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).

Colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection for colonic neoplasms: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The current literature describes a variety of techniques detailed under the name of combined endoscopic-laparoscopic surgery (CELS) procedures. This systematic review of literature assessed the outcomes of colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic-wedge resection (CAL-WR) in particular to evaluate its feasibility to remove colonic lesions that do not qualify for endoscopic resection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane) were searched for studies evaluating CAL-WR for the treatment of colonic lesions. Studies with missing full text, language other than English, systematic reviews, and studies with fewer than ten patients were excluded. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Out of 68 results, duplicate studies (n = 27) as well as studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria (n = 32) were removed. Nine studies were included, encompassing 326 patients who underwent a CAL-WR of the colon. The technical success rate varied from 93 to 100%, with an R0 resection rate of 91-100%. Morbidity ranged from 6% to 20%. The quality of the included studies was rated as low to moderate and contained heterogeneous terminology, methodology, and outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient high-quality data and substantial variation in outcome measures to draw firm conclusions regarding the value of CAL-WR. Although CAL-WR is a promising local resection technique for endoscopically unremovable neoplasms of the colon, further investigation of this technique in well-designed prospective, multicenter studies with predefined outcome measures is required.Trial registration: A protocol for this systematic review was registered in PROSPERO with the number CRD42023407966.

Long-term restoration of bowel continuity after rectal cancer resection and the influence of surgical technique: A nationwide cross-sectional study.

AIM: Literature on nationwide long-term permanent stoma rates after rectal cancer resection in the minimally invasive era is scarce. The aim of this population-based study was to provide more insight into the permanent stoma rate with interhospital variability (IHV) depending on surgical technique, with pelvic sepsis, unplanned reinterventions and readmissions as secondary outcomes. METHOD: Patients who underwent open or minimally invasive resection of rectal cancer (lower border below the sigmoid take-off) in 67 Dutch centres in 2016 were included in this cross-sectional cohort study. RESULTS: Among 2530 patients, 1470 underwent a restorative resection (58%), 356 a Hartmann's procedure (14%, IHV 0%-42%) and 704 an abdominoperineal resection (28%, IHV 3%-60%). Median follow-up was 51 months. The overall permanent stoma rate at last follow-up was 50% (IHV 13%-79%) and the unintentional permanent stoma rate, permanent stoma after a restorative procedure or an unplanned Hartmann's procedure, was 11% (IHV 0%-29%). A total of 2165 patients (86%) underwent a minimally invasive resection: 1760 conventional (81%), 170 transanal (8%) and 235 robot-assisted (11%). An anastomosis was created in 59%, 80% and 66%, with corresponding unintentional permanent stoma rates of 12%, 24% and 14% (p = 0.001), respectively. When corrected for age, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, cTNM, distance to the anorectal junction and neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy, the minimally invasive technique was not associated with an unintended permanent stoma (p = 0.071) after a restorative procedure. CONCLUSION: A remarkable IHV in the permanent stoma rate after rectal cancer resection was found. No beneficial influence of transanal or robot-assisted laparoscopy on the unintentional permanent stoma rate was found, although this might be caused by the surgical learning curve. A reduction in IHV and improving preoperative counselling for decision-making for restorative procedures are required.

Colonoscopy-Assisted Laparoscopic Wedge Resection for the Treatment of Suspected T1 Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Local en bloc resection of pT1 colon cancer has been gaining acceptance during the last few years. In the absence of histological risk factors, the risk of lymph-node metastases (LNM) is negligible and does not outweigh the morbidity and mortality of an oncologic resection. Colonoscopy-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection (CAL-WR) has proved to be an effective and safe technique for removing complex benign polyps. The role of CAL-WR for the primary resection of suspected T1 colon cancer has to be established. METHODS: This retrospective study aimed to determine the radicality and safety of CAL-WR as a local en bloc resection technique for a suspected T1 colon cancer. Therefore, the study identified patients in whom high-grade dysplasia or a T1 colon carcinoma was suspected based on histology and/or macroscopic assessment, requiring an en bloc resection. RESULTS: The study analyzed 57 patients who underwent CAL-WR for a suspected macroscopic polyp or polyps with biopsy-proven high-grade dysplasia or T1 colon carcinoma. For 27 of these 57 patients, a pT1 colon carcinoma was diagnosed at pathologic examination after CAL-WR. Histological risk factors for LNM were present in three cases, and 70% showed deep submucosal invasion (Sm2/Sm3). For patients with pT1 colon carcinoma, an overall R0-resection rate of 88.9% was achieved. A minor complication was noted in one patient (1.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The CAL-WR procedure is an effective and safe technique for suspected high-grade dysplasia or T1-colon carcinoma. It may fill the gap for tumors that are macroscopic suspected for deep submucosal invasion, providing more patients an organ-preserving treatment option.

