Validation of a Clinical Calculator Predicting Freedom From Colon Cancer Recurrence After Surgery on the Basis of Molecular and Clinical Variables.

BACKGROUND: The Memorial Sloan Kettering clinical calculator for estimating the likelihood of freedom from colon cancer recurrence on the basis of clinical and molecular variables was developed at a time when testing for microsatellite instability was performed selectively, based on patient age, family history, and histologic features. Microsatellite stability was assumed if no testing was done. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to validate the calculator in a cohort of patients who had all been tested for microsatellite instability. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. SETTINGS: Comprehensive cancer center. PATIENTS: This study included consecutive patients who underwent curative resection for stage I, II, or III colon cancer between 2017 and 2019. INTERVENTION: Universal testing of mircrosatellite phenotype in all cases. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The calculator's predictive accuracy was assessed using the concordance index and a calibration plot of predicted versus actual freedom from recurrence at 3 years after surgery. For a secondary sensitivity analysis, the presence of a tumor deposit(s) (disease category N1c) was considered equivalent to one positive lymph node (category N1a). RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 32 months among survivors, the concordance index for the 745 patients in the cohort was 0.748 (95% CI, 0.693-0.801), and a plot of predicted versus observed recurrences approached the 45° diagonal, indicating good discrimination and calibration. In the secondary sensitivity analysis for tumor deposits, the concordance index was 0.755 (95% CI, 0.700-0.806). LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective, single-institution design. CONCLUSIONS: These results, based on inclusion of actual rather than imputed microsatellite stability status and presence of tumor deposits, confirm the predictive accuracy and reliability of the calculator. See Video Abstract . VALIDACIN DE UNA CALCULADORA CLNICA QUE PREDICE LA AUSENCIA DE RECURRENCIA POSTQUIRURGICA DEL CNCER DE COLON SOBRE LA BASE DE VARIABLES MOLECULARES Y CLNICAS: ANTECEDENTES:La calculadora clínica del Memorial Sloan Kettering para la estimación de la probabilidad de ausencia de recurrencia del cáncer de colon sobre la base de variables clínicas y moleculares, se desarrolló en un momento en que las pruebas para la inestabilidad de microsatélites se realizaban de forma selectiva, basadas en la edad del paciente, los antecedentes familiares y las características histológicas. Se asumía la estabilidad micro satelital si no se realizaba ninguna prueba.OBJETIVO:El objetivo de este estudio fue validar la calculadora en una cohorte de pacientes a los que se les había realizado la prueba de inestabilidad de microsatélites.DISEÑO:Análisis de cohorte retrospectivo.AJUSTE:Centro integral de cáncer.PACIENTES:Pacientes consecutivos con cáncer de colon que fueron sometidos a resección curativa por cáncer de colon en estadios I, II o III entre los años 2017 y 2019.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:La precisión predictiva de la calculadora fue evaluada mediante el índice de concordancia y un gráfico de calibración de la ausencia de recurrencia predecida versus la real a los 3 años tras la cirugía. A los efectos de un análisis secundario de sensibilidad, la presencia de depósito(s) tumoral(es) (categoría de enfermedad N1c) se consideró equivalente a un ganglio linfático positivo (categoría N1a).RESULTADOS:Con una mediana de seguimiento de 32 meses entre los supervivientes, el índice de concordancia para los 745 pacientes de la cohorte fue de 0,748 (intervalo de confianza del 95 %, 0,693 a 0,801), y una gráfica de recurrencias previstas versus observadas se acercó a la diagonal de 45°, indicando una buena discriminación y calibración. En el análisis secundario de sensibilidad para depósitos tumorales, el índice de concordancia fue de 0,755 (intervalo de confianza del 95 %, 0,700 a 0,806).LIMITACIONES:Diseño retrospectivo, institución única.CONCLUSIONES:Estos resultados, basados en la inclusión real del estado de estabilidad de microsatélites en lugar de imputado y la presencia de depósitos tumorales, confirman la precisión predictiva y la confiabilidad de la calculadora. (Traducción-Dr Osvaldo Gauto ).

