The Impact of Age in the Treatment of Non-comorbid Patients with Rectal Cancer: Survival Outcomes from the National Cancer Database.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal therapy has improved survival outcomes for rectal cancer (RC) significantly with an exemption for older patients. We sought to assess whether older non-comorbid patients receive substandard oncological treatment for localized RC referring to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines and whether it affects survival outcomes. METHODS: This is a retrospective study using patient data from the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) for histologically confirmed RC from 2002 to 2014. Non-comorbid patients between ≥50 and ≤85 years and defined treatment for localized RC were included and assigned to a younger (<75 years) and an older group (≥75 years). Treatment approaches and their impact on relative survival (RS) were analyzed using loess regression models and compared between both groups. Furthermore, mediation analysis was performed to measure the independent relative effect on age and other variables on RS. Data were assessed using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist. RESULTS: Of 59,769 included patients, 48,389 (81.0%) were assigned to the younger group (<75 years). Oncologic resection was performed in 79.6% of the younger patients compared to 67.2% of the older patients (p < 0.001). Chemotherapy (74.3% vs. 56.1%) and radiotherapy (72.0% vs. 58.1%) were provided less often in older patients, respectively (p < 0.001). Increasing age was associated with enhanced 30- and 90-day mortality with 0.6% and 1.1% in the younger and 2.0% and 4.1% in the elderly group (p < 0.001) and worse RS rates [multivariable adjusted HR: 1.93 (95% CI 1.87-2.00), p < 0.001]. Adherence to standard oncological therapy resulted in a significant increase in 5-year RS (multivariable adjusted HR: 0.80 (95% CI 0.74-0.86), p < 0.001). Mediation analysis revealed that RS was mainly affected by age itself (84%) rather than the choice of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The likelihood to receive substandard oncological therapy increases in the older population and negatively affects RS. Since age itself has a major impact on RS, better patient selection should be performed to identify those that are potentially eligible for standard oncological care regardless of their age.

Caffeine for intestinal transit after laparoscopic colectomy: randomized clinical trial (CaCo trial).

BACKGROUND: Coffee has been suggested to help postoperative gastrointestinal motility but the mechanism is not known. This trial assessed whether caffeine shortened time to bowel activity after laparoscopic colectomy. METHODS: This was a single-centre, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled superiority trial (October 2015 to August 2020). Patients aged at least 18 years undergoing elective laparoscopic colectomy were assigned randomly to receive 100 mg or 200 mg caffeine, or a placebo (250 mg corn starch) three times a day orally. The primary endpoint was the time to first bowel movement. Secondary endpoints included colonic transit time, time to tolerance of solid food, duration of hospital stay, and perioperative morbidity. RESULTS: Sixty patients were assigned randomly to either the 200-mg caffeine group (20 patients), the 100-mg caffeine group (20) or the placebo group (20). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the mean(s.d.) time to first bowel movement was 67.9(19.2) h in the 200-mg caffeine group, 68.2(32.2) h in the 100-mg caffeine group, and 67.3(22.7) h in the placebo group (P = 0.887). The per-protocol analysis and measurement of colonic transit time confirmed no measurable difference with caffeine. CONCLUSION: Caffeine was not associated with reduced time to first bowel movement. REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02510911 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Effect of lymphadenectomy in curative gallbladder cancer treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Only a small fraction of resectable gallbladder cancer (GBC) patients receive a thorough lymphadenectomy. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of lymphadenectomy on survival in GBC surgery. METHODS: On May 19, 2019, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for English or German articles published since 2002. Studies assessing the effect of lymphadenectomy on survival in GBC surgery were included. Fixed effect and random effects models were used to summarise the hazard ratio (HR). RESULTS: Of the 530 identified articles, 18 observational studies (27,570 patients, 10 population-based, 8 cohort studies) were reviewed. In the meta-analysis, lymphadenectomy did not show a significant benefit for T1a tumours (n = 495; HR, 1.37; 95%CI, 0.65-2.86; P = 0.41). Lymphadenectomy showed a significant survival benefit in T1b (n = 1618; HR, 0.69; 95%CI, 0.50-0.94; P = 0.02) and T2 (n = 6204; HR, 0.68; 95%CI, 0.56-0.83; P < 0.01) tumours. Lymphadenectomy improved survival in the 2 studies assessing T3 tumours (n = 1961). A conclusive analysis was not possible for T4 tumours due to a low case load. Among patients undergoing lymphadenectomy, improved survival was observed in patients with a higher number of resected lymph nodes (HR, 0.57; 95%CI, 0.45-0.71; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Regional lymphadenectomy improves survival in T1b to T3 GBC. A minimum of 6 retrieved lymph nodes are necessary for adequate staging, indicating a thorough lymphadenectomy. Patients with T1a tumours should be evaluated for lymphadenectomy, especially if lymph node metastases are suspected.

