Retrospective analysis of the incidence of appendiceal neoplasm and malignancy in patients treated for suspected acute appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Nonoperative management of uncomplicated appendicitis is currently being promoted as treatment option, albeit 0.7-2.5% of appendectomies performed due to suspected acute appendicitis show histologically malignant findings. The purpose of this study was to investigate the incidence of neoplasm and malignancy of the appendix in patients presenting with suspected acute appendicitis in real world setting. METHODS: This is a retrospective single-centre investigation of 457 patients undergoing appendectomy between the years 2017-2020. The patients' demographics, symptoms and diagnosis, intraoperative findings, and histopathological results were analysed. RESULTS: In 3.7% (n = 17) histological analysis revealed neoplasms or malignancies. Median age was 48 years (20-90 years), without sex predominance. Leukocytes (11.3 ± 3.7 G/l) and C-reactive protein (54.2 ± 69.0 mg/l) were elevated. Histological analysis revealed low-grade mucinous appendiceal neoplasia (n = 3), sessile serrated adenoma of the appendix (n = 3), neuroendocrine tumours (n = 7), appendiceal adenocarcinoma of intestinal type (n = 3), and goblet cell carcinoma (n = 1). Additional treatment varied between no treatment or follow-up due to early tumour stage (n = 4), follow-up care (n = 3), additional surgical treatment (n = 8), or best supportive care (n = 2). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative diagnosis of appendiceal tumours is difficult. Nonoperative management of patients with acute, uncomplicated appendicitis potentially prevents the correct diagnosis of malignant appendiceal pathologies. Therefore, close follow-up or surgical removal of the appendix is mandatory.

The role of advanced endoscopy in appendiceal polyp management and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Appendiceal orifice lesions are often managed operatively with limited or oncologic resections. The aim is to report the management of appendiceal orifice mucosal neoplasms using advanced endoscopic interventions. METHODS: Patients with appendiceal orifice mucosal neoplasms who underwent advanced endoscopic resections between 2011 and 2021 with either endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic mucosal dissection (ESD), hybrid ESD, or combined endoscopic laparoscopic surgery (CELS) were included from a prospectively collected dataset. Patient and lesion details and procedure outcomes are reported. RESULTS: Out of 1005 lesions resected with advanced endoscopic techniques, 41 patients (4%) underwent appendiceal orifice mucosal neoplasm resection, including 39% by hybrid ESD, 34% by ESD, 15% by EMR, and 12% by CELS. The median age was 65, and 54% were male. The median lesion size was 20 mm. The dissection was completed piecemeal in 49% of patients. Post-procedure, one patient had a complication within 30 days and was admitted with post-polypectomy abdominal pain treated with observation for 2 days with no intervention. Pathology revealed 49% sessile-serrated lesions, 24% tubular adenomas, and 15% tubulovillous adenomas. Patients were followed up for a median of 8 (0-48) months. One patient with a sessile-serrated lesion experienced a recurrence after EMR which was re-resected with EMR. CONCLUSION: Advanced endoscopic interventions for appendiceal orifice mucosal neoplasms can be performed with a low rate of complications and early recurrence. While conventionally lesions at the appendiceal orifice are often treated with surgical resection, advanced endoscopic interventions are an alternative approach with promising results which allow for cecal preservation.

Beyond acute appendicitis: a single-institution experience of unexpected pathology findings after 989 consecutive emergency appendectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Appendiceal neoplasms (ANs) are rare, with an estimated incidence of around 1%: neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) and low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms (LAMNs) comprise most cases. Most tumours are cured by appendectomy alone, although some require right hemicolectomy and intra-operative chemotherapy. The aim of the present study is to evaluate our institution's experience in terms of the prevalence of AN, their histological types, treatment and outcomes in adult patients undergoing emergency appendectomy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Single-centre retrospective cohort analysis of patients treated for acute appendicitis at a large academic medical centre. Patients with a diagnosis of acute appendicitis (AA) where further compared with patients with acute appendicitis and a histologically confirmed diagnosis of appendiceal neoplasm (AN). RESULTS: A diagnosis of acute appendicitis was made in 1200 patients. Of these, 989 patients underwent emergency appendectomy. The overall incidence of appendiceal neoplasm was 9.3% (92 patients). AN rate increased with increasing age. Patients under the age of 30 had a 3.8% (14/367 patients) rate of occult neoplasm, whereas patients between 40 and 89 years and older had a 13.0% rate of neoplasm. No difference was found in clinical presentations and type of approach while we found a lower complicated appendicitis rate in the AN group. CONCLUSION: ANs are less rare with respect to the literature; however, clinically, there are no specific signs of suspicious and simple appendicectomy appears to be curative in most cases. However, age plays an important role; older patients are at higher risk for AN. ANs still challenge the non-operative management concept introduced into the surgical literature.

