Surviving rectal cancer at the cost of a colostomy: global survey of long-term health-related quality of life in 10 countries.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer management may require an ostomy formation; however, a stoma may negatively impact health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to compare generic and stoma-specific HRQoL in patients with a permanent colostomy after rectal cancer across different countries. METHOD: A cross-sectional cohorts of patients with a colostomy after rectal cancer in Denmark, Sweden, Spain, the Netherlands, China, Portugal, Australia, Lithuania, Egypt, and Israel were invited to complete questionnaires regarding demographic and socioeconomic factors along with the Colostomy Impact (CI) score, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and five anchor questions assessing colostomy impact on HRQoL. The background characteristics of the cohorts from each country were compared and generic HRQoL was measured with the EORTC QLQ-C30 presented for the total cohort. Results were compared with normative data of reference European populations. The predictors of reduced HRQoL were investigated by multivariable logistic regression, including demographic and socioeconomic factors and stoma-related problems. RESULTS: A total of 2557 patients were included. Response rates varied between 51-93 per cent. Mean time from stoma creation was 2.5-6.2 (range 1.1-39.2) years. A total of 25.8 per cent of patients reported that their colostomy impairs their HRQoL 'some'/'a lot'. This group had significantly unfavourable scores across all EORTC subscales compared with patients reporting 'no'/'a little' impaired HRQoL. Generic HRQoL differed significantly between countries, but resembled the HRQoL of reference populations. Multivariable logistic regression showed that stoma dysfunction, including high CI score (OR 3.32), financial burden from the stoma (OR 1.98), unemployment (OR 2.74), being single/widowed (OR 1.35) and young age (OR 1.01 per year) predicted reduced stoma-related HRQoL. CONCLUSION: Overall HRQoL is preserved in patients with a colostomy after rectal cancer, but a quarter of the patients interviewed reported impaired HRQoL. Differences among several countries were reported and socioeconomic factors correlated with reduced quality of life.

Trends and outcome of neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer: A retrospective analysis and critical assessment of a 10-year prospective national registry on behalf of the Spanish Rectal Cancer Project.

INTRODUCTION: Preoperative treatment and adequate surgery increase local control in rectal cancer. However, modalities and indications for neoadjuvant treatment may be controversial. Aim of this study was to assess the trends of preoperative treatment and outcomes in patients with rectal cancer included in the Rectal Cancer Registry of the Spanish Associations of Surgeons. METHOD: This is a STROBE-compliant retrospective analysis of a prospective database. All patients operated on with curative intention included in the Rectal Cancer Registry were included. Analyses were performed to compare the use of neoadjuvant/adjuvant treatment in three timeframes: I)2006-2009; II)2010-2013; III)2014-2017. Survival analyses were run for 3-year survival in timeframes I-II. RESULTS: Out of 14,391 patients,8871 (61.6%) received neoadjuvant treatment. Long-course chemo/radiotherapy was the most used approach (79.9%), followed by short-course radiotherapy ±â€¯chemotherapy (7.6%). The use of neoadjuvant treatment for cancer of the upper third (15-11 cm) increased over time (31.5%vs 34.5%vs 38.6%,p = 0.0018). The complete regression rate slightly increased over time (15.6% vs 16% vs 18.5%; p = 0.0093); the proportion of patients with involved circumferential resection margins (CRM) went down from 8.2% to 7.3%and 5.5% (p = 0.0004). Neoadjuvant treatment significantly decreased positive CRM in lower third tumors (OR 0.71, 0.59-0.87, Cochrane-Mantel-Haenszel P = 0.0008). Most ypN0 patients also received adjuvant therapy. In MR-defined stage III patients, preoperative treatment was associated with significantly longer local-recurrence-free survival (p < 0.0001), and cancer-specific survival (p < 0.0001). The survival benefit was smaller in upper third cancers. CONCLUSION: There was an increasing trend and a potential overuse of neoadjuvant treatment in cancer of the upper rectum. Most ypN0 patients received postoperative treatment. Involvement of CRM in lower third tumors was reduced after neoadjuvant treatment. Stage III and MRcN + benefited the most.

