A Randomized Crossover Trial Evaluating the Impact of Cultural Dexterity Training on Surgical Residents' Knowledge, Cross-Cultural Care, Skills, and Beliefs: The Provider Awareness and Cultural dexterity Training for Surgeons (PACTS) Trial.

OBJECTIVES: This trial examines the impact of the Provider Awareness and Cultural dexterity Toolkit for Surgeons (PACTS) curriculum on surgical residents' knowledge, cross-cultural care, skills, and beliefs. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Cross-cultural training of providers may reduce healthcare outcome disparities, but its effectiveness in surgical trainees is unknown. METHODS: PACTS focuses on developing skills needed for building trust, working with patients with limited English proficiency, optimizing informed consent, and managing pain. The PACTS trial was a randomized crossover trial of 8 academic general surgery programs in the United States: The Early group ("Early") received PACTS between Periods 1 and 2, while the Delayed group ("Delayed") received PACTS between Periods 2 and 3. Residents were assessed pre- and post-intervention on Knowledge, Cross-Cultural Care, Self-Assessed Skills, and Beliefs. Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were conducted to evaluate within- and between-intervention group differences. RESULTS: Of 406 residents enrolled, 315 were exposed to the complete PACTS curriculum. Early residents' Cross-Cultural Care (79.6% to 88.2%, P<0.0001), Self-Assessed Skills (74.5% to 85.0%, P<0.0001), and Beliefs (89.6% to 92.4%, P=0.0028) improved after PACTS; Knowledge scores (71.3% to 74.3%, P=0.0661) were unchanged. Delayed resident scores pre- to post-PACTS showed minimal improvements in all domains. When comparing the two groups at Period 2, Early residents had modest improvement in all 4 assessment areas, with statistically significant increase in Beliefs (92.4% vs 89.9%, P=0.0199). CONCLUSION: The PACTS curriculum is a comprehensive tool that improved surgical residents' knowledge, preparedness, skills, and beliefs, which will help with caring for diverse patient populations.

Association of Surgical Approaches and Outcomes in Total Mesorectal Excision and Margin Status for Rectal Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Despite being a key metric with a significant correlation with the outcomes of patients with rectal cancer, the optimal surgical approach for total mesorectal excision (TME) has not yet been identified. The aim of this study was to assess the association of the surgical approach on the quality of TME and surgical margins and to characterize the surgical and long-term oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing robotic, laparoscopic, and open TME for rectal cancer. METHODS: Patients with primary, nonmetastatic rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent either lower anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection via robotic (Rob), laparoscopic (Lap), or open approaches were selected from the US Rectal Cancer Consortium database (2007-2017). Quasi-Poisson regression analysis with backward selection was used to investigate the relationship between the surgical approach and outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Among the 664 patients included in the study, the distribution of surgical approaches was as follows: 351 (52.9%) underwent TME via the open approach, 159 (23.9%) via the robotic approach, and 154 (23.2%) via the laparoscopic approach. There were no significant differences in baseline demographics among the three cohorts. The laparoscopic cohort had fewer patients with low rectal cancer (<6 cm from the anal verge) than the robotic and open cohorts (Lap 28.6% versus Rob 59.1% versus Open 45.6%, P = 0.015). Patients who underwent Rob and Lap TME had lower intraoperative blood loss compared with the Open approach (Rob 200 mL [Q1, Q3: 100.0, 300.0] versus Lap 150 mL [Q1, Q3: 75.0, 250.0] versus Open 300 mL [Q1, Q3: 150.0, 600.0], P < 0.001). There was no difference in the operative time (Rob 243 min [Q1, Q3: 203.8, 300.2] versus Lap 241 min [Q1, Q3: 186, 336] versus Open 226 min [Q1, Q3: 178, 315.8], P = 0.309) between the three approaches. Postoperative length of stay was shorter with robotic and laparoscopic approach compared to open approach (Rob 5.0 d [Q1, Q3: 4, 8.2] versus Lap 5 d [Q1, Q3: 4, 8] versus Open 7.0 d [Q1, Q3: 5, 9], P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the quality of TME between the robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches (79.2%, 64.9%, and 64.7%, respectively; P = 0.46). The margin positivity rate, a composite of circumferential margin and distal margin, was higher with the robotic and open approaches than with the laparoscopic approach (Rob 8.2% versus Open 6.6% versus Lap 1.9%, P = 0.17), Rob versus Lap (odds ratio 0.21; 95% confidence interval 0.05, 0.83) and Rob versus Open (odds ratio 0.5; 95% confidence interval 0.22, 1.12). There was no difference in long-term survival, including overall survival and recurrence-free survival, between patients who underwent robotic, laparoscopic, or open TME (Figure 1). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing surgery with curative intent for rectal cancer, we did not observe a difference in the quality of TME between the robotic, laparoscopic, or open approaches. Robotic and open TME compared to laparoscopic TME were associated with higher margin positivity rates in our study. This was likely due to the higher percentage of low rectal cancers in the robotic and open cohorts. We also reported no significant differences in overall survival and recurrence-free survival between the aforementioned surgical techniques.

Prophylactic defunctioning stomas improve clinical outcomes of anastomotic leak following rectal cancer resections: An analysis of the US Rectal Cancer Consortium.