Which is the appropriate surgical procedure for appendiceal adenocarcinoma: appendectomy, partial colectomy or right hemicolectomy?

Objective The purpose of this study was to explore the appropriate surgical procedure and clinical decision for appendiceal adenocarcinoma. Methods A total of 1,984 appendiceal adenocarcinoma patients from 2004 to 2015 were retrospectively identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. All patients were divided into three groups based on the extent of surgical resection: appendectomy (N = 335), partial colectomy (N = 390) and right hemicolectomy (N = 1,259). The clinicopathological features and survival outcomes of three groups were compared, and independent prognostic factors were assessed. Results The 5-year OS rates of patients who underwent appendectomy, partial colectomy and right hemicolectomy were 58.3%, 65.5% and 69.1%, respectively (right hemicolectomy vs appendectomy, P < 0.001; right hemicolectomy vs partial colectomy, P = 0.285; partial colectomy vs appendectomy, P = 0.045). The 5-year CSS rates of patients who underwent appendectomy, partial colectomy and right hemicolectomy were 73.2%, 77.0% and 78.7%, respectively (right hemicolectomy vs appendectomy, P = 0.046; right hemicolectomy vs partial colectomy, P = 0.545; partial colectomy vs appendectomy, P = 0.246). The subgroup analysis based on the pathological TNM stage indicated that there was no survival difference amongst three surgical procedures for stage I patients (5-year CSS rate: 90.8%, 93.9% and 98.1%, respectively). The prognosis of patients who underwent an appendectomy was poorer than that of those who underwent partial colectomy (5-year OS rate: 53.5% vs 67.1%, P = 0.005; 5-year CSS rate: 65.2% vs 78.7%, P = 0.003) or right hemicolectomy (5-year OS rate: 74.2% vs 53.23%, P < 0.001; 5-year CSS rate: 65.2% vs 82.5%, P < 0.001) for stage II disease. Right hemicolectomy did not show a survival advantage over partial colectomy for stage II (5-year CSS, P = 0.255) and stage III (5-year CSS, P = 0.846) appendiceal adenocarcinoma (AU)

Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with incomplete cytoreduction for appendiceal pseudomyxoma peritonei: a 10-year treatment experience in China.

BACKGROUND: To explore the application value of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in patients with incomplete cytoreduction for appendiceal pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 526 patients with incomplete cytoreduction for appendiceal PMP to discover its prognostic factors, and the therapeutic value of HIPEC. RESULTS: The 5-year and 10-year overall survival rates of patients after cytoreductive surgery (CRS) treated with HIPEC were significantly higher than those without HIPEC (5y-OS: 58% vs. 48%, 10y-OS: 37% vs. 16%, P = 0.032). The median progression-free survival (PFS) following CRS was 20 months, with a 20% 3-year PFS. The median PFS following CRS + HIPEC was 33 months, with a 60% 3-year PFS (P = 0.000). Univariate analysis indicated that HIPEC, gender, completeness of cytoreduction (CCR) and pathological grade had statistical difference. Multivariate analysis showed that CRS without HIPEC and high pathological grade were independent risk factors for poor prognosis and rapid tumor progression. CONCLUSIONS: HIPEC may prolong the survival in patients with incomplete cytoreduction for low-grade appendiceal PMP. High pathological grade indicates poor survival and rapid tumor progression.

Appendiceal Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: an Update for 2023.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize the literature from the last 5 years on treatment of appendiceal neuroendocrine neoplasms (aNEN). Furthermore, to evaluate the prognostic significance of lymph node metastases, indications for adjuvant treatment, and challenges of the current follow-up regimen. RECENT FINDINGS: Simple appendectomy is sufficient in tumors < 1 cm while extended surgery is indicated in tumors > 2 cm. In a multicenter study of aNENs measuring 1-2 cm, extended surgery offered no significant prognostic advantage and is now limited to incomplete tumor resection or high-grade G2 or G3 aNEN. Follow-up remains debatable, as the use of imaging and biomarkers lacks validation. While surgical procedure is well established in aNEN tumors < 1 cm and > 2 cm, the need for extended surgery in aNEN tumors 1-2 cm is questionable. Future studies should address the prognostic impact of lymph node metastases and the optimal design and duration of follow-up.

Appendicitis to multivisceral transplantation: a career experience with appendiceal malignancy.