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.

Delayed TME Surgery in a Watch-and-Wait Strategy After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer: An Analysis of Hospital Costs and Surgical and Oncological Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: A watch-and-wait strategy for patients with rectal cancer with a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is a valuable alternative for rectal resection. However, there are patients who will have residual tumor or regrowth during watch and wait. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate safety and costs for patients who underwent delayed surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study with prospectively collected data. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a large teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Between January 2015 and May 2020, 622 new rectal cancer patients were seen, of whom 200 received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Ninety-four patients were included, 65 of whom underwent immediate surgery and 29 of whom required delayed surgery after an initial watch-and-wait approach. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures included 30-day postoperative morbidity rate, hospital costs. 2-year overall and disease-free survival. RESULTS: There was no difference in length of stay (9 vs 8; p = 0.83), readmissions (27.6% vs 10.0%; p = 0.10), surgical re-interventions (15.0% vs 3.4%; p = 0.16), or stoma-free rate (52.6% vs 31.0%; p = 0.09) between immediate and delayed surgery groups. Hospital costs were similar in the delayed group (€11,913 vs €13,769; p = 0.89). Two-year overall survival (93% vs 100%; p = 0.23) and disease-free survival (78% vs 81%; p = 0.47) rates were comparable. LIMITATIONS: Limitations included small sample size, follow-up time and retrospective design. CONCLUSION: Delayed surgery for regrowth in a watch-and-wait program or for persistent residual disease after a repeated assessment is not associated with an increased risk of postoperative morbidity or a significant rise in costs compared to immediate total mesorectal excision. There also appears to be no evident compromise in oncological outcome. Repeated response assessment in patients with a near complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is a useful approach to identify more patients who can benefit from a watch-and-wait strategy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B836 . CIRUGA DE TME RETRASADA EN UNA ESTRATEGIA DE WATCH AND WAIT DESPUS DE LA QUIMIORRADIOTERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE PARA CNCER DE RECTO UN ANLISIS DE COSTOS HOSPITALARIOS, Y DE RESULTADOS QUIRRGICOS Y ONCOLGICOS: ANTECEDENTES: Una estrategia de Watch and Wait para pacientes con cáncer de recto con una respuesta clínica completa después de quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante es una alternativa valiosa en vez de resección rectal. Sin embargo, hay pacientes que tendrán tumor residual o un recrecimiento durante el Watch and Wait .OBJETIVO: El objetivo fue investigar la seguridad y los costos para los pacientes que se sometieron a una cirugía diferida después de la quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante.DISEÑO: Este es un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo con datos recolectados prospectivamente.AJUSTE: El estudio se llevó a cabo en un gran hospital universitario.PACIENTES: Entre enero de 2015 y mayo de 2020, se atendieron 622 nuevos pacientes con cáncer de recto, de los cuales 200 recibieron quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante. Se incluyeron 94 pacientes, de los cuales 65 se sometieron a cirugía inmediata y 29 pacientes requirieron cirugía diferida después de un enfoque inicial de observación y espera.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: se incluyeron la tasa de morbilidad posoperatoria a 30 días, los costos hospitalarios y las sobrevidas general y libre de enfermedad a dos años.RESULTADOS: No hubo diferencia en la duración de la estancia (9 vs 8, p = 0,83), reingresos (27,6% vs 10,0%, p = 0,10), reintervenciones quirúrgicas (15,0% vs 3,4%, p = 0,16) y tasa libre de estoma (52,6% vs 31,0%, p = 0,09) entre los grupos de cirugía inmediata y tardía. Los costos hospitalarios fueron similares en el grupo retrasado (11913 € frente a 13769 €, p = 0,89). Las tasas de sobrevida general a dos años (93% frente a 100%, p = 0,23) y sobrevida libre de enfermedad (78% frente a 81%, p = 0,47) fueron comparables.LIMITACIONES: Tamaño de muestra pequeño, tiempo de seguimiento y diseño retrospectivo.CONCLUSIÓN: La cirugía tardía para el recrecimiento en un programa de Watch and Wait o para la enfermedad residual persistente después de una evaluación repetida no se asocia con un riesgo mayor de morbilidad posoperatoria ni con un aumento significativo en los costos, en comparación con la escisión total de mesorrecto inmediata. Tampoco parece haber un compromiso evidente en el resultado oncológico. La evaluación repetida de la respuesta en pacientes con una respuesta clínica casi completa después de la quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante es un enfoque útil para identificar más pacientes que pueden beneficiarse de una estrategia de Watch and Wait . Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B836 . (Traducción-Dr. Juan Carlos Reyes ).