Incidence, features, outcome and impact on health system of de-novo abdominal surgical diseases in patients admitted with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: to assess the epidemiology and features of de novo surgical diseases in patients admitted with COVID-19, and their impact on patients and healthcare system. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Gastrointestinal involvement has been described in COVID-19; however, no clear figures of incidence, epidemiology and economic impact exist for de-novo surgical diseases in hospitalized patients. METHODS: This is a prospective study including all patients admitted with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 rT-PCR, between 1 March and 15 May 2020 at two Tertiary Hospitals. Patients with known surgical disease at admission were excluded. Sub-analyses were performed with a consecutive group of COVID-19 patients admitted during the study period, who did not require surgical consultation. RESULTS: Ten out of 3089 COVID-19 positive patients (0.32%) required surgical consultation. Among those admitted in intensive care unit (ICU) incidence was 1.9%. Mortality was 40% in patients requiring immediate surgery and 20% in those suitable for conservative management. The overall median length of stay (LOS) of patients admitted to ICU was longer in those requiring surgical consultation compared with those who did not (51.5 vs 25 days, p = 0.0042). Patients requiring surgical consultation and treatment for de-novo surgical disease had longer median ICU-LOS (31.5 vs 12 days, p = 0.0004). A median of two post-surgical complications were registered for each patient undergoing surgery. Complication-associated costs were as high as 38,962 USD per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Incidence of de-novo surgical diseases is low in COVID-19, but it is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Future studies should elucidate the mechanism underlying the condition and identify strategies to prevent the need for surgery.

Critical Issues on Diverticular Disease.

In this session diverse critical issues in diverticular disease were considered, including "In or outpatient management of uncomplicated diverticulitis?", "Segmental colitis associated with diverticulosis: what is it?"and "Diverticular inflammation is a risk factor for colorectal cancer?". The conclusions drawn are outlined in the statements but in summary, outpatient management is safe in selected patients, as long as correct diagnosis and stage are assured, and this can allow a cost effective treatment. Non-antibiotic management is also safe but should be confined as an outpatient treatment in carefully selected patients.  Segmental colitis associated with diverticulosis (SCAD) is a defined pathological entity (only diagnosed on biopsy) characterized by an inflammatory bowel disease-like pathology, occurring principally in the sigmoid colon, with rectal and right colon sparing.  The pathogenesis is unclear but may include a genetic predisposition, microbiome alteration and ischaemia. Treatment can last months, and depends on severity, options include antibiotics, 5 ASA and probiotics for mild cases. Severe disease needs systemic steroids or even anti TNFα treatment.  Whether diverticular inflammation is a risk factor for colorectal cancer was debated and the conclusion that within the first eighteen months of diagnosis of diverticular disease associations with cancer are found, likely due to similar symptoms and misclassification of disease. After that time, diverticular disease does not increase the risk of colorectal cancer. Therefore, this is recommended to exclude cancer with imaging and colonoscopy after healing of the first episode of diverticulitis.

The Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®) is a Novel Cost Assessment Tool for Surgical Procedures.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify a readily available, reproducible, and internationally applicable cost assessment tool for surgical procedures. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Strong economic pressure exists worldwide to slow down the rising of health care costs. Postoperative morbidity significantly impacts on cost in surgical patients. The comprehensive complication index (CCI), reflecting overall postoperative morbidity, may therefore serve as a new marker for cost. METHODS: Postoperative complications and total costs from a single tertiary center were prospectively collected (2014 to 2016) up to 3 months after surgery for a variety of abdominal procedures (n = 1388). CCI was used to quantify overall postoperative morbidity. Pearson correlation coefficient (rpears) was calculated for cost and CCI. For cost prediction, a linear regression model based on CCI, age, and type of surgery was developed and validated in an international cohort of patients. RESULTS: We found a high correlation between CCI and overall cost (rpears = 0.75) with the strongest correlation for more complex procedures. The prediction model performed very well (R = 0.82); each 10-point increase in CCI corresponded to a 14% increase to the baseline cost. Additional 12% of baseline cost must be added for patients older than 50 years, or 24% for those over 70 years. The validation cohorts showed a good match of predicted and observed cost. CONCLUSION: Overall postoperative morbidity correlates highly with cost. The CCI together with the type of surgery and patient age is a novel and reliable predictor of expenses in surgical patients. This finding may enable objective cost comparisons among centers, procedures, or over time obviating the need to look at complex country-specific cost calculations (www.assessurgery.com).