No Difference in Survival between Neo-Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Neo-Adjuvant Chemoradiation Therapy in Gastric Cardia Cancer Patients: A Contemporary View from the National Cancer Database.

INTRODUCTION: Both neo-adjuvant chemoradiation therapy (NACRT) and neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), in addition to surgical resection of gastric cardia cancer, improves survival outcomes. We assessed whether NACRT or NAC had superior overall survival (OS) and relative survival (RS) outcomes using the National Cancer Database (NCDB). METHODS: The NCDB from 2006 to 2014 was reviewed to identify non-metastatic adult gastric cardia cancer patients who underwent surgical resection and received NACRT or NAC. Advanced statistical models were applied to assess survival outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 5,371 patients included, 4,520 (84.2%) were male, the mean age was 61.2 years (SD 10.0), 4,229 (78.7%) underwent NACRT, and 1,142 (21.3%) underwent NAC. NACRT patients more often had an R0 resection compared to NAC (91.4 vs. 86.6%, p < 0.001, respectively). Univariate 5-year OS rates were 40.0% (95% CI 38.2-41.8) for NACRT and 40.1% (37.0-43.6) for NAC (p = 0.302). No differences in OS for NAC vs. NACRT were found after multivariable analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 0.95, 95% CI 0.86-1.05, p = 0.290). There were no survival differences after stepwise, propensity score, RS analyses, nor after near-far-matching (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82-1.07, p = 0.332). CONCLUSIONS: NAC or NACRT yield the same survival outcome for patients with resectable gastric cardia cancer. These data support the need for randomized controlled trials comparing the 2 regimens head-to-head.

[Diagnosis and treatment of acute cholecystitis]. / Diagnostik und Behandlung der akuten Cholezystitis.

Diagnosis and treatment of acute cholecystitis Abstract. Acute cholecystitis is one of the most common acute surgical diseases. Typical clinical symptoms are pain in the upper abdomen, fever and leucocytosis. Ultrasonography may often be used to confirm the clinical diagnosis. There is a consensus that laparoscopic cholecystectomy is recommended as the treatment of choice and should be performed immediate after diagnosis independent of the onset of symptoms. The risk of complications is prevented by surgery. Surgery is the treatment of choice for acute cholecystits also in elderly patients with severe comorbidities. Conventional laparoscopic 3 - 4 port cholecystectomy is considered as a standard for removing the gallbladder. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has become established as a safe standard procedure in the treatment of symptomatic cholecystolithiasis and cholecystitis with low mortality and morbidity. Nevertheless, this procedure is associated with typical complications. Bile duct injuries are among the most serious injuries. Most complications are the consequence of lack of experience or technical causes. By reasonably indication for laparoscopic cholecystectomy and a low inhibition rate of conversion, combined with adequate training (laparoscopy courses), the complication rate can be kept very low.

Urgent surgery in colon cancer has no impact on survival.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite advances in early detection of colon cancer, a minority of patients still require urgent surgery. Whether such urgent conditions result in poor outcome remains a topic of debate. METHODS: Using a prospectively maintained database, patients suffering exclusively from colon cancer and receiving either elective or emergent resection between 2001 and 2014 were analyzed with respect to overall, disease-specific, and relative survival using Cox regression and propensity score analyses. RESULTS: From a total of 877 patients analyzed, 2.7% (24) presented with complications requiring urgent surgery. Propensity-scoring identified strongly biased patient characteristics (0.097 ± 0.069 vs 0.028 ± 0.043; P < 0.001). An unadjusted Cox proportional hazards regression analysis revealed urgent surgery as a statistically significant prognostic factor with an approximately 207% increased risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.07; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.62-5.81; P = 0.003). After adjusting the data according to the propensity score analysis, urgent surgery was not associated with a decreased overall (HR = 1.67; 95%CI; 0.84-3.36; P = 0.174), disease-specific (HR = 1.62; 95% CI; 0.81-3.24; P = 0.201) or relative survival (HR = 1.86; 95% CI: 0.92-3.79; P = 0.086). CONCLUSIONS: After risk-adjustment, using multivariable Cox regression and propensity score analyses, no significant disadvantage could be noted with regard to overall, disease-specific, or relative survival in patients with exclusively colon cancer who received emergent oncological resection.

