An evaluation of short-term outcomes after reoperations for anastomotic leakage in colon cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Scarce data are available on differences among index colectomies for colon cancer regarding reoperation for anastomotic leakage (AL) and clinical consequences. Therefore, this nationwide observational study aimed to evaluate reoperations for AL after colon cancer surgery and short-term postoperative outcomes for the different index colectomies. METHODS: Patients who underwent resection with anastomosis for a first primary colon carcinoma between 2013 and 2019 and were registered in the Dutch ColoRectal Audit were included. Primary outcomes were mortality, ICU admission, and stoma creation. RESULTS: Among 39,565 patients, the overall AL rate was 4.8% and ranged between 4.0% (right hemicolectomy) and 15.4% (subtotal colectomy). AL was predominantly managed with reoperation, ranging from 81.2% after transversectomy to 92.4% after sigmoid resection (p < 0.001). Median time to reoperation differed significantly between index colectomies (range 4-8 days, p < 0.001), with longer and comparable intervals for non-surgical reinterventions (range 13-18 days, p = 0.747). After reoperation, the highest mortality rates were observed for index transversectomy (15.4%) and right hemicolectomy (14.4%) and lowest for index sigmoid resection (5.6%) and subtotal colectomy (5.9%) (p < 0.001). Reoperation with stoma construction was associated with a higher mortality risk than without stoma construction after index right hemicolectomy (17.7% vs. 8.5%, p = 0.001). ICU admission rate was 62.6% overall (range 56.7-69.2%), and stoma construction rate ranged between 65.5% (right hemicolectomy) and 93.0% (sigmoid resection). CONCLUSION: Significant differences in AL rate, reoperation rate, time to reoperation, postoperative mortality after reoperation, and stoma construction for AL were found among the different index colectomies for colon cancer, with relevance for patient counseling and perioperative management.

National differences in implementation of minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer and the influence on short-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The timing and degree of implementation of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for colorectal cancer vary among countries. Insights in national differences regarding implementation of new surgical techniques and the effect on postoperative outcomes are important for quality assurance, can show potential areas for country-specific improvement, and might be illustrative and supportive for similar implementation programs in other countries. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate differences in patient selection, applied techniques, and results of minimal invasive surgery for colorectal cancer between the Netherlands and Sweden. METHODS: Patients who underwent elective minimally invasive surgery for T1-3 colon or rectal cancer (2012-2018) registered in the Dutch ColoRectal Audit or Swedish ColoRectal Cancer Registry were included. Time trends in the application of MIS were determined. Outcomes were compared for time periods with a similar level of MIS implementation (Netherlands 2012-2013 versus Sweden 2017-2018). Multilevel analyses were performed to identify factors associated with adverse short-term outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 46,095 Dutch and 8,819 Swedish patients undergoing MIS for colorectal cancer were included. In Sweden, MIS implementation was approximately 5 years later than in the Netherlands, with more robotic surgery and lower volumes per hospital. Although conversion rates were higher in Sweden, oncological and surgical outcomes were comparable. MIS in the Netherlands for the years 2012-2013 resulted in a higher reoperation rate for colon cancer and a higher readmission rate but lower non-surgical complication rates for rectal cancer if compared with MIS in Sweden during 2017-2018. CONCLUSION: This study showed that the implementation of MIS for colorectal cancer occurred later in Sweden than the Netherlands, with comparable outcomes despite lower volumes. Our study demonstrates that new surgical techniques can be implemented at a national level in a controlled and safe way, with thorough quality assurance.

Interhospital referral of colorectal cancer patients: a Dutch population-based study.

