Update on Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches for Rectal Cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to clarify the current role of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer, highlighting short- and long-term outcomes from the latest trials and studies. RECENT FINDINGS: Data from previous trials has been conflicting, with some failing to demonstrate non-inferiority of laparoscopic surgical resection of rectal cancer compared to an open approach and others demonstrating similar clinical outcomes. Robot-assisted surgery was thought to be a promising solution to the challenges faced by laparoscopic surgery, and even though the only randomized controlled trial to date comparing these two techniques did not show superiority of robot-assisted surgery over laparoscopy, more recent retrospective data suggests a statistically significant higher negative circumferential resection margin rate, decreased frequency of conversion to open, and less sexual and urinary complications. Minimally invasive surgery techniques for resection of rectal cancer, particularly robot-assisted, offer clear short-term peri-operative benefits over an open approach; however, current data has yet to display non-inferiority in terms of oncological outcomes.

Assessment of T and N staging with MRI3T in lower and middle rectal cancer and impact on clinical strategy.

BACKGROUND: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of preoperative T/N stage using MRI in lower and middle rectal cancer patients and the impacts on clinical decision-making. PATIENTS AND METHODS: There were 354 patients recruited from May 2017 to February 2019. MRI was performed within 2 weeks before surgery. Histopathologic results were evaluated for the postoperative T/N stage and MRI diagnostic accuracy was assessed based on the postoperative histopathologic results. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and Kappa values were used to evaluate MRI diagnostic accuracy and analysis consistency compared with postoperative histopathologic staging. RESULTS: Overall MRI diagnostic accuracy was 78.2% and 56.8% for T1-4 and N0-2 staging. The Kappa values were 0.625 and 0.323 for T1-4 and N0-2 staging, respectively. After combination, MRI diagnostic accuracy was 85% and 69.5% for T and N staging. The Kappa values were 0.693 and 0.4 for T and N staging. The diagnostic accuracy of MRI for treatment decision-making was 79.1%. CONCLUSION: MRI enables a highly accurate preoperative assessment of T stage but only a fairly accurate preoperative assessment of the N stage for rectal cancer with surgery. The diagnostic accuracy of MRI for treatment decision-making is promising.

Association of Surgical Skill Assessment With Clinical Outcomes in Cancer Surgery.

Importance: Complex surgical interventions are inherently prone to variation yet they are not objectively measured. The reasons for outcome differences following cancer surgery are unclear. Objective: To quantify surgical skill within advanced laparoscopic procedures and its association with histopathological and clinical outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This analysis of data and video from the Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of Rectum (ALaCaRT) and 2-dimensional/3-dimensional (2D3D) multicenter randomized laparoscopic total mesorectal excision trials, which were conducted at 28 centers in Australia, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand, was performed from 2018 to 2019 and included 176 patients with clinical T1 to T3 rectal adenocarcinoma 15 cm or less from the anal verge. Case videos underwent blinded objective analysis using a bespoke performance assessment tool developed with a 62-international expert Delphi exercise and workshop, interview, and pilot phases. Interventions: Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision undertaken with curative intent by 34 credentialed surgeons. Main Outcomes and Measures: Histopathological (plane of mesorectal dissection, ALaCaRT composite end point success [mesorectal fascial plane, circumferential margin, ≥1 mm; distal margin, ≥1 mm]) and 30-day morbidity. End points were analyzed using surgeon quartiles defined by tool scores. Results: The laparoscopic total mesorectal excision performance tool was produced and shown to be reliable and valid for the specialist level (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.889; 95% CI, 0.832-0.926; P < .001). A substantial variation in tool scores was recorded (range, 25-48). Scores were associated with the number of intraoperative errors, plane of mesorectal dissection, and short-term patient morbidity, including the number and severity of complications. Upper quartile-scoring surgeons obtained excellent results compared with the lower quartile (mesorectal fascial plane: 93% vs 59%; number needed to treat [NNT], 2.9, P = .002; ALaCaRT end point success, 83% vs 58%; NNT, 4; P = .03; 30-day morbidity, 23% vs 50%; NNT, 3.7; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: Intraoperative surgical skill can be objectively and reliably measured in complex cancer interventions. Substantial variation in technical performance among credentialed surgeons is seen and significantly associated with clinical and pathological outcomes.