Anal Adenocarcinoma Treated in the Era of Total Neoadjuvant Therapy and Nonoperative Management.

BACKGROUND: Anal adenocarcinoma bears a treatment strategy unique to other anal cancers. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe oncologic outcomes of total neoadjuvant therapy followed by watch-and-wait approach for anal adenocarcinoma. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a comprehensive cancer center. PATIENTS: Patients with anal adenocarcinoma treated between 2004 and 2019 were selected. INTERVENTIONS: Fifty-four patients received neoadjuvant therapy and were divided into 2 groups according to their treatment strategy: total neoadjuvant therapy versus single neoadjuvant modality therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Organ preservation, tumor regrowth, local failure, distant metastasis rates, recurrence-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: This study included 70 patients with anal adenocarcinoma. Fifty-four patients (77%) received neoadjuvant therapy, of whom 30 (42%) received total neoadjuvant therapy and 24 (34%) received single neoadjuvant modality. Twenty-three (33%) patients achieved complete clinical response and were managed by watch-and-wait approach. The proportion of patients able to continue to watch-and-wait approach was higher after receiving total neoadjuvant therapy (60%) compared with single neoadjuvant modality therapy (20%; p = 0.004). A tumor regrowth rate of 22% was observed in the total neoadjuvant therapy group. The 5-year overall survival rate was 70% (95% CI, 59%-83%), including 61% (95% CI, 42%-88%) for the total neoadjuvant therapy and 65% (95% CI, 48%-88%) for the single neoadjuvant modality groups. Colostomy was avoided in 50% of patients who received total neoadjuvant therapy and 83% of watch-and-wait patients. Five-year recurrence-free survival rates of 55% (95% CI, 39%-79%) and 30% (95% CI, 15%-58%) were observed in the total neoadjuvant therapy and single neoadjuvant modality groups. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective nature. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report in the literature describing the safety and feasibility of nonoperative management for anal adenocarcinoma. Anal adenocarcinoma treated with total neoadjuvant therapy and nonoperative management achieve regrowth rates comparable to those observed in rectal cancer, with oncologic outcomes similar to those of traditional treatment strategies. See Video Abstract . ADENOCARCINOMA ANAL TRATADO EN LA ERA DE LA TERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE TOTAL Y EL TRATAMIENTO NO QUIRRGICO: ANTECEDENTES:El adenocarcinoma anal conlleva una estrategia de tratamiento único para otros cánceres anales.OBJETIVO:Describir los resultados oncológicos de la terapia neoadyuvante total seguida de observar y esperar en adenocarcinoma anal.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo.AJUSTE:Este estudio se llevó a cabo en un centro oncológico integral.PACIENTES:Se seleccionaron pacientes con adenocarcinoma anal tratados entre 2004-2019.INTERVENCIONES:Cincuenta y cuatro pacientes recibieron terapia neoadyuvante y se dividieron en dos grupos según su estrategia de tratamiento: terapia neoadyuvante total versus terapia de modalidad neoadyuvante única.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Preservación de órganos, recurrencia tumoral, falla local, tasas de metástasis a distancia, libre de recurrencia y supervivencia general.RESULTADOS:El estudio incluyó a 70 pacientes con adenocarcinoma anal. Cincuenta y cuatro pacientes (77%) recibieron terapia neoadyuvante, de los cuales 30 (42%) recibieron terapia neoadyuvante total y 24 (34%) recibieron modalidad neoadyuvante única. Veintitrés (33%) pacientes presentaron una respuesta clínica completa y fueron tratados con vigilancia y espera. La proporción de pacientes capaces de continuar en observar y esperar fue mayor después de recibir terapia neoadyuvante total (60%) en comparación con la terapia de modalidad neoadyuvante única (20%) ( p = 0,004). Se observó una tasa de recurrencia tumoral del 22% en el grupo de terapia neoadyuvante total. La tasa de supervivencia general a 5 años fue del 70% (IC95% 59%-83 %), incluido el 61% (IC95% 42%-88%) para la terapia neoadyuvante total y el 65% (IC95% 48%-88%) para grupos de modalidad neoadyuvante única. Se evitó la colostomía en el 50% de los pacientes que recibieron terapia neoadyuvante total y el 83% de los pacientes en observar y esperar. Se observaron tasas de supervivencia libre de recurrencia a cinco años del 55% (IC95% 39%-79%) y del 30% (IC95% 15%-58%) en los grupos de terapia neoadyuvante total y modalidad neoadyuvante única, respectivamente.LIMITACIONES:Diseño retrospectivo.CONCLUSIONES:Este es el primer informe en la literatura que describe la seguridad y viabilidad del tratamiento no quirúrgico del adenocarcinoma anal. El adenocarcinoma anal tratado con terapia neoadyuvante total y manejo no quirúrgico logra tasas de recurrencia comparables a las observadas en el cáncer de recto, con resultados oncológicos similares a las estrategias de tratamientos tradicionales. (Traducción-Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy ).