PURPOSE: Interhospital referral is a consequence of centralization of complex oncological care but might negatively impact waiting time, a quality indicator in the Netherlands. This study aims to evaluate characteristics and waiting times of patients with primary colorectal cancer who are referred between hospitals. METHODS: Data were extracted from the Dutch ColoRectal Audit (2015-2019). Waiting time between first tumor-positive biopsy until first treatment was compared between subgroups stratified for referral status, disease stage, and type of hospital. RESULTS: In total, 46,561 patients were included. Patients treated for colon or rectal cancer in secondary care hospitals were referred in 12.2% and 14.7%, respectively. In tertiary care hospitals, corresponding referral rates were 43.8% and 66.4%. Referred patients in tertiary care hospitals were younger, but had a more advanced disease stage, and underwent more often multivisceral resection and simultaneous metastasectomy than non-referred patients in secondary care hospitals (p<0.001). Referred patients were more often treated within national quality standards for waiting time compared to non-referred patients (p<0.001). For referred patients, longer waiting times prior to MDT were observed compared to non-referred patients within each hospital type, although most time was spent post-MDT. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of colorectal cancer patients that are treated in tertiary care hospitals are referred from another hospital but mostly treated within standards for waiting time. These patients are younger but often have a more advanced disease. This suggests that these patients are willing to travel more but also reflects successful centralization of complex oncological patients in the Netherlands.

Relief of Obstruction in Left-Sided Obstructive Colon Cancer: Nationwide Analysis of Applied Treatment in the Palliative Setting.

BACKGROUND: For relief of bowel obstruction in left-sided obstructive colon cancer (LSOCC), a self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) or decompressing stoma (DS) can be placed. In a curative setting, these two strategies have been extensively studied as a bridge to elective resection. Guidelines recommend SEMS as the preferred option in the palliative setting, but adherence in daily practice is unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to gain more insight into patients with LSOCC who received palliative treatment with SEMS or DS at a national level. METHODS: A retrospective population-based cohort study was conducted in the Netherlands. Data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) on all patients with LSOCC treated with DS or SEMS not followed by resection of the primary tumour between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019, were analysed. Type of treatment (DS or SEMS) for different clinical scenarios, was the main outcome of this study, and was also evaluated over the years (2015-2019). RESULTS: Palliative treatment with SEMS or DS for LSOCC was performed in 1077 patients, of whom 79.2% had metastatic disease (M1). Patients without metastatic disease (M0) were older (≥ 80 years M0 67.4%, M1 25.3%, P < 0.001), had a worse clinical condition (ASA III 51.4% versus 36.37%, ASA IV-V 13.3% versus 4.0% P < 0.001) and presented with higher tumour stage (cT4 55.4% versus 33.5%, % P < 0.001). DS was performed in 91.5% of the patients and SEMS in 8.5%. The proportion of DS did not significantly differ between patients with M1 and M0 (91.8% vs. 90.2% respectively, P = 0.525). No increase in SEMS application was observed over the years, with a stable overall proportion of DS of 91-92% per year. In the multivariable analyses, ninety-day mortality and overall survival were not significantly different between SEMS and DS. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that DS was the primary treatment modality for palliative management of LSOCC in the Netherlands between 2015 and 2019, while the guidelines recommended SEMS as preferred treatment. For patients with LSOCC eligible for stenting in the palliative setting, SEMS placement should become more available and accessible as the preferred treatment option, to avoid a stoma in the terminal phase of life.

Postoperative complications after colorectal cancer surgery and the association with long-term survival.

BACKGROUND: Complications after colorectal cancer surgery can worsen long-term survival. The aim of this nationwide study was to determine the impact of different types of complications on overall survival (OS) and conditional survival if still alive one year postoperatively (CS-1) after colorectal cancer surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients registered in the Dutch ColoRectal Audit after resection of primary colorectal cancer between 2011 and 2017 and with known survival status were included. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to assess the association of complications with OS and CS-1, thereby calculating the Hazard Ratio (HR) with 95% Confidence Interval. RESULTS: 43,908 colon and 16,955 rectal cancer patients were included. Median follow-up time was 66.1 and 66.5 months, respectively. Five-year OS after colon cancer resection was 73.2% without complications, and 65.4% with surgical, 52.9% with non-surgical and 51.8% with combined type of complications (p < 0.001). Corresponding 5-year OS for rectal cancer patients was 76.9%, 72.7%, 64.9%, and 63.2% (p < 0.001). In colon cancer, multivariable analyses revealed HR 1.198 (1.136-1.264) for surgical, HR 1.489 (1.423-1.558) for non-surgical and HR 1.590 (1.505-1.681) for combined type of complications. For rectal cancer, these HRs were 1.193 (1.097-1.2297), 1.456 (1.346-1.329), and 1.489 (1.357-1.633). Surgical complications were associated with worse CS-1 in rectal cancer (HR 1.140 (1.050-1.260), but not in colon cancer (HR 1.007 (0.943-1.075)). CONCLUSION: Non-surgical complications have higher impact on survival than surgical complications. The impact of surgical complications on survival was still measurable after surviving the first year in rectal cancer but not in colon cancer patients.