PURPOSE: Anastomotic leak (AL) is a complication of low anterior resection (LAR) that results in substantial morbidity. There is immense interest in evaluating immediate postoperative and long-term oncologic outcomes in patients who undergo diverting loop ileostomies (DLI). The purpose of this study is to understand the relationship between fecal diversion, AL, and oncologic outcomes. METHODS: This is a retrospective multicenter cohort study using patient data obtained from the US Rectal Cancer Consortium database compiled from six academic institutions. The study population included patients with rectal adenocarcinoma undergoing LAR. The primary outcome was the incidence of AL among patients who did or did not receive DLI during LAR. Secondary outcomes included risk factors for AL, receipt of adjuvant therapy, 3-year overall survival, and 3-year recurrence. RESULTS: Of 815 patients, 38 (4.7%) suffered AL after LAR. Patients with AL were more likely to be male, have unintentional preoperative weight loss, and are less likely to undergo DLI. On multivariable analysis, DLI remained protective against AL (p < 0.001). Diverted patients were less likely to undergo future surgical procedures including additional ostomy creation, completion proctectomy, or pelvic washout for AL. Subgroup analysis of 456 patients with locally advanced disease showed that DLI was correlated with increased receipt of adjuvant therapy for patients with and without AL on univariate analysis (SHR:1.59; [95% CI 1.19-2.14]; p = 0.002), but significance was not met in multivariate models. CONCLUSION: Lack of DLI and preoperative weight loss was associated with anastomotic leak. Fecal diversion may improve the timely initiation of adjuvant oncologic therapy. The long-term outcomes following routine diverting stomas warrant further study.

Surgical Decision-Making in Familial Adenomatous Polyposis.

Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is an autosomal dominant disorder affecting patients with germline mutations of the adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) tumor suppressor gene. The surgical treatment of colorectal disease in FAP, which has the goal of colorectal cancer prevention, varies based on both patient and disease factors but can include the following: total colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis, proctocolectomy with stapled or hand-sewn ileal pouch-anal anastomosis, or total proctocolectomy with end ileostomy. The operative options and extent of resection, as well as the use of endoscopy and chemoprevention for the management of polyposis, will be discussed in detail in this article. In addition, commonly debated management decisions related to the treatment of patients with FAP, including the timing of prophylactic colorectal resections for patients with FAP and management of the polyp burden in the rectum, will be discussed. Finally, genotype considerations and the impact of desmoid disease on operative decisions in the setting of FAP will also be reviewed.

Eflornithine plus Sulindac for Prevention of Progression in Familial Adenomatous Polyposis.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of combination therapy with eflornithine and sulindac, as compared with either drug alone, in delaying disease progression in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis are unknown. METHODS: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of the combination of eflornithine and sulindac, as compared with either drug alone, in adults with familial adenomatous polyposis. The patients were stratified on the basis of anatomical site with the highest polyp burden and surgical status; the strata were precolectomy (shortest projected time to disease progression), rectal or ileal pouch polyposis after colectomy (longest projected time), and duodenal polyposis (intermediate projected time). The patients were then randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive 750 mg of eflornithine, 150 mg of sulindac, or both once daily for up to 48 months. The primary end point, assessed in a time-to-event analysis, was disease progression, defined as a composite of major surgery, endoscopic excision of advanced adenomas, diagnosis of high-grade dysplasia in the rectum or pouch, or progression of duodenal disease. RESULTS: A total of 171 patients underwent randomization. Disease progression occurred in 18 of 56 patients (32%) in the eflornithine-sulindac group, 22 of 58 (38%) in the sulindac group, and 23 of 57 (40%) in the eflornithine group, with a hazard ratio of 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 1.32) for eflornithine-sulindac as compared with sulindac (P = 0.29) and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.36 to 1.24) for eflornithine-sulindac as compared with eflornithine. Among 37 precolectomy patients, the corresponding values in the treatment groups were 2 of 12 patients (17%), 6 of 13 (46%), and 5 of 12 (42%) (hazard ratios, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.07 to 1.32] and 0.20 [95% CI, 0.03 to 1.32]); among 34 patients with rectal or ileal pouch polyposis, the values were 4 of 11 patients (36%), 2 of 11 (18%), and 5 of 12 (42%) (hazard ratios, 2.03 [95% CI, 0.43 to 9.62] and 0.84 [95% CI, 0.24 to 2.90]); and among 100 patients with duodenal polyposis, the values were 12 of 33 patients (36%), 14 of 34 (41%), and 13 of 33 (39%) (hazard ratios, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.34 to 1.52] and 0.76 [95% CI, 0.35 to 1.64]). Adverse and serious adverse events were similar across the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients with familial adenomatous polyposis, the incidence of disease progression was not significantly lower with the combination of eflornithine and sulindac than with either drug alone. (Funded by Cancer Prevention Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01483144; EudraCT number, 2012-000427-41.).