Short- and Long-term Outcomes After Laparoscopic Emergency Resection of Left-Sided Obstructive Colon Cancer: A Nationwide Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The role of laparoscopy for emergency resection of left-sided obstructive colon cancer remains unclear, especially regarding impact on survival. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine short- and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic versus open emergency resection of left-sided obstructive colon cancer. DESIGN: This observational cohort study compared patients who underwent laparoscopic emergency resection to those who underwent open emergency resection between 2009 and 2016 by using 1:3 propensity-score matching. Matching variables included sex, age, BMI, ASA score, previous abdominal surgery, tumor location, cT4, cM1, multivisceral resection, small-bowel distention on CT, and subtotal colectomy. SETTING: This was a nationwide, population-based study. PATIENTS: Of 2002 eligible patients with left-sided obstructive colon cancer, 158 patients who underwent laparoscopic emergency resection were matched with 474 patients who underwent open emergency resection. INTERVENTIONS: The intervention was laparoscopic versus open emergency resection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were 90-day mortality, 90-day complications, permanent stoma, disease recurrence, overall survival, and disease-free survival. RESULTS: Intentional laparoscopy resulted in significantly fewer 90-day complications (26.6% vs 38.4%; conditional OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39-0.87) and similar 90-day mortality. Laparoscopy resulted in better 3-year overall survival (81.0% vs 69.4%; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37-0.79) and disease-free survival (68.3% vs 52.3%; HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47-0.87). Multivariable regression analyses of the unmatched 2002 patients confirmed an independent association of laparoscopy with fewer 90-day complications and better 3-year survival. LIMITATIONS: Selection bias was the limitation that cannot be completely ruled out because of the retrospective nature of this study. CONCLUSIONS: This population-based study with propensity score-matched analysis suggests that intentional laparoscopic emergency resection might improve outcomes in patients with left-sided obstructive colon cancer compared to open emergency resection. Management of those patients in the emergency setting requires proper selection for intentional laparoscopic resection if relevant expertise is available, thereby considering other alternatives to avoid open emergency resection (ie, decompressing stoma). See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B972 . RESULTADOS A CORTO Y LARGO PLAZO DESPUS DE LA RESECCIN LAPAROSCPICA DE EMERGENCIA EN CNCER DE COLON IZQUIERDO OBSTRUCTIVO UN ANLISIS EMPAREJADO POR PUNTAJE DE PROPENSIN A NIVEL NACIONAL: ANTECEDENTES:El papel de la laparoscopia en la resección de emergencia en cáncer de colon izquierdo obstructivo sigue sin estar claro, especialmente con respecto al impacto en la supervivencia.OBJETIVO:El objetivo de este estudio fue determinar los resultados a corto y largo plazo después de la resección de emergencia laparoscópica versus abierta en cáncer de colon izquierdo obstructivo.DISEÑO:Estudio observacional de cohortes comparó pacientes que se sometieron a resección de laparoscópica de emergencia versus resección abierta de emergencia entre 2009 y 2016, mediante el uso de emparejamineto por puntaje de propensión 1: 3. Las variables emparejadas incluyeron sexo, edad, IMC, puntaje ASA, cirugía abdominal previa, ubicación del tumor, cT4, cM1, resección multivisceral, distensión del intestino delgado en la TAC y colectomía subtotal.ENTORNO CLINICO:A nivel nacional, basado en la población.PACIENTES:De 2002 pacientes elegibles con cáncer de colon izquierdo obstructivo, 158 pacientes con resección laparoscópica s de emergencia e emparejaron con 474 pacientes con resección abierta de emergencia.INTERVENCIONES:Resección laparoscópica de emergencia versus abierta.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Las medidas primarias fueron la mortalidad a 90 días, complicaciones a 90 días, estoma permanente, recurrencia de la enfermedad, supervivencia general y supervivencia libre de enfermedad.RESULTADOS:La laparoscopia intencional dió como resultado significativamente menos complicaciones a los 90 días (26,6 % vs 38,4 %, cOR 0,59, IC del 95 %: 0,39-0,87) y una mortalidad similar a los 90 días. La laparoscopia resultó en una mejor supervivencia general a los 3 años (81,0 % vs 69,4 %, HR 0,54, IC del 95 % 0,37-0,79) y supervivencia libre de enfermedad (68,3 % vs 52,3 %, HR 0,64, IC del 95 % 0,47-0,87). Los análisis de regresión multivariable de los 2002 pacientes no emparejados confirmaron una asociación independiente de la laparoscopia con menos complicaciones a los 90 días y una mejor supervivencia a los 3 años.LIMITACIONES:El sesgo de selección no se puede descartar por completo debido a la naturaleza retrospectiva de este estudio.CONCLUSIONES:Estudio poblacional con análisis emparejado por puntaje de propensión sugiere que la resección laparoscópica de emergencia intencional podría mejorar los resultados a corto y largo plazo en pacientes con cáncer de colon izquierdo obstructivo en comparación con resección abierta de emergencia, lo que justifica la confirmación en estudios futuros. El manejo de esos pacientes en el entorno de emergencia requiere una selección adecuada para la resección laparoscópica intencional si se dispone de experiencia relevante, considerando así otras alternativas para evitar la resección abierta de emergencia (es decir, ostomia descompresiva). Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B972 . (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon & Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy).