Peridural analgesia does not impact survival in patients after colon cancer resection: a retrospective propensity score-adjusted analysis.

PURPOSE: To assess the putative impact of peridural analgesia on oncological outcome in patients undergoing resection of stages I-IV colon cancer. METHODS: In a single-center study, 876 patients undergoing resection for primary colon cancer (AJCC stages I-IV) between 2001 and 2014 were analyzed. Mean follow-up of the entire cohort was 4.2 ± 3.5 years. Patients who did and did not receive peridural analgesia were compared using Cox regression and propensity score analyses. RESULTS: Overall, 208 patients (23.7%) received peridural analgesia. Patients' characteristics were biased with regard to the use of peridural analgesia (propensity score 0.296 ± 0.129 vs. 0.219 ± 0.108, p < 0.001). After propensity score matching, the use of peridural analgesia had no impact on overall (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.59-1.11, p = 0.175), cancer-specific (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.48-1.09, p = 0.111), and disease-free survival (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.66-1.19, p = 0.430). The 5-year overall survival after propensity score matching was 60.9% (95% CI 54.8-67.7%) for patients treated with peridural analgesia compared with 54.1% (95% CI 49.5-59.1%) for patients not treated with peridural analgesia. Cancer-specific and disease-free survival showed similar non-significant results. CONCLUSIONS: Peridural analgesia in patients after colon cancer resection was not associated with a better oncological outcome after risk adjusting in multivariable Cox regression and propensity score analyses. Hence, oncological outcome should not serve as a reason for the use of peridural analgesia in patients with colon cancer.

Duodenal localization is a negative predictor of survival after small bowel adenocarcinoma resection: A population-based, propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the influence of tumor localization of small bowel adenocarcinoma on survival after surgical resection. METHODS: Patients with resected small bowel adenocarcinoma, ACJJ stage I-III, were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database from 2004 to 2013. The impact of tumor localization on overall and cancer-specific survival was assessed using Cox proportional hazard regression models with and without risk-adjustment and propensity score methods. RESULTS: Adenocarcinoma was localized to the duodenum in 549 of 1025 patients (53.6%). There was no time trend for duodenal localization (P = 0.514). The 5-year cancer-specific survival rate was 48.2% (95%CI: 43.3-53.7%) for patients with duodenal carcinoma and 66.6% (95%CI: 61.6-72.1%) for patients with cancer located in the jejunum or ileum. Duodenal localization was associated with worse overall and cancer-specific survival in univariable (HR = 1.73; HR = 1.81, respectively; both P < 0.001), multivariable (HR = 1.52; HR = 1.65; both P < 0.001), and propensity score-adjusted analyses (HR = 1.33, P = 0.012; HR = 1.50, P = 0.002). Furthermore, young age, retrieval of more than 12 regional lymph nodes, less advanced stage, and married matrimonial status were positive, independent prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS: Duodenal localization is an independent risk factor for poor survival after resection of adenocarcinoma.

Selective survival advantage associated with primary tumor resection for metastatic gastric cancer in a Western population.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis of metastatic gastric cancer (GC) remains dismal, with a median survival of 10 months. Historically, primary tumor resection was not thought to confer any survival benefit. Although high-level data exist guiding treatment of metastatic GC for patients in the East, no such data exist for Western patients despite inherent ethnic differences in GC biology. METHODS: The 2006-2012 National Cancer Database was queried for adult patients with metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma. Patients were classified into those who underwent primary tumor resection and chemotherapy (PTRaC) and those who received chemotherapy only. Groups were propensity score matched, and survival was compared using advanced statistical modeling. RESULTS: A total of 7026 patients met the inclusion criteria: 6129 (87%) patients were treated with chemotherapy alone and 897 (13%) patients were treated with PTRaC. After multivariable adjustment, patients who underwent PTRaC had a significantly better overall survival (OS) than patients who received systemic therapy only (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.56-0.64; p < 0.001). Following full bipartite propensity score-adjusted analysis, 2-year OS for patients who received chemotherapy only was 12.6% (95% CI, 11.7-13.5%), whereas it was 34.2% (95% CI, 31.3-37.5%) for patients who underwent PTRaC (HR for resection: 0.52; 95% CI, 0.47-0.57; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that there exists a subset of patients with metastatic GC for which PTRaC may improve OS. As significant uncertainty still remains, our results support the need for further prospective trials investigating the influence of palliative gastrectomy on survival among Western patients.