Comparison of short-term outcomes and survival between minimally invasive colectomy and open colectomy in patients 80 years of age and older.

We investigated the short- and long-term outcomes of patients 80 years of age and older with colon cancer who underwent robotic colectomy versus laparoscopic colectomy. Data for patients treated at a comprehensive cancer center between January 2006 and November 2018 were collected retrospectively. Outcomes from minimally invasive laparoscopic or robotic colectomy were compared. Survival was analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method with significance evaluated by the log-rank test. The laparoscopic (n = 104) and the robotic (n = 75) colectomy groups did not differ across baseline characteristics. Patients who underwent a robotic colectomy had a shorter median length of hospital stay (5 versus 6 days; p < 0.001) and underwent fewer conversions to open surgery (3% versus 17%; p = 0.002) compared to the laparoscopic cohort. The groups did not differ in postoperative complication rates, overall survival or disease-free survival. Elderly patients undergoing robotic colectomy for colon cancer have a shorter hospital stay and lower rates of conversion without compromise to oncologic outcomes.

Comparison of Robotic, Laparoscopic, and Open Resections of Nonmetastatic Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic resection for colon cancer has not been associated with improvements in oncological outcomes in comparison to open resection. Robotic resections are associated with increased lymph node yield and radicality of mesenteric resection in patients with right-sided tumors. It is unclear whether lymph node yield is higher in robotic resections in other parts of the colon and whether higher lymph node yield is associated with improved survival. OBJECTIVE: To compare survival rates between robotic, laparoscopic, and open resections in a large cohort of patients with nonmetastatic colon cancer. DESIGN: This is a retrospective observational study. SETTING: A single comprehensive cancer center. PATIENTS: Patients who underwent resection of nonmetastatic primary colon cancer between January 2006 and December 2018. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Univariable and multivariable models were used to identify predictors of disease-free and overall survival. Lymph node yield and perioperative outcomes were compared between operative approaches. RESULTS: There were 2398 patients who met the inclusion criteria: 699 (29%) underwent open, 824 (34%) underwent laparoscopic, and 875 (36%) underwent robotic resection. The median follow-up was 3.8 years (45.4 months). Robotic surgery was associated with higher lymph node yield and radicality of mesenteric resection. On multivariable analysis, the surgical approach was not associated with a difference in disease-free or overall survival. Minimally invasive colectomy was associated with fewer complications and shorter length of stay in comparison to open surgery. In a direct comparison between the 2 minimally invasive approaches, robotic colectomy was associated with fewer complications, shorter length of stay, and lower conversion rate than laparoscopy. LIMITATIONS: This was a single-center retrospective study. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that the 3 surgical approaches are similarly effective in treating primary resectable colon cancer and that differences in outcomes are observed primarily in the early postoperative period. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C115 . COMPARACIN DE RESECCIONES ROBTICAS, LAPAROSCPICAS Y ABIERTAS DE CNCER DE COLON NO METASTSICO: ANTECEDENTES:La resección laparoscópica para el cáncer de colon no se ha asociado con mejoras en los resultados oncológicos en comparación con la resección abierta. Las resecciones robóticas se asocian con un mayor rendimiento de los ganglios linfáticos y la radicalidad de la resección mesentérica en pacientes con tumores del lado derecho. No está claro si la cosecha ganglionar es mayor en las resecciones robóticas en otras partes del colon y si un mayor rendimiento de los ganglios linfáticos se asocia con una mejor supervivencia.OBJETIVO:Comparar las tasas de supervivencia entre resecciones robóticas, laparoscópicas y abiertas en una gran cohorte de pacientes con cáncer de colon no metastásico.DISEÑO:Este es un estudio observacional retrospectivo.ESCENARIO:Este estudio se realizó en un único centro oncológico integral.PACIENTES:Pacientes que se sometieron a resección de cáncer de colon primario no metastásico entre enero de 2006 y diciembre de 2018.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se utilizaron modelos univariables y multivariables para identificar predictores de supervivencia libre de enfermedad y global. La cosecha ganglionar y los resultados perioperatorios se compararon entre los abordajes quirúrgicos.RESULTADOS:Hubo 2398 pacientes que cumplieron con los criterios de inclusión: 699 (29%) se sometieron a cirugía abierta, 824 (34%) se sometieron a resección laparoscópica y 875 (36%) se sometieron a resección robótica. La mediana de seguimiento fue de 3,8 años (45,4 meses). La cirugía robótica se asoció con una mayor cosecha ganglionar y la radicalidad de la resección mesentérica. En el análisis multivariable, el abordaje quirúrgico no se asoció con una diferencia en la supervivencia general o libre de enfermedad. La colectomía mínimamente invasiva se asoció con menos complicaciones y una estancia más corta en comparación con la cirugía abierta. En una comparación directa entre los dos enfoques mínimamente invasivos, la colectomía robótica se asoció con menos complicaciones, una estancia más corta y una tasa de conversión más baja que la laparoscopia.LIMITACIONES:Este fue un estudio retrospectivo de un solo centro.CONCLUSIONES:Nuestros datos indican que los tres enfoques quirúrgicos son igualmente efectivos en el tratamiento del cáncer de colon resecable primario y que las diferencias en los resultados se observan principalmente en el período posoperatorio temprano. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C115 . (Traducción-Dr. Felipe Bellolio ).

A Dynamic Clinical Calculator for Estimating Conditional Recurrence-Free Survival After Total Neoadjuvant Therapy for Rectal Cancer and Either Surgery or Watch-and-Wait Management.

