The Role of Tumor Location on Endoscopic and Surgical Management of Malignant Colon Polyps.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic polypectomy could be an appropriate, definitive treatment for pathologic T1 (pT1) colon polyps without high-risk features. Prior studies suggested worse prognosis for proximal versus distal advanced-stage colon cancers following curative treatment. However, there is limited evidence on the prognostic impact of tumor location for pT1s. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to identify adults with T1NxMx or T1N0-3M0/x colon adenocarcinoma from 2000 to 2019. RESULTS: A total of 3398 patients underwent endoscopic polypectomy (17% proximal) and 28,334 had a partial colectomy (49% proximal) for pT1 adenocarcinoma. Following endoscopic polypectomy, 5-year overall and cancer-specific survival rates were 64% and 91% for proximal versus 83% and 96% for distal polyps, compared with 82% and 95% for proximal versus 88% and 97% for distal tumors after colectomy. In multivariable models, there was a greater difference in overall survival between proximal and distal polyps for those who underwent endoscopic versus surgical resection [hazard ratio (HR) 1.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49-2.02 vs. HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.08-1.18]. Patients with proximal versus distal polyps who underwent polypectomy also exhibited increased cancer-specific mortality (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.37-2.75). However, cancer-specific survival variations based on tumor location were no longer observed in patients undergoing partial colectomy (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.98-1.21). CONCLUSIONS: Proximal tumor location was independently associated with worse overall and cancer-specific survival following endoscopic polypectomy. However, after colectomy, the cancer-specific disparity based on tumor laterality was mitigated. These findings suggest that proximal location may be considered a high-risk feature in endoscopic polypectomy.

Splenic flexure adenocarcinoma: A national cohort analysis of extent of surgical resection and outcomes.

AIM: The optimal extent of resection for splenic flexure adenocarcinoma remains debated. These tumours straddle the left- and right-sided vasculature with lymphatic drainage in a watershed area; current guidelines recommend either segmental or extended colectomy. We analysed surgical management of splenic flexure tumours and compared outcomes between approaches. METHOD: The Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database was searched for adults with Stage I-III splenic flexure adenocarcinoma, 2004-2019. RESULTS: Of 5238 patients, 55% underwent extended colectomy. Compared to segmental colectomy, these patients were more likely to have advanced stage. On multivariable analysis, age ≤ 65 years remained independently associated with extended colectomy. Although fewer nodes were examined in segmental colectomy (median 14 vs. 16, p < 0.001), the number of positive nodes (both, median 0 [interquartile ratio 0-2], p = 0.20) and the lymph node ratio were similar between cohorts. Surgical approach was not significantly associated with increased positive nodal yield in adjusted analyses. Five-year overall and disease-specific survival were 73% and 84% for segmental and 72% and 83% for extended colectomy (p > 0.4); these remained comparable after adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Nationally, we observed similar rates of segmental and extended colectomy for splenic flexure adenocarcinoma. Extended colectomy was not more common in Stage III disease, indicating lack of stage migration, and was not associated with better oncological outcomes. These observations support current practice involving either approach, which should be tailored to patient-related factors and preferences, while considering technical aspects and quality of life.