Discharge Prescribing Protocol Decreases Opioids in Circulation and Does Not Increase Refills After Colorectal Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Up to 10% of patients develop new, persistent opioid use after surgery. We aimed to assess our prescribing practices and patient utilization of opioids after colorectal surgery. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to implement an opioid-prescribing protocol that will minimize the number of postoperative opioids to decrease community circulation and persistent use by patients. DESIGN: This was a single-institution, prospective study based on questionnaires of postoperative patients in 2019 and 2020 to determine opioid prescribing and usage patterns. Based on these preliminary results, a protocol was implemented in which patients were discharged with 5 or 15 oxycodone 5 mg equivalents based on opioid usage in the 24 hours before discharge. Patients were surveyed after protocol implementation. SETTINGS: Our institution is a large referral center for surgical treatment of colorectal disease. PATIENTS: Adults who underwent inpatient abdominal colorectal procedures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: End points included the number of opioids prescribed, number of prescribed opioids taken, and refill rate. Nonparametric testing was used. RESULTS: Of 77 eligible patients, 61 were opioid naive. Preprotocol, opioid-naive patients (n = 29) were prescribed a median of 30 (interquartile range [IQR], 30-45) tablets but took only 10 (IQR, 0-10; p < 0.0001). Eighty-three percent took 20 or fewer tablets. After protocol implementation, opioid-naive patients (n = 32) were prescribed fewer tablets (median 15; IQR, 7-15; p < 0.0001) but took a similar number of tablets as the preprotocol group (median 10; IQR, 0-10; p = 0.21). The refill rate remained similar (13.8% vs 18.8%; p = 0.60). Protocol adherence was 90.6%. LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by sample size, cohort heterogeneity, and generalizability. CONCLUSIONS: Patients took significantly fewer opioids than were prescribed. Our protocol limited overprescribing and resulted in fewer opioids in the community without opportunity costs such as increased refills. Long-term studies are needed to assess the effects of persistent opioid use after surgery. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C93 .

ANTECEDENTES: Hasta el 10% de los pacientes desarrollan un nuevo uso persistente de opioides después de la cirugía. Nuestro objetivo fue evaluar nuestras prácticas de prescripción y la utilización de opioides por parte de los pacientes después de la cirugía colorrectal. OBJETIVO: Nuestro objetivo es implementar un protocolo de prescripción de opioides que minimice la cantidad de opioides posoperatorios para disminuir la circulación en la comunidad y el uso persistente por parte de los pacientes. DISEÑO: Estudio prospectivo, de una sola institución, basado en cuestionarios de pacientes postoperatorios en 2019 y 2020 para determinar los patrones de prescripción y uso de opioides. Con base en estos resultados preliminares, se implementó un protocolo en el que los pacientes eran dados de alta con 5 o 15 equivalentes de oxicodona de 5 mg según el uso de opioides en las 24 horas previas al alta. Los pacientes fueron encuestados después de la implementación del protocolo. AJUSTES: Nuestra institución es un gran centro de referencia para el tratamiento quirúrgico de la enfermedad colorrectal. PACIENTES: Adultos que se sometieron a procedimientos colorrectales abdominales con hospitalización. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Los criterios de valoración incluyeron el número de opioides recetados, el número de opioides recetados tomados y la tasa de reabastecimiento. Se utilizaron pruebas no paramétricas. RESULTADOS: De 77 pacientes elegibles, 61 no habian recibido opioides. A los pacientes sin tratamiento previo con opioides antes del protocolo (n = 29) se les prescribió una mediana de 30 (rango intercuartilico [RIC] 30­45) comprimidos, pero solo tomaron 10 (RIC 0.10, p < 0,0001). El ochenta y tres por ciento tomo ≤20 comprimidos. Despues de la implementacion del protocolo, a los pacientes sin tratamiento previo con opioides (n = 32) se les prescribieron menos comprimidos (15; RIC 7.15, p < 0,0001), pero tomaron un numero similar antes de la intervención (10; RIC 0­10, p = 0,21). La tasa de reabastecimiento se mantuvo similar (13,8% frente a 18,8%, p = 0,60). La adherencia al protocolo fue del 90,6%. LIMITACIONES: Este estudio está limitado por el tamaño de la muestra, la heterogeneidad de la cohorte y la generalización. CONCLUSIONES: Los pacientes tomaron significativamente menos opioides de los prescritos. Nuestro protocolo limitó la prescripción excesiva y dio como resultados menos opioides en la comunidad sin costos de oportunidad, como el aumento de reabastecimiento. Se necesitan estudios a largo plazo para evaluar los efectos sobre el uso persistente de opioides después de la cirugía. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C93 . (Traducción­Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon).