John Hunter is regarded as the father of scientific surgery. His principles involved reasoning, observation and experimentation. His most powerful saying was: "Why not try the experiment?" This manuscript charts a career in abdominal surgery ranging from the treatment of appendicitis to the development of the largest appendiceal tumour centre in the world. The journey has led to the first report of a successful multivisceral and abdominal wall transplant for patients with recurrent non-resectable pseudomyxoma peritonei. We all stand on the shoulders of giants and surgery progresses by learning from the past while being prepared to experiment into the future.

Which is the appropriate surgical procedure for appendiceal adenocarcinoma: appendectomy, partial colectomy or right hemicolectomy?

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore the appropriate surgical procedure and clinical decision for appendiceal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: A total of 1,984 appendiceal adenocarcinoma patients from 2004 to 2015 were retrospectively identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. All patients were divided into three groups based on the extent of surgical resection: appendectomy (N = 335), partial colectomy (N = 390) and right hemicolectomy (N = 1,259). The clinicopathological features and survival outcomes of three groups were compared, and independent prognostic factors were assessed. RESULTS: The 5-year OS rates of patients who underwent appendectomy, partial colectomy and right hemicolectomy were 58.3%, 65.5% and 69.1%, respectively (right hemicolectomy vs appendectomy, P < 0.001; right hemicolectomy vs partial colectomy, P = 0.285; partial colectomy vs appendectomy, P = 0.045). The 5-year CSS rates of patients who underwent appendectomy, partial colectomy and right hemicolectomy were 73.2%, 77.0% and 78.7%, respectively (right hemicolectomy vs appendectomy, P = 0.046; right hemicolectomy vs partial colectomy, P = 0.545; partial colectomy vs appendectomy, P = 0.246). The subgroup analysis based on the pathological TNM stage indicated that there was no survival difference amongst three surgical procedures for stage I patients (5-year CSS rate: 90.8%, 93.9% and 98.1%, respectively). The prognosis of patients who underwent an appendectomy was poorer than that of those who underwent partial colectomy (5-year OS rate: 53.5% vs 67.1%, P = 0.005; 5-year CSS rate: 65.2% vs 78.7%, P = 0.003) or right hemicolectomy (5-year OS rate: 74.2% vs 53.23%, P < 0.001; 5-year CSS rate: 65.2% vs 82.5%, P < 0.001) for stage II disease. Right hemicolectomy did not show a survival advantage over partial colectomy for stage II (5-year CSS, P = 0.255) and stage III (5-year CSS, P = 0.846) appendiceal adenocarcinoma. CONCLUSIONS: Right hemicolectomy may not always be necessary for appendiceal adenocarcinoma patients. An appendectomy could be sufficient for therapeutic effect of stage I patients, but limited for stage II patients. Right hemicolectomy was not superior to partial colectomy for advanced stage patients, suggesting omission of standard hemicolectomy might be feasible. However, adequate lymphadenectomy should be strongly recommended.

Surgical management of 1- to 2-cm neuroendocrine tumors of the appendix: Appendectomy or right hemicolectomy?

BACKGROUND: The surgical management of 1- to 2-cm neuroendocrine tumors of the appendix is an area of debate. We analyzed the clinical outcomes of appendectomy and compared them to right hemicolectomy. METHODS: We queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients treated for 1- to 2-cm ANETs from 2004 to 2018. Patients were stratified by surgical approach (appendectomy vs. hemicolectomy). Multivariable models were used to identify factors associated with the choice of surgical approach and the association between surgical approach and overall survival. RESULTS: Of the 3,189 patients we included, 1,573 (49.3%) underwent right hemicolectomy and 1,616 (50.7%) appendectomy. The appendectomy rate increased from 37.7% in 2004 to 58.9% in 2018. On multivariable analysis, patients with grade 2 and 3 tumors were less likely to undergo appendectomy alone (odds ratio = 0.41, 95% confidence interval = 0.26-0.66). Longer travel distance was associated with a higher likelihood of undergoing appendectomy (odds ratio = 2.52, 95% confidence interval = 1.15-5.51). After adjusting for tumor grade, appendectomy alone had similar survival to hemicolectomy (hazard ratio = 1.03, 95% confidence interval = 0.67-1.59). CONCLUSION: In this updated analysis of the National Cancer Database, right hemicolectomy was not associated with improved overall survival compared to appendectomy alone for 1- to 2-cm neuroendocrine tumors of the appendix. Although patients with grade 2 or 3 tumors are more likely to undergo right hemicolectomy, this procedure may not improve their treatment or overall outcome.