Specialization Reduces Costs Associated With Colon Cancer Care: A Cost Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal surgeons have been reported to have superior outcomes to general surgeons in the management of colon cancer, but it is unclear whether this leads to a difference in costs associated with cancer care. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate whether colorectal surgeons versus general surgeons performing elective colectomies for colon cancer resulted in cost savings. DESIGN: A decision analysis model was built to evaluate the cost of care. One-way and Monte Carlo sensitivity analyses were performed to test the assumptions of the model. SETTING: Data for the model were taken from previously published studies. PATIENTS: This study included a simulated cohort of patients undergoing elective colectomy for colon cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total cost of care from the societal and health care system perspectives. RESULTS: In the base case scenario, from the societal perspective, colectomy performed by a colorectal surgeon costs $38,798 during the 5-year window versus $46,571 when performed by a general surgeon (net savings, $7773). From the health care system perspective, surgery performed by a colorectal surgeon costs $25,125 versus surgery performed by a general surgeon, which costs $29,790 (net savings, $4665). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, surgeries performed by colorectal surgeons were cost saving or equivalent to those performed by general surgeons in 997 of 1000 simulations in the societal perspective and 989 of 1000 simulations in the health care system perspective. Overall, this finding was primarily driven by differences in reported overall recurrence rates and patient loss of productivity. LIMITATIONS: The limitation of this study was reliance on published data, some of which included rectal cancer cases. CONCLUSIONS: In our decision analysis model, elective colectomies for colon cancer had lower associated costs when performed by colorectal versus general surgeons. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B974 . LA ESPECIALIZACIN REDUCE LOS COSTOS ASOCIADOS CON LA ATENCIN DEL CNCER DE COLON UN ANLISIS DE COSTOS: ANTECEDENTES: Se ha informado que los cirujanos colorrectales obtienen mejores resultados que los cirujanos generales en el tratamiento del cáncer de colon, pero no está claro si esto conduce a una diferencia en los costos asociados con la atención del cáncer.OBJETIVO: Investigar si los cirujanos colorrectales que realizan colectomías electivas para el cáncer de colon generaron ahorros de costos en comparación con los cirujanos generales.DISEÑO: Se construyó un modelo de análisis de decisiones para evaluar el costo de la atención. Se realizaron análisis de sensibilidad unidireccional y de Monte Carlo para probar los supuestos del modelo.AJUSTE: Los datos para el modelo se tomaron de estudios publicados previamente.PACIENTES: Una cohorte simulada de pacientes sometidos a colectomía electiva por cáncer de colon.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Costo total de la atención y desde la perspectiva de la sociedad y del sistema de salud.RESULTADOS: El escenario del caso base incluyó suposiciones sobre las diferencias en los resultados, incluida la recurrencia general y local, el porcentaje de recurrencia operable, la mortalidad a los 30 días, la duración de la estadía, el porcentaje de cirugía mínimamente invasiva, las complicaciones y los costos asociados. En el escenario de caso base, desde la perspectiva social, la colectomía con un cirujano colorrectal costó $38 798 durante la ventana de cinco años, frente a $46 571 con un cirujano general (ahorros netos, $7 773). Desde la perspectiva del sistema de atención médica, la cirugía realizada por un cirujano colorrectal fue de $25 125 frente a $29 790 con la cirugía realizada por un cirujano general (ahorro neto, $4665). En los análisis de sensibilidad de probabilidad, los cirujanos colorrectales ahorraron costos o fueron equivalentes a los cirujanos generales en 997 de 1000 simulaciones en la perspectiva social y 989 de 1000 simulaciones en la perspectiva del sistema de salud. En general, este hallazgo se debió principalmente a las diferencias en las tasas de recurrencia generales informadas y la pérdida de productividad de los pacientes.LIMITACIONES: Dependencia de los datos publicados, algunos de los cuales incluyeron casos de cáncer de rectoCONCLUSIONES: En nuestro modelo de análisis de decisiones, las colectomías electivas por cáncer de colon tuvieron menores costos asociados cuando las realizaron cirujanos colorrectales versus generales. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B974 . (Traducción-Dr Yolanda Colorado).