Circumferential Resection Margin as Predictor of Nonclinical Complete Response in Nonoperative Management of Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Short-course radiation therapy and consolidation chemotherapy with nonoperative intent has emerged as a novel treatment paradigm for patients with rectal cancer, but there are no data on the predictors of clinical complete response. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the predictors of clinical complete response and survival. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTINGS: National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center. PATIENTS: Patients with stage I to III rectal adenocarcinoma treated between January 2018 and May 2019 (n = 86). INTERVENTIONS: Short-course radiation therapy followed by consolidation chemotherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Logistic regression was performed to assess for predictors of clinical complete response. The end points included local regrowth-free survival, regional control, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: A positive (+) circumferential resection margin by MRI at diagnosis was a significant predictor of nonclinical complete response (OR: 4.1, p = 0.009) when adjusting for CEA level and primary tumor size. Compared to patients with a negative (-) pathologic circumferential resection margin, patients with a positive (+) pathologic circumferential resection margin had inferior local regrowth-free survival (29% vs 87%, p < 0.001), regional control (57% vs 94%, p < 0.001), distant metastasis-free survival (43% vs 95%, p < 0.001), and overall survival (86% vs 95%, p < 0.001) at 2 years. However, the (+) and (-) circumferential resection margin by MRI subgroups in patients who had a clinical complete response both had similar regional control, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival of more than 90% at 2 years. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design, modest sample size, short follow-up, and the heterogeneity of treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Circumferential resection margin involvement by MRI at diagnosis is a strong predictor of nonclinical complete response. However, patients who achieve a clinical complete response after short-course radiation therapy and consolidation chemotherapy with nonoperative intent have excellent clinical outcomes regardless of the initial circumferential resection margin status. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C190 . EL MARGEN DE RESECCIN CIRCUNFERENCIAL COMO PREDICTOR NO CLNICO DE RESPUESTA COMPLETA EN EL MANEJO CONSERVADOR DEL CNCER DE RECTO: ANTECEDENTES:La radioterapia de corta duración y la quimioterapia de consolidación en el manejo conservador, han surgido como un nuevo paradigma de tratamiento, para los pacientes con cáncer de recto, lastimosamente no hay datos definitivos sobre los predictores de una respuesta clínica completa.OBJETIVO:Evaluar los predictores de respuesta clínica completa y de la sobrevida.DISEÑO:Estudio retrospectivo de cohortes.AJUSTES:Centro oncológico designado por el NCI.PACIENTES:Adenocarcinomas de recto estadio I-III tratados entre 01/2018 y 05/2019 (n = 86).INTERVENCIONES:Radioterapia de corta duración seguida de quimioterapia de consolidación.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se realizó una regresión logística para evaluar los predictores de respuesta clínica completa. Los criterios de valoración incluyeron la sobrevida libre de recidiva local, el control regional, la sobrevida libre de metástasis a distancia y la sobrevida general.RESULTADOS:Un margen de resección circunferencial positivo (+) evaluado por imagenes de resonancia magnética nuclear en el momento del diagnóstico fue un predictor no clínico muy significativo de respuesta completa (razón de probabilidades/ OR: 4,1, p = 0,009) al ajustar el nivel de antígeno carcinoembrionario y el tamaño del tumor primario. Comparando con los pacientes que presetaban un margen de resección circunferencial patológico negativo (-), los pacientes con un margen de resección circunferencial patológico positivo (+) tuvieron una sobrevida libre de recidiva local (29% frente a 87%, p < 0,001), un control regional (57% frente a 94%, p < 0,001), una sobrevida libre de metástasis a distancia (43% frente a 95%, p < 0,001) y una sobrevida global (86% frente a 95%, p < 0,001) inferior en 2 años de seguimiento. Sin embargo, los subgrupos de margen de resección circunferencial (+) y (-) evaluados por imágenes de resonancia magnética nuclear en pacientes que tuvieron una respuesta clínica completa tuvieron un control regional similar, una sobrevida libre de metástasis a distancia y una sobrevida general >90% en 2 años de seguimiento.LIMITACIONES:Diseño retrospectivo, tamaño modesto de la muestra, seguimiento corto y heterogeneidad de tratamientos.CONCLUSIONES:La afectación del margen de resección circunferencial evaluado por resonancia magnética nuclear al momento del diagnóstico es un fuerte factor predictivo no clínico de respuesta completa. Sin embargo, los pacientes que logran una respuesta clínica completa después de un curso corto de radioterapia y quimioterapia de consolidación como manejo conservador tienen excelentes resultados clínicos independientemente del estado del margen de resección circunferencial inicial. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C190 . (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo ).

Perioperative Complications After Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer: Does Neoadjuvant Regimen Matter?

OBJECTIVE: Investigate the association between neoadjuvant treatment strategy and perioperative complications in patients undergoing proctectomy for nonmetastatic rectal cancer. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Neoadjuvant SC-TNT is an alternative to neoadjuvant CRT for rectal cancer. Some have argued that short-course radiation and extended radiation-to-surgery intervals increase operative difficulty and complication risk. However, the association between SC-TNT and surgical complications has not been previously investigated. METHODS: This single-center retrospective cohort study included patients undergoing total mesorectal excision for nonmetastatic rectal cancer after SC-TNT or CRT between 2010 and 2018. Univariate analysis of severe POM and multiple secondary outcomes, including overall POM, intraoperative complications, and resection margins, was performed. Logistic regression of severe POM was also performed. RESULTS: Of 415 included patients, 156 (38%) received SC-TNT and 259 (62%) received CRT. The cohorts were largely similar, though patients with higher tumors (69.9% vs 47.5%, P < 0.0001) or node-positive disease (76.9% vs 62.6%, P = 0.004) were more likely to receive SC-TNT. We found no difference in incidence of severe POM (9.6% SC-TNT vs 12.0% CRT, P = 0.46) or overall POM (39.7% SC-TNT vs 37.5% CRT, P = 0.64) between cohorts. Neoadjuvant regimen was also not associated with a difference in severe POM (odds ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.04-4.70, P = 0.48) in multivariate analysis. There was no significant association between neoadjuvant regimen and any secondary outcome. CONCLUSION: In rectal cancer patients treated with SC-TNT and proctectomy, we found no significant association with POM compared to patients undergoing CRT. SC-TNT does not significantly increase the risk of POM compared to CRT.