Importance: The risk of recurrence in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer has historically been determined after surgery, relying on pathologic variables. A growing number of patients are being treated without surgery, and their risk of recurrence needs to be calculated differently. Objective: To develop a dynamic calculator for estimating the probability of recurrence-free survival (RFS) in patients with rectal cancer who undergo total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) (induction systemic chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy) and either surgery or watch-and-wait management. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included patients who presented with stage II or III rectal cancer between June 1, 2009, and March 1, 2015, at a comprehensive cancer center. Conditional modeling was incorporated into a previously validated clinical calculator to allow the probability of RFS to be updated based on whether the patient remained in watch-and-wait management or underwent delayed surgery. Data were analyzed from November 2021 to March 2022. Exposure: TNT followed by immediate surgery or watch-and-wait management with the possibility of delayed surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: RFS, concordance index, calibration curves. Results: Of the 302 patients in the cohort, 204 (68%) underwent surgery within 3 months from TNT completion (median [range] age, 51 [22-82] years; 78 [38%] women), 54 (18%) underwent surgery more than 3 months from TNT completion (ie, delayed surgery; median [range] age, 62 [31-87] years; 30 [56%] female), and 44 (14%) remained in watch-and-wait management as of April 21, 2021 (median [range] age, 58 [32-89] years; 16 [36%] women). Among patients who initially opted for watch-and-wait management, migration to surgery due to regrowth or patient choice occurred mostly within the first year following completion of TNT, and RFS did not differ significantly whether surgery was performed 3.0 to 5.9 months (73%; 95% CI, 52%-92%) vs 6.0 to 11.9 months (71%; 95% CI, 51%-99%) vs more than 12.0 months (70%; 95% CI, 49%-100%) from TNT completion (P = .70). RFS for patients in the watch-and-wait cohort at 12 months from completion of TNT more closely resembled patients who had undergone surgery and had a pathologic complete response than the watch-and-wait cohort at 3 months from completion of TNT. Accordingly, model performance improved over time, and the concordance index increased from 0.62 (95% CI, 0.53-0.71) at 3 months after TNT to 0.66 (95% CI, 0-0.75) at 12 months. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with rectal cancer, the clinical calculator reliably estimated the likelihood of RFS for patients who underwent surgery immediately after TNT, patients who underwent delayed surgery after entering watch-and-wait management, and patients who remained in watch-and-wait management. Delayed surgery following attempted watch-and-wait did not appear to compromise oncologic outcomes. The risk calculator provided conditional survival estimates at any time during surveillance and could help physicians counsel patients with rectal cancer about the consequences of alternative treatment pathways and thereby support informed decisions that incorporate patients' preferences.

Adoption of Organ Preservation and Surgeon Variability for Patients with Rectal Cancer Does Not Correlate with Worse Survival.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Watch-and-wait is variably adopted by surgeons and the impact of this on outcomes is unknown. We compared the disease-free survival and organ preservation rates of locally advanced rectal cancer patients treated by expert colorectal surgeons at a comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: This study included retrospective data on patients diagnosed with stage II/III rectal adenocarcinoma from January 2013 to June 2017 who initiated neoadjuvant therapy (either with chemoradiation, chemotherapy, or a combination of both) and were treated by an expert colorectal surgeon. RESULTS: Overall, 444 locally advanced rectal cancer patients managed by five surgeons were included. Tumor distance from the anal verge, type of neoadjuvant therapy, and organ preservation rates varied by treating surgeon. There was no difference in disease-free survival after stratifying by the treating surgeon (p = 0.2). On multivariable analysis, neither the type of neoadjuvant therapy nor the treating surgeon was associated with disease-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: While neoadjuvant therapy type and organ preservation rates varied among surgeons, there were no meaningful differences in disease-free survival. These data suggest that among expert colorectal surgeons, differing thresholds for selecting patients for watch-and-wait do not affect survival.