Limited wedge resection for T1 colon cancer (LIMERIC-II trial) - rationale and study protocol of a prospective multicenter clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The sole presence of deep submucosal invasion is shown to be associated with a limited risk of lymph node metastasis. This justifies a local excision of suspected deep submucosal invasive colon carcinomas (T1 CCs) as a first step treatment strategy. Recently Colonoscopy-Assisted Laparoscopic Wedge Resection (CAL-WR) has been shown to be able to resect pT1 CRCs with a high R0 resection rate, but the long term outcomes are lacking. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety, effectiveness and long-term oncological outcomes of CAL-WR as primary treatment for patients with suspected superficial and also deeply-invasive T1 CCs. METHODS: In this prospective multicenter clinical trial, patients with a macroscopic and/or histologically suspected T1 CCs will receive CAL-WR as primary treatment in order to prevent unnecessary major surgery for low-risk T1 CCs. To make a CAL-WR technically feasible, the tumor may not include > 50% of the circumference and has to be localized at least 25 cm proximal from the anus. Also, there should be sufficient distance to the ileocecal valve to place a linear stapler. Before inclusion, all eligible patients will be assessed by an expert panel to confirm suspicion of T1 CC, estimate invasion depth and subsequent advise which local resection techniques are possible for removal of the lesion. The primary outcome of this study is the proportion of patients with pT1 CC that is curatively treated with CAL-WR only and in whom thus organ-preservation could be achieved. Secondary outcomes are 1) CAL-WR's technical success and R0 resection rate for T1 CC, 2) procedure-related morbidity and mortality, 3) 5-year overall and disease free survival, 4) 3-year metastasis free survival, 5) procedure-related costs and 6) impact on quality of life. A sample size of 143 patients was calculated. DISCUSSION: CAL-WR is a full-thickness local resection technique that could also be effective in removing pT1 colon cancer. With the lack of current endoscopic local resection techniques for > 15 mm pT1 CCs with deep submucosal invasion, CAL-WR could fill the gap between endoscopy and major oncologic surgery. The present study is the first to provide insight in the long-term oncological outcomes of CAL-WR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CCMO register (ToetsingOnline), NL81497.075.22, protocol version 2.3 (October 2022).

Colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection versus segmental colon resection for benign colonic polyps: a comparative cost analysis.

AIM: The colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection (CAL-WR) is proven to be an effective and safe alternative to a segmental colon resection (SCR) for large or complex benign colonic polyps that are not eligible for endoscopic removal. This analysis aimed to evaluate the costs of CAL-WR and compare them to the costs of an SCR. METHOD: A single-centre 90-day 'in-hospital' comparative cost analysis was performed on patients undergoing CAL-WR or SCR for complex benign polyps between 2016 and 2020. The CAL-WR group consisted of 44 patients who participated in a prospective multicentre study (LIMERIC study). Inclusion criteria were (1) endoscopically unresectable benign polyps; (2) residual or recurrence after previous polypectomy; or (3) irradically resected low risk pT1 colon carcinoma. The comparison group, which was retrospectively identified, included 32 patients who underwent an elective SCR in the same period. RESULTS: Colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection was associated with significantly fewer complications (7% in the CAL-WR group vs. 45% in the SCR group, P < 0.001), shorter operation time (50 min in the CAL-WR group vs. 119 min in the SCR group, P < 0.001), shorter length of hospital stay (median length of stay 2 days in the CAL-WR group vs. 4 days in the SCR group, P < 0.001) and less use of surgical resources (reduction in costs of 32% per patient), resulting in a cost savings of €2372 (£2099 GBP) per patient (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Given the clinical and financial benefits, CAL-WR should be recommended for complex benign polyps that are not eligible for endoscopic resection before major surgery is considered.

Colonoscopic-Assisted Laparoscopic Wedge Resection for Colonic Lesions: A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study (LIMERIC-Study).

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a modified CAL-WR. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The use of segmental colectomy in patients with endoscopically unresectable colonic lesions results in significant morbidity and mortality. CAL-WR is an alternative procedure that may reduce morbidity. METHODS: This prospective multicenter study was performed in 13 Dutch hospitals between January 2017 and December 2019. Inclusion criteria were (1) colonic lesions inaccessible using current endoscopic resection techniques (judged by an expert panel), (2) non-lifting residual/recurrent adenomatous tissue after previous polypectomy or (3) an undetermined resection margin after endoscopic removal of a low-risk pathological T1 (pT1) colon carcinoma. Thirty-day morbidity, technical success rate and radicality were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 118 patients included (56% male, mean age 66 years, standard deviation ± 8 years), 66 (56%) had complex lesions unsuitable for endoscopic removal, 34 (29%) had non-lifting residual/recurrent adenoma after previous polypectomy and 18 (15%) had uncertain resection margins after polypectomy of a pT1 colon carcinoma. CAL-WR was technically successful in 93% and R0 resection was achieved in 91% of patients. Minor complications (Clavien-Dindo i-ii) were noted in 7 patients (6%) and an additional oncologic segmental resection was performed in 12 cases (11%). Residual tissue at the scar was observed in 5% of patients during endoscopic follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: CAL-WR is an effective, organ-preserving approach that results in minor complications and circumvents the need for major surgery. CAL-WR, therefore, deserves consideration when endoscopic excision of circumscribed lesions is impossible or incomplete.

Clinical outcome of decompressing colostomy for acute left-sided colorectal obstruction: a consecutive series of 100 patients.