Combination of Sulindac and Eflornithine Delays the Need for Lower Gastrointestinal Surgery in Patients With Familial Adenomatous Polyposis: Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Colectomy and proctocolectomy are the initial standard of care for patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. Pharmacotherapy to prevent the progression of polyposis and surgeries in the lower GI tract would be beneficial to patients with this disease. OBJECTIVE: This analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of eflornithine-sulindac combination versus monotherapy in delaying time to disease progression in the lower GI tract of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. DESIGN: This is a post hoc analysis of a randomized phase 3 trial. SETTING: This study was conducted in 21 hospitals in 7 countries treating patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. PATIENTS: Adults with familial adenomatous polyposis were randomly assigned 1:1:1 into 3 arms. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received either eflornithine (750 mg), sulindac (150 mg), or both once daily for up to 48 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Efficacy was evaluated as the time from randomization to predefined primary disease progression end points. RESULTS: A total of 158 patients were included in the study. Disease progression was observed in 2 of 54 (3.7%), 9 of 53 (17.0%), and 10 of 51 (19.6%) patients with at least partial lower GI tract in the combination, sulindac, and eflornithine arms, corresponding to risk reductions of 80% (p = 0.02) and 83% (p = 0.01) between combination and sulindac or eflornithine. When endoscopic excision of adenomas ≥10 mm in size was censored, the need for major surgery was observed in 0 of 54, 7 of 53 (13.2%), and 8 of 51 (15.7%) patients in the combination, sulindac, and eflornithine arms, corresponding to risk reductions approaching 100% between combination and sulindac (p = 0.005) or combination and eflornithine (p = 0.003). LIMITATIONS: This was a post hoc analysis, the sample size was small, and there were fewer than expected events. CONCLUSIONS: Eflornithine-sulindac combination therapy was superior to either drug alone in delaying or preventing the need for lower GI tract surgery in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B658. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01483144; EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT 2012-000427-41. LA COMBINACIN DE SULINDAC Y EFLORNITINA RETRASA LA NECESIDAD DE CIRUGA DEL TUBO DIGESTIVO BAJO EN PACIENTES CON PAF ANLISIS POSTHOC DE UN ENSAYO CLNICO ALEATORIZADO: ANTECEDENTES:La colectomía y la proctocolectomía son el estándar inicial de atención para los pacientes con poliposis adenomatosa familiar. La farmacoterapia para prevenir la progresión de la poliposis y las cirugías en el tracto gastrointestinal inferior sería beneficiosa para los pacientes con esta enfermedad.OBJETIVO:Este análisis tuvo como objetivo evaluar el impacto de la combinación de eflornitina-sulindac versus la monoterapia en el retraso del tiempo hasta la progresión de la enfermedad en el tracto gastrointestinal inferior de pacientes con poliposis adenomatosa familiar.DISEÑO:Este es un análisis posthoc de un ensayo de fase 3 aleatorizado.ENTORNO CLINICO:Veintiún hospitales en 7 países que tratan a pacientes con poliposis adenomatosa familiar.PACIENTES:Adultos con poliposis adenomatosa familiar fueron aleatorizados 1: 1: 1 en 3 brazos.INTERVENCIONES:Los pacientes recibieron eflornitina (750 mg), sulindac (150 mg) o ambos una vez al día durante un máximo de 48 meses.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:La eficacia se evaluó como el tiempo desde la aleatorización hasta los criterios de valoración primarios predefinidos de progresión de la enfermedad.RESULTADOS:Los resultados se informan para la población de estudio excluyendo a los pacientes que se habían sometido a ileostomías permanentes (n = 158). Se observó progresión de la enfermedad en 2/54 (3,7%), 9/53 (17,0%) y 10/51 (19,6%) pacientes con al menos tracto gastrointestinal inferior parcial en los brazos de combinación, sulindac y eflornitina, respectivamente, correspondientes al riesgo de reducciones del 80% (p = 0,02) y del 83% (p = 0,01) entre la combinación y el sulindaco o la eflornitina, respectivamente. Cuando se censuró la escisión endoscópica de adenomas ≥10 mm de tamaño, se observó la necesidad de cirugía mayor en 0/54, 7/53 (13,2%) y 8/51 (15,7%) pacientes en la combinación, sulindac y eflornitina, respectivamente, correspondientes a reducciones de riesgo cercanas al 100% entre combinación y sulindac (p = 0,005) o combinación y eflornitina (p = 0,003).LIMITACIONES:Este fue un análisis posthoc, el tamaño de la muestra fue pequeño y hubo menos eventos de los esperados.CONCLUSIONES:La terapia de combinación de eflornitina-sulindac fue superior a cualquier fármaco solo para retrasar o prevenir la necesidad de cirugía del tracto gastrointestinal inferior en pacientes con poliposis adenomatosa familiar. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B658.

Travel Time to a High Volume Center Negatively Impacts Timing of Care in Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Regionalization of rectal cancer surgery may lead to worse disease free survival owing to longer travel time to reach a high volume center yet no study has evaluated this relationship at a single high volume center volume center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective review of rectal cancer patients undergoing surgery from 2009 to 2019 at a single high volume center. Patients were divided into two groups based on travel time. The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS). Additional outcomes included treatment within 60 d of diagnosis, completeness of preoperative staging, and evaluation by a colorectal surgeon prior to initiation of treatment. RESULTS: A lower proportion of patients with long travel time began definitive treatment within 60 d of diagnosis (74.0% versus 84.0%, P= 0.01) or were seen by the treating colorectal surgeon before beginning definitive treatment (74.8% versus 85.4%, P < 0.01). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, patients with long travel time were significantly less likely to begin definitive treatment within 60 d of diagnosis (OR = 0.54; 95% CI = 0.31-0.93) or to be evaluated by a colorectal surgeon prior to initiating treatment (OR = 0.45; 95% CI = 0.25-0.80). There were no significant differences in DFS based on travel time. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients with long travel times may be vulnerable to delayed, lower quality rectal cancer care, there is no difference in DFS when definitive surgery is performed at a high volume canter. Ongoing research is needed to identify explanations for delays in treatment to ensure all patients receive the highest quality care.