MRI at Restaging After Neoadjuvant Therapy for Rectal Cancer Overestimates Circumferential Resection Margin Proximity as Determined by Comparison With Whole-Mount Pathology.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend restaging with MRI after neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer, but the accuracy of restaging MRI in estimating circumferential margin involvement requires additional clarification. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to measure the accuracy of circumferential resection margin assessment by MRI after neoadjuvant therapy and identify characteristics associated with accuracy. DESIGN: MRI data were retrospectively analyzed for concordance with the findings of whole-mount pathology analysis of the corresponding surgical specimens. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify characteristics associated with accuracy. SETTING: This study was conducted at a comprehensive cancer center. PATIENTS: Included in the study were consecutive patients who underwent total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer between January 2018 and March 2020 after receiving neoadjuvant therapy and undergoing restaging with MRI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome of this study included accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for categorizing the circumferential resection margin as threatened; mean and paired mean differences were in proximity of the margin. RESULTS: Of the 94 patients included in the analysis, 39 (41%) had a threatened circumferential resection margin according to MRI at restaging, but only 17 (18%) had a threatened margin based on pathology. The accuracy of MRI in identifying a threatened margin was 63.8%, with margin proximity overestimated by 0.4 cm on average. In multivariate logistic regression, anterior location of the margin and tumor proximity to the anal verge were independently associated with reduced MRI accuracy. LIMITATIONS: A limitation was the retrospective design at a single institution. CONCLUSIONS: The knowledge that MRI-based restaging after neoadjuvant therapy overestimates circumferential margin proximity may render some surgical radicality unnecessary and thereby help avoid the associated morbidity. With the recognition that MRI-based assessment of margin proximity may not be reliable for anterior margin and for distal tumors, radiologists may want to use greater caution in interpreting images of tumors with these characteristics and to acknowledge the uncertainty in their reports. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B814. LA IRM EN LA REESTADIFICACIN LUEGO DE TERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE EN EL CNCER DE RECTO SOBRESTIMA LA PROXIMIDAD DEL MARGEN DE RESECCIN CIRCUNFERENCIAL SEGN LO DETERMINADO COMPARATIVAMENTE CON LA PIEZA DE ANATOMOPATOLOGA: ANTECEDENTES:Las pautas actuales recomiendan la re-estadificación por medio de la resonancia magnética luego de terapia neoadyuvante en los casos de cáncer de recto, pero la precisión de la reevaluación con la IRM para estimar el grado de implicación del margen circunferencial requiere aclaraciones adicionales.OBJETIVO:Medir el grado de exactitud en la evaluación del margen de resección circunferencial mediante resonancia magnética después de la terapia neoadyuvante e identificar las características asociadas con la precisión.DISEÑO:Se analizaron retrospectivamente los datos de resonancia magnética para determinar la concordancia entre los hallazgos del análisis de la pieza de anatamopatología y las muestras quirúrgicas correspondientes. Se realizó el análisis de regresión logística univariada y multivariada para identificar las características asociadas con la exactitud.AJUSTE:Centro oncológico integral.PACIENTES:Todos aquellos que se sometieron consecutivamente a una excisión total del mesorrecto por cáncer rectal entre Enero 2018 y Febrero 2020 luego de recibir terapia neoadyuvante y someterse a una re-estadificación por imágenes de resonancia magnética (IRM).PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:La exactitud, la sensibilidad y especificidad; los valores predictivos positivos y negativos para categorizar el margen de resección circunferencial como amenazado; la diferencia media y las medias pareadas de proximidad a los margenes.RESULTADOS:De los 94 pacientes incluidos en el análisis, 39 (41%) tenían un margen de resección circunferencial amenazado según la resonancia magnética en la re-estadificación, pero solo 17 (18%) tenían un margen amenazado basado en la patología. La precisión de la resonancia magnética para identificar un margen amenazado fue del 63,8%, con la proximidad del margen sobreestimada en 0,4 cm en promedio. En la regresión logística multivariada, la ubicación anterior de los bordes de resección y la proximidad del tumor al margen anal se asociaron de forma independiente con la reducción en la precisión de la resonancia magnética.LIMITACIONES:Diseño retrospectivo en una institución única.CONCLUSIONES:El saber que la re-estadificación basada en la IRM, luego de terapia neoadyuvante sobreestima la proximidad de la lesión a los márgenes circunferenciales, hace innecesaria cierta radicalidad quirúrgica complementaria, lo que ayuda a evitar morbilidad asociada. Reconociendo que la evaluación de proximidad de los márgenes de resección basada en la resonancia magnética, no puede ser confiable en casos de márgenes anteriores y en casos de tumores distales. Los radiólogos recomiendan tener más precaución en la interpretación de imágenes de tumores con estas características y reconocen cierto desasosiego en sus informes. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B814.