The prognostic value of signet ring cell histology in stage I/II colon cancer-a population-based, propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Previous research associated signet ring cell histology in colon cancer patients with poor survival outcomes. The aim of this study was to analyze the prognostic significance of signet ring cell histology on overall and cancer-specific survival in patients with localized colon cancer. METHODS: Stage I and II colon cancer patients treated with surgical resection between 2004 and 2015 were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were assessed using risk-adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression models and propensity score methods. RESULTS: Eighty-eight thousand nine hundred fifty-eight stage I-II colon cancer patients were identified. Overall, 446 (0.5%) showed signet ring cell histology. In unadjusted analyses, the 5-year OS and CSS rates of patients with signet ring cell histology were 65.8 and 83.1%, respectively, compared with 74.3 and 88.7% in patients with non-signet ring cell adenocarcinoma (p values: OS, p < 0.001; CSS, p < 0.001). Neither in risk-adjusted Cox proportional hazard regression analysis (OS: hazard ratio (HR), 0.96 (95% CI, 0.82-1.12%) p = 0.616; CSS: HR, 1.01 (95% CI, 0.79-1.28%) p = 0.946) nor with propensity score matching (OS: HR, 0.96 (95% CI, 0.82-1.14%) p = 0.669 and CSS: HR: 1.09 (95% CI: 0.84-1.40%) p = 0.529), a survival disadvantage was found for signet ring cell histology. CONCLUSION: This is the first propensity score-adjusted population-based investigation on exclusively stage I and II colon cancer patients providing compelling evidence that signet ring cell histology does not negatively impact survival in stage I and II colon cancer after risk-adjusting for known prognostic factors. Therefore, standard treatment strategies can be applied in these patients.

High rate of positive lymph nodes in T1a gallbladder cancer does not translate to decreased survival: a population-based, propensity score adjusted analysis.

BACKGROUND: Current consensus guidelines suggest that gallbladder cancer (GBC) patients with resected T1a disease can be observed while patients with T1b or greater lesions should undergo lymphadenectomy (LNE). The primary aim of this study was to critically explore the impact of LNE in early-stage GBC on overall survival (OS) on a population-based level. METHOD: The 2004-2014 National Cancer Database was reviewed to identify non-metastatic GBC patients with T1a, T1b, or T2 disease and grouped whether a dedicated LNE was performed. OS and relative survival were assessed using Cox proportional hazard regression analyses before and after propensity score adjustments. RESULTS: 4015 patients were included, 246 (6%) had T1a, 654 (16%) T1b, and 3115 (78%) T2 GBC. The rate of positive lymph nodes was 13%, 12%, and 40% for T1a, T1b, and T2 tumors, respectively. Even after propensity score adjustment, no OS benefit was found if LNE was performed for T1a disease (HR:0.63, 95%CI:0.35-1.13) while OS was improved for T1b (HR:0.65, 95%CI:0.49-0.87) and T2 tumors (HR:0.65, 95%CI:0.57-0.73). CONCLUSION: Despite a higher rate of nodal positivity among patients with T1a disease compared to previous reports, there was no impact on survival and current treatment guidelines appear appropriate for the management of T1a disease.

