (p < 0.001)). Finally, more open procedures were performed in dedicated laparoscopic centers, with an overrepresentation of cT4N+ tumors in this group. LIMITATIONS: This is a retrospective multicenter cohort; however, propensity score matching was applied to control for confounding by indication. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision are equally safe in terms of short-term outcomes. However, with the robot-assisted approach, more primary anastomoses were constructed, and a lower wound infection rate was observed. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B677.ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL ASISTIDA POR ROBOT VERSUS ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL LAPAROSCÓPICA: UNA PUNTUACIÓN DE PROPENSIÓN RETROSPECTIVA ANÁLISIS DE COHORTES EMPAREJADAS EN CENTROS EXPERIMENTADOS. ANTECEDENTES: No se ha demostrado la superioridad de la escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot sobre la laparoscópica. La mayoría de los estudios no tienen en cuenta la curva de aprendizaje al comparar la técnica quirúrgica. OBJETIVO: Este estudio tiene como objetivo comparar la escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica con la asistida por robot realizada por cirujanos que completaron la curva de aprendizaje de la técnica. DISEO: Este es un análisis multicéntrico retrospectivo emparejado por puntuación de propensión. AJUSTES: El estudio se realizó en dos grandes hospitales dedicados asistidos por robots y cinco grandes hospitales laparoscópicos dedicados. PACIENTES: Se incluyeron pacientes que se sometieron a escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot o laparoscópica para cáncer de recto con intención curativa, en un centro dedicado a la técnica mínimamente invasiva entre el 1 de enero de 2015 y el 31 de diciembre de 2017. INTERVENCIONES: Comparamos la escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot con la laparoscópica. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: El principal resultado fue la conversión a laparotomía durante la cirugía. Los resultados secundarios fueron la morbilidad posoperatoria y el margen circunferencial positivo. RESULTADOS: Se incluyó a un total de 884 pacientes y, después de emparejar, quedaron 315 pacientes por grupo de tratamiento. La conversión fue similar entre la escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica y asistida por robot (4,4% frente a 2,5% [p = 0,20]). El margen de resección circunferencial positivo fue igual (3,2% vs 4,4% [p = 0,41]). La morbilidad general también fue comparable, aunque se observó una menor tasa de infecciones de heridas en el grupo asistido por robot (5,7% frente a 1,9% [p = 0,01]). Se construyeron más anastomosis primarias en el grupo asistido por robot (50,8% frente a 68,3% [p < 0,001]). Finalmente, se realizaron procedimientos más abiertos en centros laparoscópicos dedicados, con una sobrerrepresentación de tumores cT4N + en este grupo. LIMITACIONES: Ésta es una cohorte multicéntrica retrospectiva; sin embargo, se aplicó el emparejamiento por puntuación de propensión para controlar los factores de confusión por indicación. CONCLUSIONES: La escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot y laparoscópica son igualmente seguras en términos de resultados a corto plazo. Sin embargo, con el abordaje asistido por robot, se construyeron más anastomosis primarias y se observó una menor tasa de infección de la herida. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B677. (Traducción-Dr. Gonzalo Hagerman).

Increased long-term mortality after open colorectal cancer surgery: A multicentre population-based study.

AIM: Unlike meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, population-based studies in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients have shown a significant association between open surgery and increased 30- and 90-day mortality compared with laparoscopic surgery. Long-term mortality, however, is scarcely reported. This retrospective population-based study aimed to compare long-term mortality after open and laparoscopic surgery for CRC. METHOD: The Dutch Colorectal Audit and the Dutch Cancer Centre registry were used to identify patients from three large nonacademic teaching hospitals who underwent curative resection for CRC between 2009 and 2018. Patients with relative contraindications for laparoscopic surgery (cT4 or pT4 tumours, distant metastasis requiring additional resection and emergency surgery) were excluded. Multivariable regression was used to assess the effect of laparoscopic surgery on long-term mortality with adjustment for gender, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, TNM stage, chemoradiation therapy and other confounders. RESULTS: We included 4531 patients, of whom 1298 (29%) underwent open surgery. The median follow-up was 43 months (interquartile range 23-71 months). Open surgery was associated with an increased risk of long-term mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.26, 95% confidence interval 1.10-1.45, p = 0.001). Mixed-effects Cox regression with year of surgery as a random effect also showed an increased risk after open surgery (adjusted hazard ratio 1.33, 95% confidence interval 1.11-1.52, p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Open surgery seems to be associated with increased long-term mortality in the elective setting for CRC patients. A minimally invasive approach might improve long-term outcomes.