Toward a Consensus on Centralization in Surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To critically assess centralization policies for highly specialized surgeries in Europe and North America and propose recommendations. BACKGROUND/METHODS: Most countries are increasingly forced to maintain quality medicine at a reasonable cost. An all-inclusive perspective, including health care providers, payers, society as a whole and patients, has ubiquitously failed, arguably for different reasons in environments. This special article follows 3 aims: first, analyze health care policies for centralization in different countries, second, analyze how centralization strategies affect patient outcome and other aspects such as medical education and cost, and third, propose recommendations for centralization, which could apply across continents. RESULTS: Conflicting interests have led many countries to compromise for a health care system based on factors beyond best patient-oriented care. Centralization has been a common strategy, but modalities vary greatly among countries with no consensus on the minimal requirement for the number of procedures per center or per surgeon. Most national policies are either partially or not implemented. Data overwhelmingly indicate that concentration of complex care or procedures in specialized centers have positive impacts on quality of care and cost. Countries requiring lower threshold numbers for centralization, however, may cause inappropriate expansion of indications, as hospitals struggle to fulfill the criteria. Centralization requires adjustments in training and credentialing of general and specialized surgeons, and patient education. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATIONS: There is an obvious need in most areas for effective centralization. Unrestrained, purely "market driven" approaches are deleterious to patients and society. Centralization should not be based solely on minimal number of procedures, but rather on the multidisciplinary treatment of complex diseases including well-trained specialists available around the clock. Audited prospective database with monitoring of quality of care and cost are mandatory.

Outpatient versus hospitalization management for uncomplicated diverticulitis: a prospective, multicenter randomized clinical trial (DIVER Trial).

OBJECTIVE: We compare the results of 2 different strategies for the management of patients with uncomplicated left colonic diverticulitis and to analyze differences in quality of life and economic costs. BACKGROUND: The most frequent standard management of acute uncomplicated diverticulitis still is hospital admission both in Europe and United States. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized controlled trial included patients older than 18 years with acute uncomplicated diverticulitis. All the patients underwent abdominal computed tomography. There were 2 strategies of management: hospitalization (group 1) and outpatient (group 2). The first dose of antibiotic was given intravenously to all patients in the emergency department and then group 1 patients were hospitalized whereas patients in group 2 were discharged. The primary end point was the treatment failure rate of the outpatient protocol and need for hospital admission. The secondary end points included quality-of-life assessment and evaluation of costs. RESULTS: A total of 132 patients were randomized: 4 patients in group 1 and 3 patients in group 2 presented treatment failure without differences between the groups (P=0.619). The overall health care cost per episode was 3 times lower in group 2, with savings of €1124.70 per patient. No differences were observed between the groups in terms of quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient treatment is safe and effective in selected patients with uncomplicated acute diverticulitis. Outpatient treatment allows important costs saving to the health systems without negative influence on the quality of life of patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis. Trial registration ID: EudraCT number 2008-008452-17.

[Fecal incontinence. Patient assessment and classical treatments]. / Incontinencia fecal. Valoración del paciente. Tratamientos clásicos.

Fecal incontinence is a very common disease but its exact prevalence is largely unknown. The condition gives rise to personal and social stigma with severe repercussions for the patient. It can be caused by a large number of physiopathologic disorders and consequently there is a wide variety of treatments. In this article we review the incidence and etiology of fecal incontinence, physical and instrumental examinations (with description of the components of the anorectal laboratory), traditional medical and surgical treatments and, lastly, the results of sphincteroplasties.