Characteristics and symptomatology of colorectal cancer in the young.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of colorectal cancer in patients <50 years has rapidly risen recently. Understanding the presenting symptoms may facilitate earlier diagnosis. We aimed to delineate patient characteristics, symptomatology, and tumor characteristics of colorectal cancer in a young population. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted evaluating patients <50 years diagnosed between 2005 and 2019 with primary colorectal cancer at a university teaching hospital. The number and character of colorectal cancer-related symptoms at presentation was the primary outcome measured. Patient and tumor characteristics were also collected. RESULTS: Included were 286 patients with a median age of 44 years, with 56% <45 years. Nearly all patients (95%) were symptomatic at presentation, with 85% having 2 or more symptoms. The most common symptoms were pain (63%), followed by change in stool habits (54%), rectal bleeding (53%), and weight loss (32%). Diarrhea was more common than constipation. More than 50% had symptoms for at least 3 months before diagnosis. The number and duration of symptoms were similar in patients older than 45 compared to those younger. Most cancers were left-sided (77%) and advanced stage at presentation (36% stage III, 39% stage IV). CONCLUSION: In this cohort of young patients with colorectal cancer, the majority presented with multiple symptoms having a median duration of 3 months. It is essential that providers be mindful of the ever-increasing incidence of colorectal malignancy in young patients, and that those with multiple, durable symptoms should be offered screening for colorectal neoplasms based on symptoms alone.

Male gender, smoking, younger age, and preoperative pain found to increase postoperative opioid requirements in 592 elective colorectal resections.

PURPOSE: With increased awareness of the opioid epidemic, understanding contributing factors to postoperative opioid use is important. The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient and perioperative factors that contribute to postoperative opioid use after colorectal resections and their relation to pre-existing pain conditions and psychiatric diagnoses. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted identifying adult patients who underwent elective colorectal resection at a single tertiary center between 2015 and 2018. Patient demographics, preoperative factors, surgical approach, and perioperative pain management were evaluated to determine standard conversion morphine milligram equivalents required for postoperative days 0 to 3 and total hospital stay. RESULTS: Five hundred and ninety-two patients: 46% male, median age 58 years undergoing colorectal resections for indications including cancer, inflammatory bowel disease, and diverticulitis were identified. Less opioid use was found to be associated with female gender (ß = - 42), patients who received perioperative lidocaine infusion (ß = - 30), and older adults (equivalents/year) (ß = - 4, all p < 0.01). Preoperative opioid use, preoperative abdominal pain, epidural use, and smoking were all independently associated with increased postoperative opioid requirements. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of patients undergoing elective colorectal resection, factors that were associated with higher perioperative opioid use included male gender, smoking, younger age, preoperative opioid use, preoperative abdominal pain, and epidural use. Perioperative administration of lidocaine was associated with decreased opioid requirements. Understanding risk factors and stratifying postoperative pain regimens may aid in improved pain control and decrease long-term dependency.

Referrals and Decision-Making Considerations Involved in Selecting a Surgeon for Rectal Cancer Treatment in the Midwestern United States.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence of superior outcomes for rectal cancer at high-volume, multidisciplinary cancer centers, many patients undergo surgery in low-volume hospitals. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine considerations of former patients with rectal cancer when selecting their surgeon and to evaluate which considerations were associated with surgery at high-volume hospitals. DESIGN: In this retrospective cohort study, patients were surveyed about what they considered when selecting a cancer surgeon. SETTINGS: Study data were obtained via survey and the statewide Iowa Cancer Registry. PATIENTS: All eligible individuals diagnosed with invasive stages II/III rectal cancer from 2013 to 2017 identified through the registry were invited to participate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were the characteristics of the hospital where they received surgery (ie, National Cancer Institute designation, Commission on Cancer accreditation, and rectal cancer surgery volume). RESULTS: Among respondents, 318 of 417 (76%) completed surveys. Sixty-nine percent of patients selected their surgeon based on their physician's referral/recommendation, 20% based on surgeon/hospital reputation, and 11% based on personal connections to the surgeon. Participants who chose their surgeon based on reputation had significantly higher odds of surgery at National Cancer Institute-designated (OR 7.5; 95% CI, 3.8-15.0) or high-volume (OR 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2-5.7) hospitals than those who relied on referral. LIMITATIONS: This study took place in a Midwestern state with a predominantly white population, which limited our ability to evaluate racial/ethnic associations. CONCLUSION: Most patients with rectal cancer relied on referrals in selecting their surgeon, and those who did were less likely to receive surgery at a National Cancer Institute-designated or high-volume hospitals compared to those who considered reputation. Future research is needed to determine the impact of these decision factors on clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and quality of life. In addition, patients should be aware that relying on physician referral may not result in treatment from the most experienced or comprehensive care setting in their area. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B897.REMISIONES Y CONSIDERACIONES PARA LA TOMA DE DECISIONES RELACIONADAS CON LA SELECCIÓN DE UN CIRUJANO PARA EL TRATAMIENTO DEL CÁNCER DE RECTO EN EL MEDIO OESTE DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOSANTECEDENTES:A pesar de la evidencia de resultados superiores para el tratamiento del cáncer de recto en centros oncológicos de gran volumen y multidisciplinarios, muchos pacientes se someten a cirugía en hospitales de bajo volumen.OBJETIVOS:Examinar las consideraciones de los antiguos pacientes con cáncer de recto al momento de seleccionar a su cirujano y evaluar qué consideraciones se asociaron con la cirugía en hospitales de gran volumen.DISEÑO:Encuestamos a los pacientes sobre qué aspectos consideraron al elegir un cirujano oncológico para completar este estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.AJUSTE:Los datos del estudio se obtuvieron mediante una encuesta y el Registro de Cáncer del estado de Iowa.PACIENTES:Se invitó a participar a todas las personas elegibles diagnosticadas con cáncer de recto invasivo en estadios II/III entre 2013 y 2017 identificadas a través del registro.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los resultados principales fueron las características del hospital donde fue realizada la cirugía (es decir, designación del Instituto Nacional del Cáncer, acreditación de la Comisión de Cáncer y volumen de cirugía del cáncer de recto).RESULTADOS:Hubo 318 de 417 (76%) encuestas completadas. El sesenta y nueve por ciento seleccionó a su cirujano en función de la referencia / recomendación de su médico, el 20% por la reputación del cirujano/hospital, y el 11% por sus conexiones personales con el cirujano. Los participantes que eligieron a su cirujano en función a la reputación tuvieron probabilidades significativamente más altas de cirugía en el Instituto Nacional del Cáncer designado (OR = 7,5, IC del 95%: 3,8-15,0) o en hospitales de alto volumen (OR = 2,6, IC del 95%: 1,2-5,7) que aquellos que dependían de la derivación.LIMITACIONES:Este estudio se llevó a cabo en un estado del medio oeste con una población predominantemente blanca, lo que limitó nuestra capacidad para evaluar las asociaciones raciales/étnicas.CONCLUSIONES:La mayoría de los pacientes con cáncer de recto dependían de las derivaciones para seleccionar a su cirujano, y los que lo hacían tenían menos probabilidades de recibir cirugía en un hospital designado por el Instituto Nacional del Cáncer o en hospitales de gran volumen en comparación con los que consideraban la reputación. Se necesitan investigaciones a futuro para determinar el impacto de estos factores de decisión en los resultados clínicos, la satisfacción del paciente y la calidad de vida. Además, los pacientes deben ser conscientes de que depender de la remisión de un médico puede no resultar en el tratamiento más experimentado o integral en su área. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B897. (Traducción-Dr Osvaldo Gauto).