Health-related quality of life in rectal cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation with delayed surgery versus short-course radiotherapy with immediate surgery: a propensity score-matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation with delayed surgery (CRT-DS) and short-course radiotherapy with immediate surgery (SCRT-IS) are two commonly used treatment strategies for rectal cancer. However, the optimal treatment strategy for patients with intermediate-risk rectal cancer remains a discussion. This study compares quality of life (QOL) between SCRT-IS and CRT-DS from diagnosis until 24 months after treatment. METHODS: In a prospective colorectal cancer cohort, rectal cancer patients with clinical stage T2-3N0-2M0 undergoing SCRT-IS or CRT-DS between 2013 and 2017 were identified. QOL was assessed using EORTC-C30 and EORTC-CR29 questionnaires before the start of neoadjuvant treatment (baseline) and at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months after. Patients were 1:1 matched using propensity sore matching. Between- and within-group differences in QOL domains were analyzed with linear mixed-effects models. Symptoms and sexual interest at 12 and 24 months were compared using logistic regression models. RESULTS: 156 of 225 patients (69%) remained after matching. The CRT-DS group reported poorer emotional functioning at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months (mean difference with SCRT-IS: -9.4, -12.1, -7.3, -8.0 and -7.9 respectively), and poorer global health, physical-, role-, social- and cognitive functioning at 6 months (mean difference with SCRT-IS: -9.1, -9.8, -14.0, -9.2 and -12.6, respectively). Besides emotional functioning, all QOL domains were comparable at 12, 18 and 24 months. Within-group changes showed a significant improvement of emotional functioning after baseline in the SCRT-IS group, whereas only a minor improvement was observed in the CRT-DS group. Symptoms and sexual interest in male patients at 12 and 24 months were comparable between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In rectal cancer patients, CRT-DS may induce a stronger decline in short-term QOL than SCRT-IS. From 12 months onwards, QOL domains, symptoms and sexual interest in male patients were comparable between the groups. However, emotional functioning remained higher after SCRT-IS than after CRT-DS.

Intestinal Mucosal and Serosal Microcirculation at the Planned Anastomosis during Abdominal Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Intestinal blood flow is often named as a key factor in the pathophysiology of anastomotic leakage. The distribution between mucosal and serosal microperfusion during surgery remains to be elucidated. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess if the mucosal microcirculation of the intestine is more vulnerable to a surgical hit than the serosal microcirculation during surgery. METHODS: In an observational cohort study (n = 9 patients), the microcirculation of the bowel serosa and mucosa was visualized with incident dark-field imaging during surgery. At the planned anastomosis, the following microcirculatory parameters were determined: microvascular flow index (MFI), percentage of perfused vessels (PPV), perfused vessel density (PVD), and total vessel density (TVD). Data are presented as median (interquartile range [IQR]). RESULTS: Perfusion parameters and vessel density were significantly higher for the mucosa than the serosal microcirculation at the planned site for anastomosis or stoma. Mucosal MFI was 3.00 (IQR 3.00-3.00) compared to a serosal MFI of 2.75 (IQR 2.21-2.94), p = 0.03. The PPV was 99% (IQR 98-100) versus 92% (IQR 66-94), p = 0.01. The TVD was 16.77 mm/mm2 (IQR 13.04-18.01) versus 10.42 mm/mm2 (IQR 9.36-11.81), p = 0.01, and the PVD was 15.44 mm/mm2 (IQR 13.04-17.78) versus 9.02 mm/mm2 (IQR 6.43-9.43), p = 0.01. CONCLUSIONS: The mucosal microcirculation was preserved, while lower perfusion of the serosa was found at the planned anastomosis or stoma during surgery. Further research is needed to link our observations to the clinically relevant endpoint of anastomotic leakage.

Clinical Pattern of Recurrent Disease during the Follow-Up of Rectal Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Several initiatives have started to transfer colorectal cancer follow-up (FU) from secondary to primary care. For this purpose, it is important to assess when and how recurrences of rectal carcinoma are detected after treatment with curative intent. METHODS: Retrospective multicentre cohort study. Patients participating in an FU programme after curative intended treatment for rectal cancer stages I-III between 2007 and 2014. RESULTS: Of the 378 patients, 64 (17%) developed recurrent disease (RD). Most were detected during scheduled FU consultations (n = 55) by (a combination of) radiological examinations and carcinoembryonic antigen levels, and were asymptomatic (n = 53); outside scheduled FU consultations, RD was detected during the treatment of postoperative complications or ostomy reversal (n = 5), or due to symptoms (n = 4). Most frequent sites of recurrence were liver (50%), lung (44%), multiple (22%) or locoregional (16%). Treatment of RD with curative intent was performed more frequently when detected during scheduled FU (60 vs. 22%). The only predictive factor for developing RD was stage III disease on initial presentation. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of rectal cancer patients are diagnosed with RD at an asymptomatic stage during scheduled FU consultations. Only a few patients presented with RD outside the FU programme. Arguably, general practitioners could order these same diagnostic tests during FU.

Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Colon Cancer Recurrence: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: Follow-up after colorectal cancer treatment with curative intent aims to detect recurrences and metachronous tumors in a timely manner. The objective of this study is to assess how recurrent disease presents and is diagnosed within scheduled follow-up according to the national guideline for the Netherlands. METHODS: In a retrospective study of consecutive patients with colorectal cancer who were treated in 2 hospitals in the Netherlands, we identified patients with colon cancer who underwent surgery with curative intent between January 2007 and December 2012. Patients who developed recurrent disease were included for further analyses. RESULTS: From a total of 446 patients who were been treated for colon carcinoma with curative intent, 74 developed recurrent disease (17%). In 43 of those patients (58%), recurrent disease was detected during a scheduled follow-up visit, with 41 (95%) being asymptomatic. Tumor marker testing, imaging, and colonoscopy identified all of these recurrences. In the remaining 31 patients with recurrent disease (42%), recurrence was found during non-scheduled interval visits; 26 (84%) of these patients were symptomatic. The most prevalent symptoms were abdominal pain, altered defecation, and weight loss. Patients with asymptomatic recurrences had a significantly higher overall survival compared with patients with symptomatic recurrences. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, 42% of the recurrences after initial curative treatment for colon cancer were found during non-scheduled interval visits, mainly based on symptoms. Primary care physicians who take care of patients whose colon cancer might recur should be aware of the relatively high rate of symptomatic recurrences and of typical presenting symptoms.

Beware of false-negative CT scan for anastomotic leakage after colonic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leakage is one of the most life-threatening complications after colonic surgery. Correct diagnosis and treatment is important to reduce morbidity and mortality. An abdominal CT scan is one of the main diagnostic tools in diagnosing anastomotic leaks. The aim of this study was to examine the accuracy of abdominal CT scanning to detect anastomotic leakage and to evaluate the consequences of a false-negative CT outcome. METHODS: All consecutive patients who underwent colonic resection for malignant disease between 2009 and 2011 or for benign disease in 2010 were reviewed. Patients in whom a postoperative abdominal CT scan was performed to detect anastomotic leakage were included. RESULTS: In 97 of 524 patients who underwent colonic surgery, an abdominal CT scan was performed for the suspicion of anastomotic leakage. Overall leakage rate was 10.9 % (n = 57). Mortality rate after leakage was 21.1 % (n = 12). Results from all abdominal CT scans revealed an overall sensitivity of 0.59 (95 % CI 0.43-0.73), a specificity of 0.88 (95 % CI 0.75-0.95), positive predictive value 0.82 (95 % CI 0.64-0.92), negative predictive value 0.70 (95 % CI 0.57-0.81), and an accuracy of 74 %. Delayed reintervention for anastomotic leakage due to a false-negative CT outcome resulted in death in 62.5 % (n = 5). CONCLUSION: The sensitivity of abdominal CT scanning after colonic surgery is relatively low. A negative CT scan does not rule out anastomotic leakage. Even with a negative CT scan, we should remain equally alert at clinical deterioration as an argument for timely intervention.

Total mesorectal excision in MRI-defined low rectal cancer: multicentre study comparing oncological outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic and transanal total mesorectal excision in high-volume centres.

BACKGROUND: The routine use of MRI in rectal cancer treatment allows the use of a strict definition for low rectal cancer. This study aimed to compare minimally invasive total mesorectal excision in MRI-defined low rectal cancer in expert laparoscopic, transanal and robotic high-volume centres. METHODS: All MRI-defined low rectal cancer operated on between 2015 and 2017 in 11 Dutch centres were included. Primary outcomes were: R1 rate, total mesorectal excision quality and 3-year local recurrence and survivals (overall and disease free). Secondary outcomes included conversion rate, complications and whether there was a perioperative change in the preoperative treatment plan. RESULTS: Of 1071 eligible rectal cancers, 633 patients with low rectal cancer were identified. Quality of the total mesorectal excision specimen (P = 0.337), R1 rate (P = 0.107), conversion (P = 0.344), anastomotic leakage rate (P = 0.942), local recurrence (P = 0.809), overall survival (P = 0.436) and disease-free survival (P = 0.347) were comparable among the centres. The laparoscopic centre group had the highest rate of perioperative change in the preoperative treatment plan (10.4%), compared with robotic expert centres (5.2%) and transanal centres (2.1%), P = 0.004. The main reason for this change was stapling difficulty (43%), followed by low tumour location (29%). Multivariable analysis showed that laparoscopic surgery was the only independent risk factor for a change in the preoperative planned procedure, P = 0.024. CONCLUSION: Centres with expertise in all three minimally invasive total mesorectal excision techniques can achieve good oncological resection in the treatment of MRI-defined low rectal cancer. However, compared with robotic expert centres and transanal centres, patients treated in laparoscopic centres have an increased risk of a change in the preoperative intended procedure due to technical limitations.