Thoracic Epidural Analgesia: Does It Enhance Recovery?

BACKGROUND: Thoracic epidural analgesia has been shown to be an effective method of pain control. The utility of epidural analgesia as part of an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol is debatable. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine if the use of thoracic epidural analgesia in an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol decreases hospital length of stay or inpatient opioid consumption after elective colorectal resection. DESIGN: This is a single-institution retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: The study was performed at a high-volume, tertiary care center in the Midwest. An institutional database was used to identify patients. PATIENTS: All patients undergoing elective transabdominal colon or rectal resection by board-certified colon and rectal surgeons from 2013 to 2017 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was length of stay. The secondary outcome was oral morphine milligram equivalents consumed during the first 48 hours. RESULTS: There were 1006 patients (n = 815 epidural, 191 no epidural) included. All patients received multimodal analgesia with opioid-sparing agents. Univariate analysis demonstrated no difference in length of stay between those who received thoracic epidural analgesia and those who did not (median, 4 vs 5 days; p = 0.16), which was substantiated by multivariable linear regression. Subgroup analysis showed that the addition of epidural analgesia resulted in no difference in length of stay regardless of an open (n = 362; p = 0.66) or minimally invasive (n = 644; p = 0.46) approach. Opioid consumption data were available after 2015 (n = 497 patients). Univariate analysis demonstrated no difference in morphine milligram equivalents consumed in the first 48 hours between patients who received epidural analgesia and those who did not (median, 135 vs 110 oral morphine milligram equivalents; p = 0.35). This was also confirmed by multivariable linear regression. LIMITATIONS: The retrospective observational design was a limitation of this study. CONCLUSION: The use of thoracic epidural analgesia within an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol was not found to be associated with a reduction in length of stay or morphine milligram equivalents consumed within the first 48 hours. We cannot recommend routine use of thoracic epidural analgesia within enhanced recovery after surgery protocols. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A765.

Benchmarking rectal cancer care: institutional compliance with a longitudinal checklist.

BACKGROUND: In 2012, the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons published the Rectal Cancer Surgery Checklist, a consensus document listing 25 essential elements of care for all patients undergoing radical surgery for rectal cancer. The authors herein examine checklist adherence in a mature, multisurgeon specialty academic practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective medical record review of patients undergoing elective radical resection for rectal adenocarcinoma over a 23-mo period was conducted. Checklists were completed post hoc for each patient, and these results were tabulated to determine levels of compliance. Subgroup analyses by compliance and experience levels of the treating surgeon were performed. RESULTS: A total of 161 patients underwent resection, demonstrating a median completion rate of 84% per patient. Poor compliance was noted consistently in documenting baseline sexual function (0%), multidisciplinary discussion of treatment plans (16.8%), pelvic nerve identification (8.7%) and leak testing (52.9%), and radial margin status reporting (57.5%). Junior surgeons achieved higher rates of compliance and were more likely to restage after neoadjuvant therapy (67.9% versus 29.4%, P < 0.001), discuss patients at tumor board (31.3% versus 13.2%, P = 0.014), and document leak testing (86.7% versus 47.2%, P = 0.005) compared with senior surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: Checklist compliance within a high-volume, specialty academic practice remains varied. Only surgeon experience level was significantly associated with high checklist compliance. Junior surgeons achieved greater compliance with certain items, particularly those that reinforce decision-making. Further efforts to standardize rectal cancer care should focus on checklist implementation, targeted surgeon outreach, and assessment of checklist compliance correlation to clinical outcomes.

Combined rectopexy and sacrocolpopexy is safe for correction of pelvic organ prolapse.

PURPOSE: Pelvic floor abnormalities often affect multiple organs. The incidence of concomitant uterine/vaginal prolapse with rectal prolapse is at least 38%. For these patients, addition of sacrocolpopexy to rectopexy may be appropriate. Our aim was to determine if addition of sacrocolpopexy to rectopexy increases the procedural morbidity over rectopexy alone. METHODS: We utilized the ACS-NSQIP database to examine female patients who underwent rectopexy from 2005 to 2014. We compared patients who had a combined procedure (sacrocolpopexy and rectopexy) to those who had rectopexy alone. Thirty-day morbidity was compared and a multivariable model constructed to determine predictors of complications. RESULTS: Three thousand six hundred patients underwent rectopexy; 3394 had rectopexy alone while 206 underwent a combined procedure with the addition of sacrocolpopexy. Use of the combined procedure increased significantly from 2.6 to 7.7%. Overall morbidity did not differ between groups (14.8% rectopexy alone vs. 13.6% combined procedure, p = 0.65). Significant predictors of morbidity included addition of resection to a rectopexy procedure, elevated BMI, smoking, wound class, and ASA class. After controlling for these and other patient factors, the addition of sacrocolpopexy to rectopexy did not increase overall morbidity (OR 1.00, p = 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference in operative morbidity when adding sacrocolpopexy to a rectopexy procedure. Despite a modest increase in utilization of combined procedures over time, the overall rate remains low. These findings support the practice of multidisciplinary evaluation of patients presenting with rectal prolapse, with the goal of offering concurrent surgical correction for all compartments affected by pelvic organ prolapse disorders.

