Functional quality of life among newly diagnosed young adult colorectal cancer survivors compared to older adults: results from the ColoCare Study.

PURPOSE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality are increasing among young adults (YAs) aged 18-39. This study compared quality of life (QOL) between YA and older adult CRC survivors in the ColoCare Study. METHODS: Participants were grouped by age (years) as follows: 18-39 (YA), 40-49, 50-64, and 65 + . Functional QOL (physical, social, role, emotional, cognitive) and global QOL were assessed with the EORTC-QLQ-C30 at enrollment, 3, 6, and 12 months. Average scores were compared between groups over time using longitudinal mixed-effect modeling. Proportions with clinically meaningful QOL impairment were calculated using age-relevant thresholds and compared between groups over time using logistic regression with mixed effects. RESULTS: Participants (N = 1590) were n = 81 YAs, n = 196 aged 40-49, n = 627 aged 50-64, and n = 686 aged 65 + . Average physical function was better among YAs than participants aged 50-64 (p = 0.010) and 65 + (p < 0.001), and average social function was worse among YAs than aged 65 + (p = 0.046). Relative to YAs, all age groups were less likely to report clinically meaningful social dysfunction (aged 40-49 OR = 0.13, 95%CI = 0.06-0.29; aged 50-64 OR = 0.10, 95%CI = 0.05-0.21; aged 65 + OR = 0.07, 95%CI = 0.04-0.15) and role dysfunction (aged 40-49 OR = 0.36, 95%CI = 0.18-0.75; aged 50-64 OR = 0.41, 95%CI = 0.22-0.78; aged 65 + OR = 0.32, 95%CI = 0.17-0.61). Participants aged 40-49 were also less likely to report physical dysfunction (OR = 0.42, 95%CI = 0.19-0.93). CONCLUSION: YA CRC survivors reported better physical and worse social function compared to older CRC survivors, and YA CRC survivors were more likely to report clinically meaningful social, role, and physical disfunction. Future work should further investigate QOL using age-relevant benchmarks to inform best practices for CRC survivorship care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02328677, registered December 2014.

Sugarbaker Versus Keyhole Repair for Parastomal Hernia: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies.

INTRODUCTION: Parastomal hernia is a debilitating complication of stoma creation. Parastomal hernia repair with mesh reduces recurrence rates in open and laparoscopic settings. Recent comparative studies conflict with previously pooled data on optimal mesh repair technique. The objective of this study is to examine parastomal hernia recurrence rates after Sugarbaker and keyhole repairs by performing an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. METHODS: A systematic review of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane database, SCOPUS, and the PROSPERO registry was performed according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines (PROSPERO ID: CRD42021290483). Studies comparing parastomal hernia recurrences after Sugarbaker and keyhole repairs were included. Studies with overlapping patient cohorts (duplicate data), non-comparative studies, studies that did not report the primary outcome of interest, and studies not in the English language were excluded. Study bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Pooled mean differences (MD), odds ratios (OR), and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Forest plots and funnel plots were generated. Study quality was analyzed using MINORS. Additional subgroup analysis of modern studies was performed. RESULTS: Ten comparative studies published between 2005 and 2021 from 5 countries were included for analysis comprising 347 Sugarbaker repairs and 246 keyhole repairs. There were no differences in patient age, sex, or BMI between the groups. There was no difference between the groups regarding surgical site infection (OR 0.78; CI 0.31-1.98; P = 0.61) or post-operative bowel obstruction (OR 0.76; CI 0.23-2.56; P = 0.66). Sugarbaker repairs were significantly less often associated with parastomal hernia recurrence when compared to keyhole repairs (OR 0.38; CI 0.18-0.78; P = 0.008). There was no significant heterogeneity among the studies comparing parastomal hernia recurrence (I2 = 32%; P = 0.15). Quality analysis revealed a median MINORS score of 11 (range 6-16). Subgroup analysis of studies performed after the previously published pooled analysis (2015-2021) revealed no significant difference in parastomal hernia recurrence between the two groups (OR 0.58; CI 0.24-1.38; P = 0.22) with a significant subgroup effect (P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Though there were lower rates of parastomal hernia recurrence with Sugarbaker repairs on overall analysis, this phenomenon disappeared on subgroup analysis of modern studies. Randomized controlled trials with contemporary cohorts would help further evaluate these repairs and minimize potential bias.

Special Situations in the Management of Diverticular Disease.

Diverticular disease affects a large percentage of the US population, affecting over 30% among those older than 45 years old. It is responsible for ∼300,000 hospitalizations per year in the United States and can lead to serious complications such as hemorrhage, obstruction, abscess, fistulae, or bowel perforation. 2 It is an extremely common reason for emergency room and outpatient visits and evaluations by general and colorectal surgeons. In the US, patients usually present with sigmoid diverticulitis in the setting of a normal immune system so surgeons will follow well-established practice guidelines for treatment. However, there may be special circumstances in which the management of diverticulitis is not as straightforward. In this article, we will address patients who present with multifocal disease, giant colonic diverticulum, right-sided diverticulitis, and diverticulitis in the setting of immunosuppression and hopefully provide guidance for treatment in these special circumstances.

Does the Halo Effect for Level 1 Trauma Centers Apply to High-Acuity Nonsurgical Admissions?

CONTEXT: The halo effect describes the improved surgical outcomes at trauma centers for nontrauma conditions. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether level 1 trauma centers have improved inpatient mortality for common but high-acuity nonsurgical diagnoses (eg, acute myocardial infarction [AMI], congestive heart failure [CHF], and pneumonia [PNA]) compared with non--level 1 trauma centers. METHODS: The authors conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study analyzing data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database and the American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database. Patients who were admitted with AMI, CHF, and PNA between 2006-2011 in Florida and California were included. Level 1 trauma centers were matched to non-level 1 trauma centers using propensity scoring. The primary outcome was risk-adjusted inpatient mortality for each diagnosis (AMI, CHF, or PNA). RESULTS: Of the 190,474 patients who were hospitalized for AMI, CHF, or PNA, 94,037 patients (49%) underwent treatment at level 1 trauma centers. The inpatient mortality rates at level 1 trauma centers vs non-level 1 trauma centers for patients with AMI was 8.10% vs 8.40%, respectively (P=.73); for patients with CHF, 2.26% vs 2.71% (P=.90); and for patients with PNA, 2.30% vs 2.70% (P=.25). CONCLUSION: Level 1 trauma center designation was not associated with improved mortality for high-acuity, nonsurgical medical conditions in this study.