Use of ileostomy versus colostomy as a bridge to surgery in left-sided obstructive colon cancer: retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer causes the majority of large bowel obstructions and surgical resection remains the gold standard for curative treatment. There is evidence that a deviating stoma as a bridge to surgery can reduce postoperative mortality rate; however, the optimal stoma type is unclear. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes between ileostomy and colostomy as a bridge to surgery in left-sided obstructive colon cancer. METHODS: This was a national, retrospective population-based cohort study with 75 contributing hospitals. Patients with radiological left-sided obstructive colon cancer between 2009 and 2016, where a deviating stoma was used as a bridge to surgery, were included. Exclusion criteria were palliative treatment intent, perforation at presentation, emergency resection, and multivisceral resection. RESULTS: A total of 321 patients underwent a deviating stoma; 41 (12.7 per cent) ileostomies and 280 (87.2 per cent) colostomies. The ileostomy group had longer length of stay (median 13 (interquartile range (i.q.r.) 10-16) versus 9 (i.q.r. 6-14) days, P = 0.003) and more nutritional support during the bridging interval. Both groups showed similar complication rates in the bridging interval and after primary resection, including anastomotic leakage. Stoma reversal during resection was more common in the colostomy group (9 (22.0 per cent) versus 129 (46.1 per cent) for ileostomy and colostomy respectively, P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that patients having a colostomy as a bridge to surgery in left-sided obstructive colon cancer had a shorter length of stay and lower need for nutritional support. No difference in postoperative complications were found.

Comparison of three-year oncological results after restorative low anterior resection, non-restorative low anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Oncological outcome might be influenced by the type of resection in total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. The aim was to see if non-restorative LAR would have worse oncological outcome. A comparison was made between non-restorative low anterior resection (NRLAR), restorative low anterior resection (RLAR) and abdominoperineal resection (APR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort included data from patients undergoing TME for rectal cancer between 2015 and 2017 in eleven Dutch hospitals. A comparison was made for each different type of procedure (APR, NRLAR or RLAR). Primary outcome was 3-year overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 3-year local recurrence (LR) rate. RESULTS: Of 998 patients 363 underwent APR, 132 NRLAR and 503 RLAR. Three-year OS was worse after NRLAR (78.2%) compared to APR (86.3%) and RLAR (92.2%, p < 0.001). This was confirmed in a multivariable Cox regression analysis (HR 1.85 (1.07, 3.19), p = 0.03). The 3-year DFS was also worse after NRLAR (60.3%), compared to APR (70.5%) and RLAR (80.1%, p < 0.001), HR 2.05 (1.42, 2.97), p < 0.001. The LR rate was 14.6% after NRLAR, 5.2% after APR and 4.8% after RLAR (p = 0.005), HR 3.22 (1.61, 6.47), p < 0.001. CONCLUSION: NRLAR might be associated with worse 3-year OS, DFS and LR rate compared to RLAR and APR.

Detection of colon cancer recurrences during follow-up care by general practitioners vs surgeons.

BACKGROUND: In the I CARE study, colon cancer patients were randomly assigned to receive follow-up care from either a general practitioner (GP) or a surgeon. Here, we address a secondary outcome, namely, detection of recurrences and effect on time to detection of transferring care from surgeon to GP. METHODS: Pattern, stage, and treatment of recurrences were described after 3 years. Time to event was defined as date of surgery, until date of recurrence or last follow-up, with death as competing event. Effects on time to recurrence and death were estimated as hazard ratios (HRs) using Cox regression. Restricted mean survival times were estimated. RESULTS: Of 303 patients, 141 were randomly assigned to the GP and 162 to the surgeon. Patients were male (67%) with a mean age of 68.0 (8.4) years. During follow-up, 46 recurrences were detected; 18 (13%) in the GP vs 28 (17%) in the surgeon group. Most recurrences were detected via abnormal follow-up tests (74%) and treated with curative intent (59%). Hazard ratio for recurrence was 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.41 to 1.36) in GP vs surgeon group. Patients in the GP group remained in the disease-free state slightly longer (2.76 vs 2.71 years). Of the patients, 38 died during follow-up; 15 (11%) in the GP vs 23 (14%) in the surgeon group. Of these, 21 (55%) deaths were related to colon cancer. There were no differences in overall deaths between the groups (HR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.39 to 1.46). CONCLUSION: Follow-up provided by GPs vs surgeons leads to similar detection of recurrences. Also, no differences in mortality were found.