PURPOSE: Aim of our study was to evaluate the outcomes of a consecutive series of patients who were treated with a decompressing colostomy (DC) for acute left-sided colorectal obstruction. METHOD: A consecutive series of 100 patients with acute left-sided colorectal obstruction who underwent DC from January 2015 to August 2020 was retrospectively analyzed. Demographic characteristics, etiology of the obstruction, postoperative morbidity- and mortality rates, DC-related complication and stoma reversal rates were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 100 included patients, 64 had malignant- and 36 had benign obstruction. The mean age was 69 years, 42% was male, and the ASA score was 2. Morbidity and mortality rates after DC construction were 20 and 2%, respectively. In 39% of the patients, DC ended up as a permanent stoma and in 61% as bridge to surgery (BtS). DC related complication rate was 32%, with a re-intervention rate of 9%. Elective colorectal resection was performed in 59 cases (59%) with subsequent postoperative morbidity rate of 20%. Stoma reversal rate was 77% for the patients who underwent DC as BtS. Stoma reversal was performed in 66% of the patients with benign obstruction and in 36% for oncological obstruction. CONCLUSION: DC as bridge to possible elective resection for acute left-sided colorectal obstruction is an effective strategy with low morbidity and mortality rates and a high stoma reversal rate, especially for benign obstruction. However, DC is less appropriate for patients in whom DC turns out to be a permanent stoma due to a relatively high stoma related complications.

Prognostic importance of lymph node count and ratio in rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: Results from a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the prognostic value of lymph node count (LNC) and lymph node ratio (LNR) in rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). METHODS: Patients who underwent neoadjuvant CRT and total mesorectal excision (TME) for Stage I-III rectal cancer were selected from a cross-sectional study including 71 Dutch centres. Primary outcome parameters were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Prognostic significance of LNC and LNR (cut-off values 0.15, 0.20, 0.30) was tested for different (sub)groups. RESULTS: From 2095 registered patients, 458 were included, of which 240 patients with LNC < 12 and 218 patients with LNC ≥ 12. LNC was not significantly associated with DFS (p = 0.35) and OS (p = 0.59). In univariable analysis, LNR was significantly associated with DFS and OS in the whole cohort and LNC subgroups, but not in multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: LNC was not associated with long-term oncological outcome in rectal cancer patients treated with CRT, nor was LNR when corrected for N-stage. However, LNR might be used to identify subgroups of node-positive patients with a favourable outcome.

Implications of colonic and extra-colonic findings on CT colonography in FIT positive patients in the Dutch bowel cancer screening program.

OBJECTIVES: In the Dutch National colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program, patients with a positive faecal immunochemical test (FIT) are referred for a colonoscopy. In a small proportion, because of contraindications, a computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is performed to rule out advanced neoplasia. The aim of our study is to evaluate the intra- and extra-colonic yield of CTC and its clinical implications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, all FIT positive patients who underwent primary (instead of colonoscopy) or secondary CTC (after incomplete colonoscopy) between January 2014 and January 2018 were included. Relevant intra-colonic lesions on CTC were defined as lesions suspected for CRC or >10 mm. Relevant extra-colonic findings were defined as E3 and E4 using the E-RADS classification. RESULTS: Of the 268 included patients, 66 (24.6%) were suspected to have CRC or 10 mm + lesion on CTC and 56 of them (84.8%) underwent an additional endoscopy. Another 20 patients with <10 mm lesions on CTC underwent additional endoscopy. Overall, 76/268 patients (28.4%) underwent confirmatory endoscopy of which 50 (18.7%) had histologic confirmed advanced neoplasia; 4.9% had CRC and 13.8% advanced adenoma. New relevant extra-colonic findings were detected in 13.8%. CONCLUSIONS: In the Dutch National CRC screening program, a CTC was followed by an endoscopic procedure in more than a quarter of patients, resulting in a significant number of advanced neoplasia. Overall, one out of seven CTCs showed new relevant extra-colonic findings which may lead to further diagnostic/therapeutic work-up. Our results can be important for the informed consent procedure.