Total Neoadjuvant Therapy Versus Standard Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation in Patients with Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Comparison of Short- and Long-term Oncologic Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of neoadjuvant multi-agent systemic chemotherapy and radiation (TNT) vs neoadjuvant single-agent chemoradiation (nCRT) and multi-agent adjuvant chemotherapy on overall survival (OS), tumor downstaging, and circumferential resection margin (CRM) status in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Outside of clinical trials and small institutional reports, there is a paucity of data regarding the short and long-term oncologic impact of TNT as compared to nCRT. METHODS: Adult patients with stage II-III rectal adenocarcinoma were identified in the National Cancer Database [2006-2015]. RESULTS: Out of 8,548 patients, 36% received TNT and 64% nCRT. In the cohort, 13% had a pCR and 20% a neoadjuvant rectal (NAR) score <8. In multivariable analysis, as compared to nCRT, TNT demonstrated numerically higher pCR rates ( P = 0.05) but had similar incidence of positive CRM ( P = 0.11). Similar results were observed with NAR scores <8 as the primary endpoint. After adjusting for confounders, OS was comparable between the 2 groups. Additional factors independently associated with lower OS included male gender, uninsured status, low income status, high comorbidity score, poorly differentiated tumors, abdominoperineal resection, and positive surgical margins (all P <0.01). In separate models, both pCR and a NAR score <8 were associated with improved OS. CONCLUSION: In this national cohort, TNT was not associated with better survival and/or CRM negative status in comparison with nCRT, despite numerically higher downstaging rates. Further refinement of patient selection and treatment regimens are needed to establish effective neoadjuvant platforms to improve outcomes of patients with rectal cancer.

Cost-effectiveness Evaluation of Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Minimally Invasive Colectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic colectomy. BACKGROUND: The use of robotic-assisted colon surgery is increasing. Robotic technology is more expensive and whether a robotically assisted approach is cost-effective remains to be determined. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was constructed to evaluate the 1-year costs and quality-adjusted time between robotic, laparoscopic, and open colectomy. Model inputs were derived from available literature for costs, quality of life (QOL), and outcomes. Results are presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), defined as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the effect of clinically reasonable variations in the inputs on our results. RESULTS: Open colectomy cost more and achieved lower QOL than robotic and laparoscopic approaches. From the societal perspective, robotic colectomy costs $745 more per case than laparoscopy, resulting in an ICER of $2,322,715/QALY because of minimal differences in QOL. From the healthcare sector perspective, robotics cost $1339 more per case with an ICER of $4,174,849/QALY. In both models, laparoscopic colectomy was more frequently cost-effective across a wide range of willingness-to-pay thresholds. Sensitivity analyses suggest robotic colectomy becomes cost-effective at $100,000/QALY if robotic disposable instrument costs decrease below $1341 per case, robotic operating room time falls below 172 minutes, or robotic hernia rate is less than 5%. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic and robotic colectomy are more cost-effective than open resection. Robotics can surpass laparoscopy in cost-effectiveness by achieving certain thresholds in QOL, instrument costs, and postoperative outcomes. With increased use of robotic technology in colorectal surgery, there is a burden to demonstrate these benefits.

Transversus Abdominis Plane Block in Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal analgesia is important for postoperative recovery in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Multiple randomized controlled trials have investigated the use of transversus abdominis plane local anesthetic infiltration as a method of decreasing postoperative pain and opioid consumption, with variable results. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the overall effect of transversus abdominis plane block in postoperative pain, opioid use, and speed of recovery in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was done with PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, and Cochrane Library. Only randomized controlled trials were selected for review. INTERVENTIONS: Transversus abdominis plane local anesthetic infiltration versus no intervention, saline, or other techniques in laparoscopic colorectal surgeries was investigated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measured was postoperative pain on day 1, at rest or with activity. The secondary outcomes measured were postoperative pain beyond day 1, consumptions of opioid, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Eight clinical trials including 649 patients between 2013 and 2018 were included. Resting pain scores within 2 hours (standardized mean difference, -0.53; p = 0.01), 4 hours (standardized mean difference, -0.42; p = 0.004), and 6 hours (standardized mean difference, -0.47; p = 0.03) showed statistically significant reduction. Six studies including 413 patients demonstrated lower cumulative opioid consumption within 24 hours after surgery (standardized mean difference, -0.82; p = 0.01). Five studies including 357 patients did not show a significant difference in length of stay (standardized mean difference, -0.04; p = 0.82). LIMITATIONS: Local anesthetic used in block varied in type and quantity across different studies. There were heterogeneities in pain score measurements and opioid consumption. Patient populations may be different among studies. CONCLUSIONS: Transversus abdominis block can lead to a lower pain score at rest within the first 6 hours and reduce opioid consumption within the first 24 hours. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A997.