Evaluating the Validity of the Clavien-Dindo Classification in Colectomy Studies: A 90-Day Cost of Care Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Clavien-Dindo classification is widely used to report postoperative morbidity but may underestimate the severity of colectomy complications. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess how well the Clavien-Dindo classification represents the severity of all grades of complications after colectomy using cost of care modeling. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a comprehensive cancer center. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients (N = 1807) undergoing elective colon or rectal resections without a stoma performed at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between 2009 and 2014 who were followed up for ≥90 days, were not transferred to other hospitals, and did not receive intraperitoneal chemotherapy were included in the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Complication severity was measured by the highest-grade complication per patient and attributable outpatient and inpatient costs. Associations were evaluated between patient complication grade and cost during 3 time periods: the 90 days after surgery, index admission, and postdischarge (<90 d). RESULTS: Of the 1807 patients (median age = 62 y), 779 (43%) had a complication; 80% of these patients had only grade 1 or 2 complications. Increasing patient complication grade correlated with 90-day cost, driven by inpatient cost differences (p < 0.001). For grade 1 and 2 patients, most costs were incurred after discharge and were the same between these grade categories. Among patients with a single complication (52%), there was no difference in index hospitalization, postdischarge, or total 90-day costs between grade 1 and 2 categories. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its retrospective design and generalizability. CONCLUSIONS: The Clavien-Dindo classification correlates well with 90-day costs, driven largely by inpatient resource use. Clavien-Dindo does not discriminate well among patients with low-grade complications in terms of their substantial postdischarge costs. These patients represent 80% of patients with a complication after colectomy. Examining the long-term burden associated with complications can help refine the Clavien-Dindo classification for use in colectomy studies. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B521. EVALUACIN DE LA VALIDEZ DE LA CLASIFICACIN DE CLAVIENDINDO EN ESTUDIOS DE COLECTOMA ANLISIS DEL COSTO DE LA ATENCIN EN DAS: ANTECEDENTES:La clasificación de Clavien-Dindo es utilizada ampliamante para conocer la morbilidad posoperatoria, pero puede subestimar la gravedad de las complicaciones de la colectomía.OBJETIVO:Evaluar que tan bien representa la clasificación de Clavien-Dindo la gravedad de todos los grados de complicaciones después de la colectomía utilizando un modelo de costo de la atención.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.ENTORNO CLÍNICO:Centro oncológico integral.PACIENTES:Pacientes consecutivos (n = 1807) sometidos a resecciones electivas de colon o recto sin estoma realizadas en el Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center entre 2009 y 2014 que fueron seguidos durante ≥ 90 días, no fueron transferidos a otros hospitales y no recibieron quimioterapia intraperitoneal.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:Gravedad de la complicación medida por la complicación de mayor grado por paciente y los costos atribuibles para pacientes ambulatorios y hospitalizados. Se evaluó la asociación entre el grado de complicación del paciente y el costo durante 3 períodos de tiempo: posterior a la cirugía (hasta 90 días), a su ingreso y posterior al egreso (hasta 90 días).RESULTADOS:De los 1807 pacientes (mediana de edad de 62 años), 779 (43%) tuvieron una complicación; El 80% de estos pacientes tuvieron solo complicaciones de grado 1 o 2. El aumento del grado de complicación del paciente se correlacionó con el costo a 90 días, impulsado por las diferencias en el costo de los pacientes hospitalizados (p <0,001). Para los pacientes de grado 1 y 2, la mayoría de los costos se incurrieron después del alta y fueron los mismos entre ambas categorías. Entre los pacientes con una sola complicación (52%), no hubo diferencia en el índice de hospitalización, posterior al alta o en el costo total de 90 días entre las categorías de grado 1 y 2.LIMITACIONES:Diseño retrospectivo, generalizabilidad.CONCLUSIONES:La clasificación de Clavien-Dindo se correlaciona bien con los costos a 90 días, impulsados en gran parte por la utilización de recursos de pacientes hospitalizados. Clavien-Dindo no discrimina entre los pacientes con complicaciones de bajo grado en términos de sus costos sustanciales posterior al alta. Estos pacientes representan el 80% de los pacientes aquellos con una complicación tras la colectomía. Examinar la carga a largo plazo asociada a las complicaciones puede ayudar a mejorar la clasificación de Clavien-Dindo para su uso en estudios de colectomía. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B521.