Referrals for surgical removal of polyps since the introduction of a colorectal cancer screening programme.

AIM: Implementation of the Dutch national bowel screening programme in 2014 led to an increased rate of detection of polyps. In general, polyps should be removed endoscopically. However, if the size and location of the polyp make endoscopic removal technically difficult, or if there is a suspicion for early (T1) cancer, surgery is the preferred method for removal. An increasing number of these patients are being treated with minimally invasive surgical procedures instead of segmental resection. The aim of this study was to assess the number of referrals for surgery and the type of surgery for polyps since the introduction of the Dutch national bowel screening programme. METHOD: A retrospective cohort study was performed. Patients who underwent surgery for colorectal polyps between January 2012 and December 2017 were included. Patients with histologically proven carcinoma prior to surgery were excluded. Primary outcomes were the number and type of surgical procedures for polyps. RESULTS: A total of 164 patients were included. An annual increase in procedures for colorectal polyps was observed, from 18 patients in 2012 to 36 patients in 2017. All the procedures before implementation of the screening programme were segmental resections, and 58.8% of the patients underwent organ-preserving surgery after implementation of the screening. The overall complication rate of organ-preserving surgery was 16.3%, compared with 44.3% for segmental resections (P = 0.001). Overall, invasive colorectal cancer was encountered in 23.8% of cases. CONCLUSION: The number of referrals for surgical resection of colorectal polyps has doubled since the introduction of the Dutch national bowel screening programme with a substantial shift towards organ-preserving techniques.

Definition of large bowel obstruction by primary colorectal cancer: A systematic review.

AIM: Controversies on therapeutic strategy for large bowel obstruction by primary colorectal cancer mainly concern acute conditions, being essentially different from subacute obstruction. Clearly defining acute obstruction is important for design and interpretation of studies as well as for guidelines and daily practice. This systematic review aimed to evaluate definitions of obstruction by colorectal cancer in prospective studies. METHOD: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Eligibility criteria included randomized or prospective observational design, publication between 2000 and 2019, and the inclusion of patients with an obstruction caused by colorectal cancer. Provided definitions of obstruction were extracted with assessment of common elements. RESULTS: A total of 16 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 99 prospective observational studies were included. Obstruction was specified as acute in 28 studies, complete/emergency in five, (sub)acute or similar terms in four and unspecified in 78. Five of 16 RCTs (31%) and 37 of 99 cohort studies (37%) provided a definition. The definitions included any combination of clinical symptoms, physical signs, endoscopic features and radiological imaging findings in 25 studies. The definition was only based on clinical symptoms in 11 and radiological imaging in six studies. Definitions included a radiological component in 100% of evaluable RCTs (5/5) vs. 54% of prospective observational studies (20/37, P = 0.07). CONCLUSION: In this systematic review, the majority of prospective studies did not define obstruction by colorectal cancer and its urgency, whereas provided definitions varied hugely. Radiological confirmation seems to be an essential component in defining acute obstruction.

Current Evidence for Continuous Vital Signs Monitoring by Wearable Wireless Devices in Hospitalized Adults: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Continuous monitoring of vital signs by using wearable wireless devices may allow for timely detection of clinical deterioration in patients in general wards in comparison to detection by standard intermittent vital signs measurements. A large number of studies on many different wearable devices have been reported in recent years, but a systematic review is not yet available to date. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to provide a systematic review for health care professionals regarding the current evidence about the validation, feasibility, clinical outcomes, and costs of wearable wireless devices for continuous monitoring of vital signs. METHODS: A systematic and comprehensive search was performed using PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 2009 to September 2019 for studies that evaluated wearable wireless devices for continuous monitoring of vital signs in adults. Outcomes were structured by validation, feasibility, clinical outcomes, and costs. Risk of bias was determined by using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2nd edition, or quality of health economic studies tool. RESULTS: In this review, 27 studies evaluating 13 different wearable wireless devices were included. These studies predominantly evaluated the validation or the feasibility outcomes of these devices. Only a few studies reported the clinical outcomes with these devices and they did not report a significantly better clinical outcome than the standard tools used for measuring vital signs. Cost outcomes were not reported in any study. The quality of the included studies was predominantly rated as low or moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Wearable wireless continuous monitoring devices are mostly still in the clinical validation and feasibility testing phases. To date, there are no high quality large well-controlled studies of wearable wireless devices available that show a significant clinical benefit or cost-effectiveness. Such studies are needed to help health care professionals and administrators in their decision making regarding implementation of these devices on a large scale in clinical practice or in-home monitoring.