Textbook outcome after rectal cancer surgery as a composite measure for quality of care: A population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Textbook outcome is a composite measure of combined outcome indicators, which has been suggested to be of additional value over single outcome parameters in clinical auditing of surgical treatment. This study aimed to assess textbook outcome after rectal cancer surgery as short-term marker for quality of care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent elective rectal cancer surgery between 2012 and 2019 and registered in the Dutch ColoRectal Audit were included. Textbook outcome was achieved when the following criteria were met: 30-day and primary hospital admission survival, no reintervention, tumour-free margins, no postoperative complications, a hospital stay of less than 14 days and no readmission. Hospital variation was evaluated in case-mix corrected funnel-plots. A multilevel logistic regression analysis was performed to identify associated factors with textbook outcome. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 20,521 patients who underwent primary rectal cancer surgery, of whom 56.3% achieved textbook outcome. Postoperative complications were the main contributor to not achieving textbook outcome. Case-mix corrected funnel plots demonstrated that underperforming hospitals in 2012-2015 were no underperformers in 2016-2019 anymore. Female sex, laparoscopic surgery, and rectal resection without defunctioning stoma creation were positively associated with textbook outcome. CONCLUSION: Textbook outcome after rectal cancer resection is mainly driven by postoperative complications. Although textbook outcome showed some discriminating value for identifying underperforming hospitals, it does not fit the plan-do-check-act cycle of clinical auditing. In our opinion, textbook outcome has little added value to the current outcome indicators for rectal cancer surgery.

A 10-Year Evaluation of Short-Term Outcomes After Synchronous Colorectal Cancer Surgery: a Dutch Population-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: Synchronous colorectal cancer (CRC) has been associated with higher postoperative morbidity and mortality rates compared to solitary CRC. The influence of improved CRC care and introduction of screening on these outcomes remains unknown. This study aimed to evaluate time trends in incidence, population characteristics, and short-term outcomes of synchronous CRC patients at the population level over a 10-year time period. METHODS: Data of all patients that underwent resection for primary CRC were extracted from the Dutch ColoRectal Audit (2010-2019). Analyses were stratified for solitary and synchronous colon and rectal cancer. Multilevel logistic regression analyses were used to determine factors associated with pathological and surgical outcomes. RESULTS: Among 100,474 patients, 3.1% underwent surgery for synchronous CRC. A screening-related decrease for surgically treated left-sided solitary and synchronous colon cancer and a temporary increase for exclusively right-sided colon cancer were observed. Synchronous CRC patients had higher rates of complicated postoperative course, failure to rescue, and mortality. Bilateral synchronous colon cancer was more often treated with subtotal colectomy (25.4%) and demonstrated higher rates of surgical complications, reinterventions, prolonged hospital stay, and mortality than other synchronous tumor locations. DISCUSSION: National bowel screening resulted in contradictory effects on surgical resections for synchronous CRCs depending on sidedness. Bilateral synchronous colon cancer required more often extended resection resulting in significantly worse outcomes than other synchronous tumor locations. Identification of low volume, high complex CRC subpopulations is relevant for individualized care and has implications for case-mix correction and benchmarking in clinical auditing.