Type of recurrence is associated with disease-free survival after salvage surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare the characteristics and outcomes of rectal cancer patients with local recurrence at a perianastomotic site (PA), a surgical field (SF) site, or in lateral lymph nodes (LLN). METHODS: A total of 114 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for recurrent, non-metastatic rectal cancer at a single comprehensive cancer center between 1997 and 2012 were grouped on the basis of radiographic assessment of type of recurrence: PA, 76 (67%) patients; SF, 25 (22%) patients; LLN, 13 (11%) patients. Demographic, clinical, and pathological features were compared between the three groups, as were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Recurrence type was associated with positive circumferential margin in the primary resection (PA, 4 [6%]; SF, 4 [19%]; LLN, 3 [25%]; P = 0.027), prior neoadjuvant therapy for the primary tumor (PA, 57 [75%]; SF, 18 [72%]; LLN, 4 [31%]; P = 0.007), and location of the primary tumor in the upper rectum (PA, 33 [45%]; SF, 5 [23%]; LLN, 1 [8%]; P < 0.001). Patients with PA had longer median DFS (PA, 5.1 years; SF, 1.5 years; LLN, 1.2 years; P = 0.036). There was a non-significant trend toward longer OS and higher rates of R0 resection for PA. CONCLUSION: Type of recurrence after salvage surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer is associated with longer DFS in patients with PA recurrence.

Assessment of a Watch-and-Wait Strategy for Rectal Cancer in Patients With a Complete Response After Neoadjuvant Therapy.

IMPORTANCE: The watch-and-wait (WW) strategy aims to spare patients with rectal cancer unnecessary resection. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the outcomes of WW among patients with rectal cancer who had a clinical complete response to neoadjuvant therapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective case series analysis conducted at a comprehensive cancer center in New York included patients who received a diagnosis of rectal adenocarcinoma between January 1, 2006, and January 31, 2015. The median follow-up was 43 months. Data analyses were conducted from June 1, 2016, to October 1, 2018. EXPOSURES: Patients had a clinical complete response after completing neoadjuvant therapy and agreed to a WW strategy of active surveillance and possible salvage surgery (n = 113), or patients underwent total mesorectal excision and were found to have a pathologic complete response (pCR) at resection (n = 136). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for analyses of local regrowth and 5-year rates of overall survival, disease-free survival, and disease-specific survival. RESULTS: Compared with the 136 patients in the pCR group, the 113 patients in the WW group were older (median [range], 67.2 [32.1-90.9] vs 57.3 [25.0-87.9] years, P < .001) with cancers closer to the anal verge (median [range] height from anal verge, 5.5 [0.0-15.0] vs 7.0 [0.0-13.0] cm). All 22 local regrowths in the WW group were detected on routine surveillance and treated by salvage surgery (20 total mesorectal excisions plus 2 transanal excisions). Pelvic control after salvage surgery was maintained in 20 of 22 patients (91%). No pelvic recurrences occurred in the pCR group. Rectal preservation was achieved in 93 of 113 patients (82%) in the WW group (91 patients with no local regrowths plus 2 patients with local regrowths salvaged with transanal excision). At 5 years, overall survival was 73% (95% CI, 60%-89%) in the WW group and 94% (95% CI, 90%-99%) in the pCR group; disease-free survival was 75% (95% CI, 62%-90%) in the WW group and 92% (95% CI, 87%-98%) in the pCR group; and disease-specific survival was 90% (95% CI, 81%-99%) in the WW group and 98% (95% CI, 95%-100%) in the pCR group. A higher rate of distant metastasis was observed among patients in the WW group who had local regrowth vs those who did not have local regrowth (36% vs 1%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A WW strategy for select rectal cancer patients who had a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant therapy resulted in excellent rectal preservation and pelvic tumor control; however, in the WW group, worse survival was noted along with a higher incidence of distant progression in patients with local regrowth vs those without local regrowth.