Locally Excised T1 Rectal Cancers: Need for Specialized Surveillance Protocols.

BACKGROUND: Local excision of T1 rectal cancers helps avoid major surgery, but the frequency and pattern of recurrence may be different than for patients treated with total mesorectal excision. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate pattern, frequency, and means of detection of recurrence in a closely followed cohort of patients with locally excised T1 rectal cancer. DESIGN: This study is a retrospective review. SETTINGS: Patients treated by University of Minnesota-affiliated physicians, 1994 to 2014, were selected. PATIENTS: Patients had pathologically confirmed T1 rectal cancer treated with local excision and had at least 3 months of follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: Patients underwent local excision of T1 rectal cancer, followed by multimodality follow-up with physical examination, CEA, CT, endorectal ultrasound, and proctoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were the presence of local recurrence and the means of detection of recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 114 patients met the inclusion criteria. The local recurrence rate was 11.4%, and the rate of distant metastasis was 2.6%. Local recurrences occurred up to 7 years after local excision. Of the 14 patients with recurrence, 10 of the recurrences were found by ultrasound and/or proctoscopy rather than by traditional methods of surveillance such as CEA or imaging. Of these 10 patients, 4 had an apparent scar on proctoscopy, and ultrasound alone revealed findings concerning for recurrent malignancy. One had recurrent malignancy demonstrated on ultrasound, but no concurrent proctoscopy was performed. LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective review, and the study was conducted at an institution where endorectal ultrasound is readily available. CONCLUSIONS: Locally excised T1 rectal cancers should have specific surveillance guidelines distinct from stage I cancers treated with total mesorectal excision. These guidelines should incorporate a method of local surveillance that should be extended beyond the traditional 5-year interval of surveillance. An ultrasound or MRI in addition to or instead of flexible sigmoidoscopy or proctoscopy should also be strongly considered. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A979. CÁNCERES RECTALES T1 EXTIRPADOS LOCALMENTE: NECESIDAD DE PROTOCOLOS DE VIGILANCIA ESPECIALIZADOS: La escisión local de los cánceres de recto T1 ayuda a evitar una cirugía mayor, pero la frecuencia y el patrón de recurrencia pueden ser diferentes a los de los pacientes tratados con escisión mesorectal total. OBJETIVO: Evaluar el patrón, la frecuencia y los medios de detección de recidiva en una cohorte de pacientes con cáncer de recto T1 extirpado localmente bajo un régimen de seguimiento especifico. DISEÑO:: Revisión retrospectiva. AJUSTES: Pacientes tratados por hospitales afiliados a la Universidad de Minnesota, 1994-2014 PACIENTES:: Pacientes con cáncer de recto T1 confirmado patológicamente, tratados con escisión local y con al menos 3 meses de seguimiento. INTERVENCIONES: Extirpación local del cáncer de recto T1, con un seguimiento multimodal incluyendo examen físico, antígeno carcinoembrionario (CEA), TC, ecografía endorrectal y proctoscopia. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Presencia de recurrencia local y medios de detección de recurrencia. RESULTADOS: Un total de 114 pacientes cumplieron con los criterios de inclusión. La tasa de recurrencia local fue del 11,4% y la tasa de metástasis a distancia fue del 2,6%. Las recurrencias locales se presentaron hasta 7 años después de la escisión local. De los 14 pacientes con recurrencia, 10 de las recurrencias se detectaron por ultrasonido y / o proctoscopia en lugar de los métodos tradicionales de vigilancia, como CEA o imágenes. De estos diez pacientes, cuatro tenían una cicatriz aparente en la proctoscopia y el ultrasonido solo reveló hallazgos relacionados con tumores malignos recurrentes. En una ecografía se demostró malignidad recurrente, pero no se realizó proctoscopia concurrente. LIMITACIONES: Revisión retrospectiva; estudio realizado en una institución donde se dispone fácilmente de ultrasonido endorrectal CONCLUSIONES:: Los cánceres de recto T1 extirpados localmente deben tener una vigilancia específica distinta de los cánceres en etapa I tratados con TME. El régimen de seguimiento deberá de extender más allá del intervalo tradicional de 5 años de vigilancia. También se debe considerar la posibilidad de realizar una ecografía o una resonancia magnética (IRM) además de la sigmoidoscopía flexible o la proctoscopía. Vea el Resumen del video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/A979.