Intraoperative predictors of appendiceal abnormalities in patients with mucinous ovarian neoplasms.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate intraoperative factors predicting appendiceal pathology during gynecologic oncology surgery for suspected mucinous ovarian neoplasms. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study on 225 patients with mucinous ovarian neoplasms who underwent surgery for an adnexal mass with concurrent appendectomy between 2000 and 2018. Regression analyses were used to evaluate intraoperative factors, such as frozen section of the ovarian mass and surgeon's impression of the appendix in predicting appendiceal pathology. RESULTS: Most patients (77.8%) had a normal appendix on final pathology. Abnormal appendix cases (n = 26) included: metastasis from high-grade adenocarcinoma of the ovary (n = 1), neuroendocrine tumor of the appendix (n = 4), and low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms (n = 26; 23 associated with a mucinous ovarian adenocarcinoma, 2 with a benign mucinous ovarian cystadenoma, and 1 with a borderline mucinous ovarian tumor). Combining normal intraoperative appearance of the appendix with benign or borderline frozen section yielded a negative predictive value of 85.1%, with 14.9% of patients being misclassified, and 6.0% having a neuroendocrine tumor or low-grade appendiceal neoplasm. CONCLUSION: Benign or borderline frozen section of an ovarian mucinous neoplasm and normal appearing appendix have limited predictive value for appendiceal pathology. Appendectomy with removal of the mesoappendix should be considered in all cases of mucinous ovarian neoplasm, regardless of intraoperative findings.

'It's just a mucocele': a case report of a massive appendiceal mucocele presenting as a left upper quadrant mass.

Tumours of the appendix are very rare tumours that can and often present with a mucocele. This is a case report highlighting the associated pathology of appendix tumours and the management of a large mucocele. Specifically, how a right hemicolectomy is very rarely needed in these cases regardless of size and local anatomical relationships and some important considerations for the practicing surgeon in the non-tertiary centre that encounters a case like this.

Use of early postoperative intraperitoneal 5-fluorouracil with index cytoreduction improves survival with secondary cytoreductive surgery.

BACKGROUND: In patients with appendiceal mucinous neoplasm with peritoneal dissemination, a cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with perioperative chemotherapy may result in long-term survival. Disease progression may require secondary cytoreductive surgery (SCRS) and other treatments in selected patients to improve survival and preserve an optimal quality of life. METHODS: The clinical- and treatment-related variables associated with the index CRS and SCRS were statistically assessed for impact on survival after SCRS. RESULTS: A total of 186 of 687 complete CRS patients (27.1%) had SCRS. Median follow-up was 10 years and median survival was 12 years. In 95 males (51%) the median age was 45.0 years. Survival benefit with SCRS was observed if early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (EPIC) with 5-fluorouracil (EPIC 5-FU) or hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) plus EPIC 5-FU was used with the index CRS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.6, p = 0.0360; HR: 0.4, p = 0.0004, respectively). By propensity matching of 51 pairs of patients, EPIC 5-FU used with index CRS caused a survival advantage compared to HIPEC alone (p = 0.0100) with index CRS (p = 0.0100). CONCLUSIONS: Use of EPIC 5-FU at a complete index CRS was a prognostic variable that improved survival in patients requiring SCRS. Further investigations into the benefits of antiadhesion treatments with CRS and HIPEC are warranted.

Fragmentation of Care in Patients with Peritoneal Metastases Undergoing Cytoreductive Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The delivery of multimodal treatment at a high-volume center is known to optimize the outcomes of gastrointestinal malignancies. However, patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery (CRS) for peritoneal metastases often must 'fragment' their surgical and systemic therapeutic care between different institutions. We hypothesized that this adversely affects outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adults undergoing CRS for colorectal or appendiceal adenocarcinoma at our institution between 2016 and 2022 were identified retrospectively and grouped by care network: 'coordinated care' patients received exclusively in-network systemic therapy, while 'fragmented care' patients received some systemic therapy from outside-network providers. Factors associated with fragmented care were also ascertained. Overall survival (OS) from CRS and systemic therapy-related serious adverse events (SAEs) were compared across the groups. RESULTS: Among 85 (80%) patients, 47 (55%) had colorectal primaries and 51 (60%) received fragmented care. Greater travel distance [OR 1.01 (CI 1.00-1.02), p = 0.02] and educational status [OR 1.04 (CI 1.01-1.07), p = 0.01] were associated with receiving fragmented care. OS was comparable between patients who received fragmented and coordinated care in the colorectal [32.5 months versus 40.8 months, HR 0.95 (CI 0.43-2.10), p = 0.89] and appendiceal [31.0 months versus 27.4 months, HR 1.17 (CI 0.37-3.74), p = 0.55] subgroups. The frequency of SAEs (7.8% versus 17.6%, p = 0.19) was also similar. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in survival or SAEs based on the networks of systemic therapy delivery. This suggests that patients undergoing CRS at a high-volume center may safely receive systemic therapy at outside-network facilities with comparable outcomes.