Revisiting a dogma: similar survival of patients with small bowel and gastric GIST. A population-based propensity score SEER analysis.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the present analysis was to assess whether small bowel gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is associated with worse cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) compared with gastric GIST on a population-based level. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data on patients aged 18 years or older with histologically proven GIST was extracted from the SEER database from 1998 to 2011. OS and CSS for small bowel GIST were compared with OS and CSS for gastric GIST by application of adjusted and unadjusted Cox regression analyses and propensity score analyses. RESULTS: GIST were located in the stomach (n = 3011, 59 %), duodenum (n = 313, 6 %), jejunum/ileum (n = 1288, 25 %), colon (n = 139, 3 %), rectum (n = 172, 3 %), and extraviscerally (n = 173, 3 %). OS and CSS of patients with GIST in the duodenum [OS, HR 0.95, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.76-1.19; CSS, HR 0.99, 95 % CI 0.76-1.29] and in the jejunum/ileum (OS, HR 0.97, 95 % CI 0.85-1.10; CSS, HR = 0.95, 95 % CI 0.81-1.10) were similar to those of patients with gastric GIST in multivariate analyses. Conversely, OS and CSS of patients with GIST in the colon (OS, HR 1.40; 95 % CI 1.07-1.83; CSS, HR 1.89, 95 % CI 1.41-2.54) and in an extravisceral location (OS, HR 1.42, 95 % CI 1.14-1.77; CSS, HR = 1.43, 95 % CI 1.11-1.84) were significantly worse than those of patients with gastric GIST. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to common belief, OS and CSS of patients with small bowel GIST are not statistically different from those of patients with gastric GIST when adjustment is made for confounding variables on a population-based level. The prognosis of patients with nongastric GIST is worse because of a colonic and extravisceral GIST location. These findings have implications regarding adjuvant treatment of GIST patients. Hence, the dogma that small bowel GIST patients have worse prognosis than gastric GIST patients and therefore should receive adjuvant treatment to a greater extent must be revisited.

A population-based analysis of secondary malignancies in breast cancer patients receiving breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: There is an ongoing debate about the relationship between breast implants and secondary malignancies. METHODS: Breast cancer patients undergoing surgical reconstruction after mastectomy by either implants or autologous flap were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results registry between 1998 and 2002. The occurrence of secondary malignancies at least 1 year after diagnosis was compared between breast reconstruction with implants vs autologous flap. RESULTS: Of 7955 women, 3727 underwent reconstruction using implants and 4228 using autologous flap. The incidence of secondary tumours was similar in both the groups (hazards ratio (HR)=1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.82-1.26, P=0.880). For lung cancer, a significantly increased risk for implants (HR=2.51, 95% CI: 1.28-4.95, P=0.005) was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Except for lung cancer, no association between implants and secondary malignancies including lymphomas was observed.

Predictive value of mucinous histology in colon cancer: a population-based, propensity score matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: This investigation aimed to assess whether mucinous histology impacts overall (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) in colon cancer. METHODS: Colon cancer patients who underwent surgery between 2004 and 2011 were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. OS and CSS were assessed using Cox regression and propensity score methods. RESULTS: Out of 121 628 patients, 12 863 (10.6%) had a mucinous histology. Five-year OS and CSS for mucinous adenocarcinoma were 54.4% (95% CI: 53.4-55.5%) and 66.5% (95% CI: 65.5-67.5%) compared with 60.2% (95% CI: 59.8-60.5%) and 71.9% (95% CI: 71.5-72.2%) for non-mucinous adenocarcinoma (P<0.001). This survival disadvantage disappeared in multivariable analyses (hazard ratio (HR)=1.02, 95% CI: 0.99-1.05, P=0.269 and HR=1.03, 95% CI: 0.99-1.06, P=0.169), and after propensity score matching (OS: HR=0.99, 95% CI: 0.93-1.04, P=0.606 and CSS: HR=0.99, 95% CI:0.92-1.06, P=0.783). CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based investigation, a mucinous histology did not negatively impact survival. Hence, the present study does not provide evidence to change treatment strategies in patients with mucinous adenocarcinoma of the colon.

Improved Survival After Primary Tumor Surgery in Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Propensity-adjusted, Population-based SEER Trend Analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is ongoing debate about nonpalliative primary tumor surgery in metastatic breast cancer patients. This issue has become even more relevant with the introduction of increasingly sensitive imaging modalities. METHODS: Metastatic breast cancer patients were identified in the SEER registry between 1998 and 2009. The effect of primary tumor surgery on overall and cancer-specific mortality using risk-adjusted Cox proportional hazard regression modeling and stratified propensity score matching was assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 16,247 women with metastatic breast cancer were included. Of those 7600 women underwent primary tumor surgery although 8647 did not have any surgery at all. Primary tumor surgery decreased from 62.0% in 1998 to 39.1% in 2009 (P < 0.001). Primary tumor surgery was associated with decreased overall mortality (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.53, 95% CI 0.50-0.55, P < 0.001) and cancer-specific mortality (HR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.48-0.54, P < 0.001) in the propensity score-matched model. The benefit of primary tumor surgery increased from 1998 to 2009 for overall mortality (1998: HR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.59-0.89, 2009: HR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.35-0.50) and cancer-specific mortality (1998: HR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.58-0.89, 2009: HR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.33-0.48). CONCLUSIONS: The present study-the first population-based analysis using propensity score methods-provides evidence of a favorable impact of primary tumor surgery on mortality in metastatic breast cancer patients. Most importantly, the benefit of primary tumor surgery increased over time from 1998 to 2009. Although the final results of ongoing randomized studies are awaited, currently available evidence should be discussed with metastatic breast cancer patients.