Readiness of US General Surgery Residents for Independent Practice.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the current state of the General Surgery (GS) residency training model by investigating resident operative performance and autonomy. BACKGROUND: The American Board of Surgery has designated 132 procedures as being "Core" to the practice of GS. GS residents are expected to be able to safely and independently perform those procedures by the time they graduate. There is growing concern that not all residents achieve that standard. Lack of operative autonomy may play a role. METHODS: Attendings in 14 General Surgery programs were trained to use a) the 5-level System for Improving and Measuring Procedural Learning (SIMPL) Performance scale to assess resident readiness for independent practice and b) the 4-level Zwisch scale to assess the level of guidance (ie, autonomy) they provided to residents during specific procedures. Ratings were collected immediately after cases that involved a categorical GS resident. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and supplemented with Bayesian ordinal model-based estimation. RESULTS: A total of 444 attending surgeons rated 536 categorical residents after 10,130 procedures. Performance: from the first to the last year of training, the proportion of Performance ratings for Core procedures (n = 6931) at "Practice Ready" or above increased from 12.3% to 77.1%. The predicted probability that a typical trainee would be rated as Competent after performing an average Core procedure on an average complexity patient during the last week of residency training is 90.5% (95% CI: 85.7%-94%). This falls to 84.6% for more complex patients and to less than 80% for more difficult Core procedures. Autonomy: for all procedures, the proportion of Zwisch ratings indicating meaningful autonomy ("Passive Help" or "Supervision Only") increased from 15.1% to 65.7% from the first to the last year of training. For the Core procedures performed by residents in their final 6 months of training (cholecystectomy, inguinal/femoral hernia repair, appendectomy, ventral hernia repair, and partial colectomy), the proportion of Zwisch ratings (n = 357) indicating near-independence ("Supervision Only") was 33.3%. CONCLUSIONS: US General Surgery residents are not universally ready to independently perform Core procedures by the time they complete residency training. Progressive resident autonomy is also limited. It is unknown if the amount of autonomy residents do achieve is sufficient to ensure readiness for the entire spectrum of independent practice.

Preoperative Chemotherapy and Survival for Large Anorectal Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A National Analysis of 333 Cases.

PURPOSE: Anorectal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are exceedingly rare, and management remains controversial in regard to local resection (LR) and preoperative chemotherapy. METHODS: The National Cancer Data Base was queried from 1998 to 2012 for cases of GIST resection in the rectum or anus. Patient demographics, type of surgery (LR vs. radical excision [RE]), short-term outcomes, and overall survival (OS) were analyzed. Preoperative chemotherapy was recorded following the US FDA approval of imatinib in 2002. RESULTS: Overall, 333 patients with resection of anorectal GISTs were included. Mean age at presentation was 62.3 years (range 22-90), and median tumor size was 4.0 cm (interquartile range 2.2-7.0). Five-year OS for all patients was 77.6%. In a multivariable survival analysis, only age and tumor size >5 cm (hazard ratio 2.48, 95% confidence interval 1.50-4.01; p = 0.004) were associated with increased mortality. One hundred and sixty-three (49.0%) patients underwent LR, compared with 158 (47.4%) who underwent RE. For tumors smaller than 5 cm, no difference in 5-year survival by surgical approach was observed (LR 82.3% vs. RE 82.6%; p = 0.71). Fifty-nine patients (17.7%) received preoperative chemotherapy; for patients undergoing RE with tumors >5 cm, there was decreased mortality in the group who received preoperative chemotherapy (5-year OS with chemotherapy 79.2% vs. no chemotherapy 51.2%; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Size is the most important determinant in survival following resection. Local excision is common, with resection split between LR and RE. For smaller tumors, LR may be adequate therapy. Preoperative chemotherapy may result in improved survival for large tumors treated with radical resection, but the data are imperfect.

A proposed staging system and stage-specific interventions for familial adenomatous polyposis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: It is not possible to accurately count adenomas in many patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). Nevertheless, polyp counts are critical in evaluating each patient's response to interventions. However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration no longer recognizes the decrease in polyp burden as a sufficient chemoprevention trial treatment endpoint requiring a measure of "clinical benefit." To develop endpoints for future industry-sponsored chemopreventive trials, the International Society for Gastrointestinal Hereditary Tumors (InSIGHT) developed an FAP staging and intervention classification scheme for lower-GI tract polyposis. METHODS: Twenty-four colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy videos were reviewed by 26 clinicians familiar with diagnosis and treatment of FAP. The reviewers independently assigned a stage to a case by using the proposed system and chose a stage-specific intervention for each case. Our endpoint was the degree of concordance among reviewers staging and intervention assessments. RESULTS: The staging and intervention ratings of the 26 reviewers were highly concordant (ρ = 0.710; 95% credible interval, 0.651-0.759). Sixty-two percent of reviewers agreed on the FAP stage, and 90% of scores were within ±1 stage of the mode. Sixty percent of reviewers agreed on the intervention, and 86% chose an intervention within ±1 level of the mode. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed FAP colon polyposis staging system and stage-specific intervention are based on a high degree of agreement on the part of experts in the review of individual cases of polyposis. Therefore, reliable and clinically relevant means for measuring trial outcomes can be developed. Outlier cases showing wide scatter in stage assignment call for individualized attention and may be inappropriate for enrollment in clinical trials for this reason.