Association of Discretionary Hospital Volume Standards for High-risk Cancer Surgery With Patient Outcomes and Access, 2005-2016.

Importance: Various clinical societies and patient advocacy organizations continue to encourage minimum volume standards at hospitals that perform certain high-risk operations. Although many clinicians and quality and safety experts believe this can improve outcomes, the extent to which hospitals have responded to these discretionary standards remains unclear. Objective: To evaluate the association between short-term clinical outcomes and hospitals' adherence to the Leapfrog Group's minimum volume standards for high-risk cancer surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: Longitudinal cohort study using 100% of the Medicare claims for 516 392 patients undergoing pancreatic, esophageal, rectal, or lung resection for cancer between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2016. Data were accessed between December 1, 2018, and April 30, 2019. Exposures: High-risk cancer surgery in hospitals meeting and not meeting the minimum volume standards. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patients having surgery in hospitals meeting the volume standard and 30-day and in-hospital mortality and complication rates. Results: Overall, a total of 516 392 procedures (47 318 pancreatic resections, 29 812 esophageal resections, 116 383 rectal resections, and 322 879 lung resections) were included in the study, and patient mean (SD) age was 73.1 (7.5) years. Outcomes improved over time in both hospitals meeting and not meeting the minimum volume standards. Mortality after pancreatic resection decreased from 5.5% in 2005 to 4.8% in 2016 (P for trend <.001). Mortality after esophageal resection decreased from in 6.7% 2005 to 5.0% in 2016 (P for trend <.001). Mortality after rectal resection decreased from 3.6% in 2005 to 2.7 % in 2016 (P for trend <.001). Mortality after lung resection decreased from 4.2% in 2005 to 2.7 % in 2016 (P for trend <.001). Throughout the study period, there were no statistically significant differences in risk-adjusted mortality between hospitals meeting and not meeting the volume standards for esophageal, lung, and rectal cancer resections. Mortality rates after pancreatic resection were consistently lower at hospitals meeting the volume standard, although mortality at all hospitals decreased over the study period. For example, in 2016, risk-adjusted mortality rates for hospitals meeting the volume standard were 3.8% (95% CI, 3.3%-4.3%) compared with 5.7% (95% CI, 5.1%-6.5%) for hospitals that did not. Although an increasing majority of patients underwent surgery in hospitals meeting the Leapfrog volume standards over time, the overall proportion of hospitals meeting the standards in 2016 ranged from 5.6% for esophageal resection to 23.3% for pancreatic resection. Conclusions and Relevance: Although volume remains an important factor for patient safety, the Leapfrog Group's minimum volume standards did not differentiate hospitals based on mortality for 3 of the 4 high-risk cancer operations assessed, and few hospitals were able to meet these standards. These findings highlight important tradeoffs between setting effective volume thresholds and practical expectations for hospital adherence and patient access to centers that meet those standards.

Risk-adjusted regional outcomes in elective medicare colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Regional differences in utilization of services in healthcare are commonly understood, but risk-adjusted evaluation of outcomes has not been done. METHODS: Risk-adjusted adverse outcomes (AOs) for elective Medicare colorectal resections were studied for 2012-2014. Risk-adjusted metrics were inpatient deaths, prolonged postoperative length-of-stay, 90-day post-discharge deaths, and 90-day relevant post-discharge readmissions. The nine Census Bureau regions of the U.S. were evaluated by using standard deviations of predicted adverse outcomes to evaluate observed versus expected events. RESULTS: Overall AO rate was 24.3% from 86,624 patients in 1497 hospitals. Region 9 (Pacific) had the best outcomes (z-score = -3.06; risk-adjusted AO rate = 22.9%) and Region 1 (New England) the poorest (z-score = +1.86; risk-adjusted AO rate = 25.4%). CONCLUSIONS: A 4.9 SD difference exists among the best and poorest performing regions in risk-adjusted colorectal surgery outcomes. Alternative Payment Models should consider regional benchmarks as a variable for the evaluation of quality and pricing of episodes of care.