Colorectal Lymphoma: A Contemporary Case Series.

BACKGROUND: Colon and rectal lymphomas are rare and can occur in the context of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder. Evidence-based management guidelines are lacking. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to characterize the presentation, diagnosis, and management of colorectal lymphoma and to identify differences within the transplant population. DESIGN: This was a retrospective review of patients evaluated for colorectal lymphoma between 2000 and 2017. Patients were identified through clinical note queries. SETTINGS: Four hospitals within a single health system were included. PATIENTS: Fifty-two patients (64% men; mean age = 64 y; range, 26-91 y) were identified. No patient had <3 months of follow-up. Eight patients (15%) had posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall survival, recurrence, and complications in treatment pathway were measured. RESULTS: Most common presentations were rectal bleeding (27%), abdominal pain (23%), and diarrhea (23%). The most common location was the cecum (62%). Most frequent histologies were diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (48%) and mantle cell lymphoma (25%). Posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder occurred in the cecum (n = 4) and rectum (n = 4). Twenty patients (38%) were managed with chemotherapy; 25 patients (48%) underwent primary resection. Mass lesions had a higher risk of urgent surgical resection (35% vs 8%; p = 0.017). Three patients (15%) treated with chemotherapy presented with perforation requiring emergency surgery. Overall survival was 77 months (range, 25-180 mo). Patients with cecal involvement had longer overall survival (96 vs 26 mo; p = 0.038); immunosuppressed patients had shorter survival (16 vs 96 mo; p = 0.006). Survival in patients treated with surgical management versus chemotherapy was similar (67 vs 105 mo; p = 0.62). LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective chart review, with data limited by the contents of the medical chart. This was a small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal lymphoma is rare, with variable treatment approaches. Patients with noncecal involvement and chronic immunosuppression had worse overall survival. Patients with mass lesions, particularly cecal masses, are at higher risk to require urgent intervention, and primary resection should be considered. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A929.

System-Wide Improvement for Transitions After Ileostomy Surgery: Can Intensive Monitoring of Protocol Compliance Decrease Readmissions? A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Hospital readmission is common after ileostomy formation and frequently associated with dehydration. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to evaluate a previously published intervention to prevent dehydration and readmission. DESIGN: This is a randomized controlled trial. SETTING: This study was conducted in 3 hospitals within a single health care system. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing elective or nonelective ileostomy as part of their operative procedure were selected. INTERVENTION: Surgeons, advanced practice providers, inpatient and outpatient nurses, and wound ostomy continence nurses participated in a robust ileostomy education and monitoring program (Education Program for Prevention of Ileostomy Complications) based on the published intervention. After informed consent, patients were randomly assigned to a postoperative compliance surveillance and prompting strategy that was directed toward the care team, versus usual care. OUTCOME MEASURES: Unplanned hospital readmission within 30 days of discharge, readmission for dehydration, acute renal failure, estimated direct costs, and patient satisfaction were the primary outcomes measured. RESULTS: One hundred patients with an ileostomy were randomly assigned. The most common indications were rectal cancer (n = 26) and ulcerative colitis (n = 21), and 12 were emergency procedures. Although intervention patients had better postdischarge phone follow-up (90% vs 72%; p = 0.025) and were more likely to receive outpatient intravenous fluids (25% vs 6%; p = 0.008), they had similar overall hospital readmissions (20.4% vs 19.6%; p = 1.0), readmissions for dehydration (8.2% vs 5.9%; p = 0.71), and acute renal failure events (10.2% vs 3.9%; p = 0.26). Multivariable analysis found that weekend discharges to home were significantly associated with readmission (OR, 4.5 (95% CI, 1.2-16.9); p = 0.03). Direct costs and patient satisfaction were similar. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by the heterogeneous patient population and by the potential effect of the intervention on providers taking care of patients randomly assigned to usual care. CONCLUSIONS: A surveillance strategy to ensure compliance with an ileostomy education program tracked patients more closely and was cost neutral, but did not result in decreased hospital readmissions compared with usual care. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A812.