Prognostic Relevance of Mucinous Subtype in a Population-based Propensity Score Analysis of 40,083 Rectal Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic relevance of mucinous histology in colorectal cancer remains unclear, especially for rectal neoplasms. The objective of this study was to evaluate if mucinous subtype has a relevant impact on overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) of patients with adenocarcinomas of the rectum. METHODS: On the basis of the data set of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program of the National Cancer Institute of the United States, patients with rectal cancer between 2004 and 2011 were identified. Risk-adjusted Cox regression analysis and propensity score methods were used to assess OS and CSS. RESULTS: In total, 40,083 patients with stage I-IV rectal cancer, of whom 2483 (6.2 %) had mucinous histology, were included in this study. In unadjusted analysis, the 5-year OS and CSS for patients with a mucinous adenocarcinoma was 54.3 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 52.0-56.7] and 61.4 % (95 % CI 59.1-63.9) compared to 66.4 % (95 % CI 65.8-67.0) and 74.5 % (95 % CI 73.9-75.1) for patients with nonmucinous adenocarcinoma (P < 0.001). The survival disadvantage persisting in risk-adjusted Cox proportional hazard regression analysis [hazard ratio (HR) 1.23, 95 % CI 1.15-1.31, P < 0.001 and 1.25, 95 % CI 1.16-1.35, P < 0.001) disappeared after propensity score matching (OS: HR = 0.96, 95 % CI 0.76-1.21, P = 0.722; CSS: HR 1.06, 95 % CI 0.80-1.40, P = 0.693). CONCLUSIONS: This population-based, propensity score matched analysis shows that mucinous histology itself does not constrain survival in rectal cancer patients. Therefore, treatment decisions should not be different according to mucinous histology.

Better survival in right-sided versus left-sided stage I - III colon cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The distinction between right-sided and left-sided colon cancer has recently received considerable attention due to differences regarding underlying genetic mutations. There is an ongoing debate if right- versus left-sided tumor location itself represents an independent prognostic factor. We aimed to investigate this question by using propensity score matching. METHODS: Patients with resected, stage I - III colon cancer were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2004-2012). Both univariable and multivariable Cox regression as well as propensity score matching were used. RESULTS: Overall, 91,416 patients (51,937 [56.8 %] with right-sided, 39,479 [43.2 %] with left-sided colon cancer; median follow-up 38 months) were eligible. In univariable analysis, patients with right-sided cancer had worse overall (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.32, 95 % CI:1.29-1.36, P < 0.001) and cancer-specific survival (HR = 1.26, 95 % CI:1.21-1.30, P < 0.001) compared to patients with left-sided cancer. After propensity score matching, the prognosis of right-sided carcinomas was better regarding overall (HR = 0.92, 95 % CI: 0.89 - 0.94, P < 0.001) and cancer-specific survival (HR = 0.90, 95 % CI:0.87 - 0.93, P < 0.001). In stage I and II, the prognosis of right-sided cancer was better for overall (HR = 0.89, 95 % CI:0.84-0.94 and HR = 0.85, 95 % CI:0.81-0.89) and cancer-specific survival (HR = 0.71, 95 % CI:0.64 - 0.79 and HR = 0.75, 95 % CI:0.70-0.80). Right- and left-sided colon cancer had a similar prognosis for stage III (overall: HR = 0.99, 95 % CI:0.95-1.03 and cancer-specific: HR = 1.04, 95 % CI:0.99-1.09). CONCLUSIONS: This population-based analysis on stage I - III colon cancer provides evidence that the prognosis of localized right-sided colon cancer is better compared to left-sided colon cancer. This questions the paradigm from previous research claiming a worse survival in right-sided colon cancer patients.

Modest overall survival improvements from 1998 to 2009 in metastatic gastric cancer patients: a population-based SEER analysis.

