Differences in effectiveness and use of laparoscopic surgery in locally advanced colon cancer patients.

Patients with locally advanced colon cancer have worse outcomes. Guidelines of various organizations are conflicting about the use of laparoscopic colectomy (LC) in locally advanced colon cancer. We determined whether patient outcomes of LC and open colectomy (OC) for locally advanced (T4) colon cancer are comparable in all colon cancer patients, T4a versus T4b patients, obese versus non-obese patients, and tumors located in the ascending, descending, and transverse colon. We used data from the 2013-2015 American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Patients were diagnosed with nonmetastatic pT4 colon cancer, with or without obstruction, and underwent LC (n = 563) or OC (n = 807). We used a composite outcome score (mortality, readmission, re-operation, wound infection, bleeding transfusion, and prolonged postoperative ileus); length of stay; and length of operation. Patients undergoing LC exhibited a composite outcome score that was 9.5% lower (95% CI - 15.4; - 3.5) versus those undergoing OC. LC patients experienced a 11.3% reduction in postoperative ileus (95% CI - 16.0; - 6.5) and an average of 2 days shorter length of stay (95% CI - 2.9; - 1.0). Patients undergoing LC were in the operating room an average of 13.5 min longer (95% CI 1.5; 25.6). We found no evidence for treatment heterogeneity across subgroups (p > 0.05). Patients with locally advanced colon cancer who receive LC had better overall outcomes and shorter lengths of stay compared with OC patients. LC was equally effective in obese/nonobese patients, in T4a/T4b patients, and regardless of the location of the tumor.

Spatially explicit survival modeling for small area cancer data.

In this paper we propose a novel Bayesian statistical methodology for spatial survival data. Our methodology broadens the definition of the survival, density and hazard functions by explicitly modeling the spatial dependency using direct derivations of these functions and their marginals and conditionals. We also derive spatially dependent likelihood functions. Finally we examine the applications of these derivations with geographically augmented survival distributions in the context of the Louisiana Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry prostate cancer data.

Differences in Effectiveness and Use of Robotic Surgery in Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Colectomy.

BACKGROUND: We compared patient outcomes of robot-assisted surgery (RAS) and laparoscopic colectomy without robotic assistance for colon cancer or nonmalignant polyps, comparing all patients, obese versus nonobese patients, and male versus female patients. METHODS: We used the 2013-2015 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data to examine a composite outcome score comprised of mortality, readmission, reoperation, wound infection, bleeding transfusion, and prolonged postoperative ileus. We used propensity scores to assess potential heterogeneous treatment effects of RAS by patient obesity and sex. RESULTS: In all, 17.1% of the 10,844 of patients received RAS. Males were slightly more likely to receive RAS. Obese patients were equally likely to receive RAS as nonobese patients. In comparison to nonRAS, RAS was associated with a 3.1% higher adverse composite outcome score. Mortality, reoperations, wound infections, sepsis, pulmonary embolisms, deep vein thrombosis, myocardial infarction, blood transfusions, and average length of hospitalization were similar in both groups. Conversion to open surgery was 10.1% lower in RAS versus nonRAS patients, but RAS patients were in the operating room an average of 52.4 min longer. We found no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) by obesity status and gender. CONCLUSIONS: Worse patient outcomes and no differential improvement by sex or obesity suggest more cautious adoption of RAS.