Male sex, ostomy, infection, and intravenous fluids are associated with increased risk of postoperative ileus in elective colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative ileus is a common and costly complication after elective colorectal surgery. Effects of intravenous fluid administration remain controversial, and the effect of ostomy construction has not been fully evaluated. Various restrictive intravenous fluid protocols may adversely affect renal function. We aimed to investigate the impact of intestinal reconstruction and intravenous fluid on ileus and renal function after colorectal resection under an enhanced recovery protocol. METHODS: A retrospective study of a prospectively maintained institutional database for a tertiary academic medical center following National Surgical Quality Improvement Program standards was reviewed, analyzing elective colorectal resections performed under enhanced recovery protocol from 2015 to 2018. Postoperative ileus was defined as nasogastric decompression, nil per os >3 days postoperatively, or nasogastric tube insertion. Patients with and without ileus were compared. Intravenous fluid and different anastomoses and ostomies were investigated. Acute kidney injury was a secondary outcome, due to the potential of renal damage with restriction of intravenous fluid volume during and after surgery and controversy in current literature in this matter. RESULTS: Postoperative ileus occurred in 18.5% of patients (n = 464). Male sex (odds ratio 1.97, 95% confidence interval 1.12-3.52) and postoperative infection (odds ratio 2.13, 95% confidence interval 1.03-4.35) were associated with ileus. Compared to colorectal anastomosis, ileostomy/ileorectal anastomosis had the highest risk of ileus (odds ratio 4.9, 95% confidence interval 2.33-11.3), colostomy second highest (odds ratio 3.3, 95% confidence interval 1.35-8.39), while ileocolic anastomosis did not significantly differ (odds ratio 2.06, 95% confidence interval 0.69-5.85) on multivariate analysis. Each liter of intravenous fluid within the first 72 hours significantly correlated with postoperative ileus (odds ratio 1.41, 95% confidence interval 1.27-1.59). Rates of acute kidney injury did not differ (P = .18). CONCLUSION: Each additional liter of intravenous fluid given in the first 72 hours increased the risk of postoperative ileus 1.4-fold. There is substantially higher risk of ileus with male sex, infection, ileostomy/ileorectal anastomosis, and colostomy. Judicious use of intravenous fluid, as described in our enhanced recovery protocol, is not detrimental for renal function in the setting of normal baseline.

Provider Viewpoints in the Management and Referral of Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with rectal cancer treated at specialized or high-volume hospitals have better outcomes, but a minority of these patients are treated there. Physician recommendations are important considerations for patients with rectal cancer when making treatment decisions, yet little is known about the factors that affect these physician referral patterns. METHODS: Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted in 2018-2019 with Iowa gastroenterologists (GIs) and general surgeons (GSs) who performed colonoscopies in a community setting. A thematic approach was used to analyze and code qualitative data. RESULTS: We interviewed 10 GIs and 6 GSs with self-reported averages of 15.5 y in practice, 1100 endoscopic procedures annually, and 6 rectal cancer diagnoses annually. Physicians believed surgeon experience and colorectal specialization were directly related to positive outcomes in rectal cancer resections. Most GSs performed resections on patients they diagnosed and typically only referred patients to colorectal surgeons (CRS) in complex cases. Conversely, GIs generally referred to CRS in all cases. Adhering to existing referral patterns due to the pressure of health care networks was a salient theme for both GIs and GSs. CONCLUSIONS: While respondents believe that high volume/specialization is related to improved surgical outcomes, referral recommendations are heavily influenced by existing referral networks. Referral practices also differ by diagnosing specialty and suggest rural patients may be less likely to be referred to a CRS because more GSs perform colonoscopies in rural areas and tend to keep patients for resection. System-level interventions that target referral networks may improve rectal cancer outcomes at the population level.