Cross-Sectional Study on MRI Restaging After Chemoradiotherapy and Interval to Surgery in Rectal Cancer: Influence on Short- and Long-Term Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The time interval between CRT and surgery in rectal cancer patients is still the subject of debate. The aim of this study was to first evaluate the nationwide use of restaging magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and its impact on timing of surgery, and, second, to evaluate the impact of timing of surgery after chemoradiotherapy (CRT) on short- and long-term outcomes. METHODS: Patients were selected from a collaborative rectal cancer research project including 71 Dutch centres, and were subdivided into two groups according to time interval from the start of preoperative CRT to surgery (< 14 and ≥ 14 weeks). RESULTS: From 2095 registered patients, 475 patients received preoperative CRT. MRI restaging was performed in 79.4% of patients, with a median CRT-MRI interval of 10 weeks (interquartile range [IQR] 8-11) and a median MRI-surgery interval of 4 weeks (IQR 2-5). The CRT-surgery interval groups consisted of 224 (< 14 weeks) and 251 patients (≥ 14 weeks), and the long-interval group included a higher proportion of cT4 stage and multivisceral resection patients. Pathological complete response rate (n = 34 [15.2%] vs. n = 47 [18.7%], p = 0.305) and CRM involvement (9.7% vs. 15.9%, p = 0.145) did not significantly differ. Thirty-day surgical complications were similar (20.1% vs. 23.1%, p = 0.943), however no significant differences were found for local and distant recurrence rates, disease-free survival, and overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: These real-life data, reflecting routine daily practice in The Netherlands, showed substantial variability in the use and timing of restaging MRI after preoperative CRT for rectal cancer, as well as time interval to surgery. Surgery before or after 14 weeks from the start of CRT resulted in similar short- and long-term outcomes.

Quality of life and fear of cancer recurrence in T1 colorectal cancer patients treated with endoscopic or surgical tumor resection.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To optimize therapeutic decision-making in early invasive colorectal cancer (T1 CRC) patients, it is important to elicit the patient's perspective next to considering medical outcome. Because empirical data on patient-reported impact of different treatment options are lacking, we evaluated patients' quality of life, perceived time to recovery, and fear of cancer recurrence after endoscopic or surgical treatment for T1 CRC. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we selected patients with histologically confirmed T1 CRC who participated in the Dutch Bowel Cancer Screening Programme and received endoscopic or surgical treatment between January 2014 and July 2017. Quality of life was measured using the European Organization for Research and Treatment 30-item Core Quality of Life Questionnaire and the 5-level EuroQoL 5-dimension questionnaire. We used the Cancer Worry Scale (CWS) to evaluate patients' fear of cancer recurrence. A question on perceived time to recovery after treatment was also included in the set of questionnaires sent to patients. RESULTS: Of all 119 eligible patients, 92.4% responded to the questionnaire (endoscopy group, 55/62; surgery group, 55/57). Compared with the surgery group, perceived time to recovery was on average 3 months shorter in endoscopically treated patients after adjustment for confounders (19.9 days vs 111.3 days; P = .001). The 2 treatment groups were comparable with regard to global quality of life, functioning domains, and symptom severity scores. Moreover, patients in the endoscopy group did not report more fear of cancer recurrence than those in the surgery group (CWS score, 0-40; endoscopy 7.6 vs surgery 9.7; P = .140). CONCLUSIONS: From the patient's perspective, endoscopic treatment provides a quicker recovery than surgery, without provoking more fear of cancer recurrence or any deterioration in quality of life. These results contribute to the shared therapeutic decision-making process of clinicians and T1 CRC patients.