Combined Hartmann's Reversal and Abdominal Wall Reconstruction: Defining Postoperative Morbidity.

BACKGROUND: Ventral hernias are common after Hartmann's procedure and add complexity to Hartmann's reversal. Colostomy reversal and abdominal wall reconstruction may be performed in a staged or concurrent fashion, although data are limited as to which strategy is optimal. We aimed to define the complication profile of concurrent abdominal wall reconstruction with colostomy reversal as compared to either procedure alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this retrospective cohort study, we used the National Surgery Quality Improvement Project Database from 2012 to 2015. All patients undergoing elective colostomy reversal, abdominal wall reconstruction with component separation, or combined colostomy reversal with component separation were identified. Propensity score matching was used to compare outcomes among similar patients undergoing colostomy reversal alone versus combined procedure. Groups were evaluated for postoperative morbidity including reoperation. RESULTS: We identified 11,689 patients; 6951 (64%) underwent component separation alone, 4563 (35%) colostomy reversal alone, and 175 (1%) combined component separation and colostomy reversal. The combined group, as compared to colostomy reversal alone, showed an increased overall complication rate (39% versus 25%; P < 0.01) and increased rate of reoperation (9% versus 5%; P = 0.03). Differences in overall complication rate (43% versus 24%; P < 0.01) and reoperation rate (9% versus 3%; P = 0.03) persisted on propensity matched analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis shows that in patients undergoing colostomy takedown, concurrent abdominal wall reconstruction is associated with increased morbidity including increased rate of reoperation, even when controlling for patient factors. Consideration may be given to a staged approach.

Impact of Proximal Vascular Ligation on Survival of Patients with Colon Cancer.

In an effort to optimize further the surgical management of colon cancer, many groups have advocated extended lymphadenectomy as a strategy to improve completeness of resection and lymph node harvest. This review evaluates lymphadenectomy according to the definitions for extent of lymph node dissection based on the guidelines provided by the Japanese Society of Cancer of the Colon and Rectum and the contemporary concepts of complete mesocolic excision and central vascular ligation. The proposed benefits of a D3 or central nodal dissection along root vessels in colon cancer is improving accuracy of lymph node evaluation and ensuring complete removal of lymph nodes that may harbor undetected tumor cells or other undefined immunologic processes important for metastases. Metastasis to central lymph nodes occurs in 1 to 8% of patients with colon cancer and is most commonly seen in T3 and T4 tumors. Although central lymph node metastasis is associated with decreased survival after resection, resection of the nodes, when present, may confer a survival benefit analogous to resection of metastasis at distant sites. Current data support a standardized anatomic approach to colonic resection with complete resection of the mesocolic envelope and ligation at least to the D2 level.