Impaired outcome colitis-associated rectal cancer versus sporadic cancer.

BACKGROUND: The surgical management of colitis-associated rectal cancer (CARC) is not well defined. This study determines outcomes after surgery for CARC compared with sporadic rectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study comparing 27 patients with CARC with 54 matched patients with sporadic cancer. Matching criteria included age, gender, neoadjuvant chemoradiation, and American Joint Committee on Cancer stage. Outcome measures were disease-free and overall survival, tumor characteristics, and postoperative morbidity. RESULTS: Compared to those with sporadic rectal cancer, patients with CARC underwent proctocolectomy more frequently (21 [78%] versus 6 [22%] P < 0.001) and were more likely to have mucinous tumors (11 [40.7%] versus 12 [22.3%] P = 0.03). Overall 3-y survival was significantly reduced in CARC patients compared with patients with sporadic rectal cancer. Those with CARC undergoing segmental proctectomy only demonstrated reduced overall and disease-free survival compared to patients with sporadic rectal cancer and to colitis patients undergoing proctocolectomy (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CARC undergoing proctectomy demonstrate reduced disease-free survival versus those undergoing proctocolectomy, and versus patients with sporadic rectal cancer undergoing proctectomy. These findings warrant further study and suggest that proctocolectomy should be considered the preferred surgical approach for CARC.

Importance of surgical margins in rectal cancer.

Distal resection margin (DRM) and circumferential resection margin (CRM) are two important considerations in rectal cancer management. Although guidelines recommend a 2 cm DRM, studies have shown that a shorter DRM is adequate, especially in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Standardization of total mesorectal excision has greatly improved quality of CRM. Although more patients are undergoing sphincter-saving procedures, abdominoperineal resection is indicated for very distal tumors, and pelvic exenteration is often necessary for tumors involving pelvic organs.

Acute health care resource utilization for ileostomy patients is higher than expected.

BACKGROUND: Patients requiring an ileostomy following colorectal surgery are at risk for increased health-care utilization after discharge. Prior studies evaluating postoperative ileostomy care may underestimate health-care utilization by reporting only "same-institution" readmission rates. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the rates of health-care utilization of new ostomates within 30 days of discharge in a multicenter environment. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at acute-care, community hospitals in California, Florida, Nebraska, and New York. PATIENTS: Adult patients who underwent colorectal surgery with primary anastomosis, colostomy, or ileostomy between July 2009 and September 2010 were identified. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measured was hospital-based acute care, defined as hospital readmission or emergency department visit, at any hospital within 30 days of surgery. Multivariate regression models were used to compare the outcomes across groups. RESULTS: Overall, 75,136 patients underwent colectomy with most receiving a primary anastomosis (79.3%), whereas colostomies were created in 12.8% and ileostomies were created in 8.0%. Diagnoses of colorectal cancer (36.1%) or diverticular disease (22.0%) were most common. Patients with a colostomy (18.8%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.23 [95% CI, 1.17-1.30]) or ileostomy (36.1%; AOR, 2.28 [95% CI 2.15-2.42]) were significantly more likely than patients with a primary anastomosis (16.2%) to have a hospital-based acute-care encounter within 30 days of discharge. Among patients undergoing ileostomy, postoperative infection, renal failure, and dehydration were the most common diagnoses for hospital-based acute-care events. Overall, 20% of these encounters occurred at hospitals other than where the index surgery occurred. LIMITATIONS: Coding accuracy, the inability to capture events occurring in physician offices, and the retrospective study design were limitations of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing colorectal surgery with an ileostomy return to the hospital after discharge twice as frequently as those with a primary anastomosis or colostomy, often to hospitals other than the primary institution. As postdischarge health-care utilization becomes a measured quality metric, it is increasingly important to help these patients to safely transition to home.

Accordion complication grading predicts short-term outcome after right colectomy.

BACKGROUND: The Accordion severity grading system is a novel system to score the severity of postoperative complications in a standardized fashion. This study aims to demonstrate the validity of the Accordion system in colorectal surgery by correlating severity grades with short-term outcomes after right colectomy for colon cancer. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort review of patients who underwent right colectomy for cancer between January 1, 2002, and January 31, 2007, at a single tertiary care referral center. Complications were categorized according to the Accordion severity grading system: grades 1 (mild), 2 (moderate), 3-5 (severe), and 6 (death). Outcome measures were hospital stay, 30-d readmission rate and 1-y survival. Correlation between Accordion grades and outcome measures is reflected by Spearman rho (ρ). One-year survival was obtained per Kaplan-Meier method and compared by logrank test for trend. Significance was set at P ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: Overall, 235 patients underwent right colectomy for cancer of which 122 (51.9%) had complications. In total, 52 (43%) had an Accordion grade 1 complication; 44 (36%) grade 2; four (3%) grade 3; 11 (9%) grade 4; seven (6%) grade 5; and four (3%) grade 6. There was significant correlation between Accordion grades and hospital stay (ρ = 0.495, P < 0.001) and 30-d readmission rate (ρ = 0.335, P < 0.001). There was a significant downward trend in 1-y survival as complication severity by Accordion grade increased (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The Accordion grading system is a useful tool to estimate short-term outcomes after right colectomy for cancer. High-grade Accordion complications are associated with longer hospital stay and increased risk of readmission and mortality.