Patient and surgeon preferences for early ileostomy closure following restorative proctectomy for rectal cancer: why aren't we doing it?

BACKGROUND: Early ileostomy closure (EIC), ≤ 2 weeks from creation, is a relatively new practice. Multiple studies have demonstrated that this approach is safe, feasible, and cost-effective. Despite the demonstrated benefits, this is neither routine practice, nor has it been studied, in North America. This study aimed to assess patient and surgeon perspectives about EIC. METHODS: A mixed-methods, cross-sectional study of patients and surgeons was performed. Rectal cancer survivors from a single institution who underwent restorative proctectomy with diverting loop ileostomy and subsequent closure within the last 5 years were contacted. North American surgeons with high rectal cancer volumes (> 20 cases/year) were included. Surveys (patients) and semi-structured interviews (surgeons) were conducted. Analysis employed descriptive statistics and thematic analysis, respectively. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients were surveyed (mean age 65.1 ± 11.8 years; 54.2% male). Stoma closure occurred after a median of 7.7 months (IQR 4.8-10.9) and 50.0% (24) found it "difficult" or "very difficult" to live with their stoma. Patients considered improvement in quality of life and quicker return to normal function the most important advantages of EIC, whereas the idea of two operations in two weeks being too taxing on the body was deemed the biggest disadvantage. Most patients (35, 72.9%) would have opted for EIC. Surgeon interviews (15) revealed 4 overarching themes: (1) there are many benefits to EIC; (2) specific patient characteristics would make EIC an appropriate option; (3) many barriers to implementing EIC exist; and (4) many logistical hurdles need to be addressed for successful implementation. Most surgeons (12, 80.0%) would "definitely want to participate" in a North American randomized-controlled trial (RCT) on EIC for rectal cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing EIC poses many logistical challenges. Both patients and surgeons are interested in further exploring EIC and believe it warrants a North American RCT to motivate a change in practice.

A framework for role allocation in education, research and leadership services in Canadian academic divisions of general surgery: a modified Delphi consensus.

BACKGROUND: Moving toward a funding standard similar to that for clinical services for roles essential to the functioning of education, research and leadership services within divisions of general surgery is necessary to strengthen divisional resilience. We aimed to identify roles and underlying tasks in these services central to sustainable functioning of Canadian academic divisions of general surgery. METHODS: Between June 2018 and October 2020, we used a 4-step modified Delphi method (online survey, face-to-face nominal group technique [n = 12], semistructured telephone interview [n = 8] and nominal group technique [n = 12]) to achieve national consensus from an expert panel of all 17 heads of academic divisions of general surgery in Canada on the roles and accompanying tasks essential to education, research and leadership services within an academic division of general surgery. We used 70% agreement to determine consensus. RESULTS: The expert panel agreed that a framework for role allocation in education, research and leadership services was relevant and necessary. Consensus was reached for 7 roles within the educational service, 3 roles within the research service and 5 roles within the leadership service. CONCLUSION: Our framework represents a national consensus that defines role standards for education, research and leadership services in Canadian academic divisions of general surgery. The framework can help divisions build resiliency, and enable sustained and deliberate advances in these services.

Safety and Feasibility of Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging Criteria to Identify Patients With "Good Prognosis" Rectal Cancer Eligible for Primary Surgery: The Phase 2 Nonrandomized QuickSilver Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Chemoradiotherapy (CRT), followed by surgery, is the recommended approach for stage II and III rectal cancer. While CRT decreases the risk of local recurrence, it does not improve survival and leads to poorer functional outcomes than surgery alone. Therefore, new approaches to better select patients for CRT are important. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a phase 2 study to evaluate the safety and feasibility of using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) criteria to select patients with "good prognosis" rectal tumors for primary surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective nonrandomized phase 2 study at 12 high-volume colorectal surgery centers across Canada. From September 30, 2014, to October 21, 2016, a total of 82 patients were recruited for the study. Participants were patients newly diagnosed as having rectal cancer with MRI-predicted good prognosis rectal cancer. The MRI criteria for good prognosis tumors included distance to the mesorectal fascia greater than 1 mm; definite T2, T2/early T3, or definite T3 with less than 5 mm of extramural depth of invasion; and absent or equivocal extramural venous invasion. INTERVENTIONS: Patients with rectal cancer with MRI-predicted good prognosis tumors underwent primary surgery. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) rate. Assuming a 10% baseline probability of a positive CRM, a sample size of 75 was estimated to yield a 95% CI of ±6.7%. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients (74% male) participated in the study. The median age at the time of surgery was 66 years (range, 37-89 years). Based on MRI, most tumors were midrectal (65% [n = 53]), T2/early T3 (60% [n = 49]), with no suspicious lymph nodes (63% [n = 52]). On final pathology, 91% (n = 75) of tumors were T2 or greater, 29% (n = 24) were node positive, and 59% (n = 48) were stage II or III. The positive CRM rate was 4 of 82 (4.9%; 95% CI, 0.2%-9.6%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The use of MRI criteria to select patients with good prognosis rectal cancer for primary surgery results in a low rate of positive CRM and suggests that CRT may not be necessary for all patients with stage II and III rectal cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN.com identifier: ISRCTN05107772.