BACKGROUND: An increasing fraction of gastric cancer patients present with distant metastases at diagnosis. The objective of the present 11-year population-based trend analysis was to assess the survival rates in patients who underwent and in patients who did not undergo palliative gastrectomy. METHODS: Patients with metastatic gastric cancer were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database between 1998 and 2009. Time trend and impact of palliative gastrectomy on survival were assessed by both a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model and propensity score matching. RESULTS: We identified 8249 patients with stage IV gastric cancer. The rate of metastatic disease increased from 31.0 % in 1998 to 37.5 % in 2009 (P < 0.001). The palliative gastrectomy rate dropped from 18.8 to 10.2 % (P = 0.004). The median survival for patients who underwent palliative gastrectomy (N = 1445, 17.4 %) and for patients who did not undergo palliative gastrectomy (N = 6804, 82.4 %) was 7 and 3 months, respectively. There was an increase in median overall survival from 2 months (1998) to 3 months (2009) in the no-gastrectomy group, and from 6.5 to 8 months in the gastrectomy group. The 3-year cancer-specific survival rates were 2.1 % (95 % confidence interval 1.7-2.5 %) for patients who did not undergo palliative gastrectomy and 9.4 % (95 % confidence interval 7.8-11.2 %) for patients who underwent palliative gastrectomy (P < 0.001). Palliative gastrectomy was associated with an increased cancer-specific survival in propensity-score-adjusted Cox regression analyses (hazard ratio 0.50, 95 % confidence interval 0.46-0.55, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: On a population-based level, only modest improvements in prognosis for metastatic gastric cancer were observed in patients who underwent and in patients who did not undergo palliative gastrectomy. Considering the low rate of midterm survivors in both groups, only a small subgroup of patients benefits from palliative gastrectomy.

Predictors for regional lymph node metastasis in T1 rectal cancer: a population-based SEER analysis.

BACKGROUND: Local resection of early-stage rectal cancer significantly reduces perioperative morbidity compared with radical resection. Identifying patients at risk of regional lymph node metastasis (LNM) is crucial for long-term survival after local resection. METHODS: Patients after oncological resection of T1 rectal cancer were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results register 2004-2012. Potential predictors of LNM and its impact on cancer-specific survival were assessed in logistic and Cox regression with and without multivariable adjustment. RESULTS: In total, 1593 patients with radical resection of T1 rectal cancer and a minimum of 12 retrieved regional lymph nodes were identified. The overall LNM rate was 16.3 % (N = 260). A low risk of LNM was observed for small tumor size (P = 0.002), low tumor grade (P = 0.002) and higher age (P = 0.012) in multivariable analysis. The odds ratio for a tumor size exceeding 1.5 cm was 1.49 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.06-2.13], for G2 and G3/G4 carcinomas 1.69 (95 % CI 1.07-2.82) and 2.72 (95 % CI 1.50-5.03), and for 65- to 79-year-old and over 80-year-old patients 0.65 (95 % CI 0.43-0.96) and 0.39 (95 % CI 0.18-0.77), respectively. Five-year cancer-specific survival for patients with LNM was 90.0 % (95 % CI 85.3-95.0 %) and for patients without LNM 97.1 % (95 % CI 95.9-98.2 %, hazard ratio = 3.21, 95 % CI 1.82-5.69, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based analysis, favorable cancer-specific survival rates were observed in nodal-negative and nodal-positive T1 rectal cancer patients after primary radical resection. The predictive value of tumor size, grading and age for LNM should be considered in medical decision making about local resection.

Baseline mortality-adjusted survival in colon cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: This investigation assessed the baseline mortality-adjusted survival after colon cancer resection. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In total, 523 patients with adenocarcinoma of the colon who underwent primary colon resection at Kantonsspital St. Gallen, Switzerland, between 1996 and 2008 were included. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 25 months for all patients and 39 months for those who survived until the end of the follow-up. The 5-year relative survival rate was 63.2 % (95 % CI 57.3-69.6 %), and the overall survival rate was 52 % (95 % CI 47.6-57.7 %). After curative resection of stage I-III colon cancer, 40 % of the observed deaths were cancer-related and 60 % reflected the baseline mortality. In stage I, the 5-year relative survival was 103.2 % (95 % CI 91.4-116.5 %) and was not different from a matched population (p = 0.820). In multivariate analysis, good general health and less advanced cancer stages were associated with better relative and overall survival rates. A more advanced age was associated with better relative survival, but worse overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of relative survival of patients exclusively with colon cancer revealed that prognosis of patients suffering from stage I colon cancer does not differ significantly from that of the general population. In more advanced stages, a relevant fraction of deaths is not cancer-related. As the stage determines a patient's survival, early diagnosis is crucial for prognosis.