Decreased Use of Sphincter-Preserving Procedures Among African Americans with Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Improved multimodality rectal cancer treatment has increased the use of sphincter-preserving surgery. This study sought to determine whether African American (AA) patients with rectal cancer receive sphincter-preserving surgery at the same rate as non-AA patients. METHODS: The study used the Nationwide Inpatient Sample for years 1998-2012 to compare AA and non-AA patients with rectal cancer undergoing low anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection. The logistic regression model was used to adjust for age, gender, admission type, Elixhauser comorbidity index, and hospital factors such as size, location (urban vs.rural), teaching status, and procedure volume. RESULTS: The search identified 22,697 patients, 1600 of whom were identified as AA. After adjustment for age and gender, the analysis showed that AA patients were less likely to undergo sphincter-preserving surgery than non-AA patients [odds ratio (OR) 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63-0.78; p < 0.0001). After further adjustment for the Elixhauser comorbidity index, admission type, hospital-specific factors, and insurance status, the analysis showed that AA patients still were less likely to undergo sphincter-preserving surgery (OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.70-0.87; p < 0.0001). Although the proportion of non-AA patients undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery increased during the study period (p = 0.0003), this trend was not significant for the AA patients (p = 0.13). CONCLUSION: In this data analysis, the AA patients with rectal cancer had lower rates of sphincter-preserving surgery than the non-AA patients, even after adjustment for patient- and hospital-specific factors. Further work is required to elucidate why. Eliminating racial disparities in rectal cancer treatment should continue to be a priority for the surgical community.

Does Hospital Transfer Impact Outcomes After Colorectal Surgery?

BACKGROUND: With increasing public reporting of outcomes and bundled payments, hospitals and providers are scrutinized for morbidity and mortality. The impact of patient transfer before colorectal surgery has not been well characterized in a risk-adjusted fashion. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that hospital-to-hospital transfer would independently predict morbidity and mortality beyond traditional predictor variables. DESIGN: We constructed a retrospective cohort of 158,446 patients who underwent colorectal surgery using the 2009-2013 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: All of the patients who underwent colorectal surgery during the study period were included. Patients were excluded for unknown transfer status or transfer from a chronic care facility. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Baseline characteristics were compared by transfer status. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the impact of transfer on major complications and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 7259 operations (4.6%) were performed after transfer. Transferred patients had higher rates of complications (p < 0.0001) with significant differences in unplanned endotracheal reintubation, bleeding, organ-space surgical site infection, wound dehiscence, postoperative sepsis, cardiac arrest requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation, deep venous thrombosis, and myocardial infarction. Transferred patients also had longer hospital stays (9 vs 6 days; p < 0.0001) and a higher risk of death (13.2% vs 2.6%; p < 0.0001). On multivariate analysis, transferred patients had higher mortality rates despite risk adjustment (OR = 1.13 (95% CI, 1.02-1.25); p = 0.019) and were also more likely to have serious complications (OR = 1.12 (95% CI, 1.06-1.19); p < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: We were unable to analyze outcomes beyond 30 days, and we did not have information on preoperative evaluation or the reason for patient transfer. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-to-hospital transfer independently contributed to patient morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. The impact of hospital transfer must be considered when evaluating surgeon and hospital performance, because the increased risk of serious complications or death is not fully accounted for by traditional methods.

Long-term Experience of Magnetic Anal Sphincter Augmentation in Patients With Fecal Incontinence.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic anal sphincter augmentation is a novel technique for the treatment of patients with fecal incontinence. OBJECTIVE: The current study reports the long-term effectiveness and safety of this new treatment modality. DESIGN: This was a prospective multicenter pilot study. SETTINGS: The study was performed at 4 clinical sites in Europe and the United States. PATIENTS: The cohort included patients with severe fecal incontinence for ≥6 months who had previously failed conservative therapy and were implanted with a magnetic anal sphincter device between 2008 and 2011. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adverse events, symptom severity, quality of life, and bowel diary data were collected. RESULTS: A total of 35 patients (34 women) underwent magnetic anal sphincter augmentation. The median length of follow-up was 5.0 years (range, 0-5.6 years), with 23 patients completing assessment at 5 years. Eight patients underwent a subsequent operation (7 device explantations) because of device failure or complications, 7 of which occurred in the first year. Therapeutic success rates, with patients who underwent device explantation or stoma creation counted as treatment failures, were 63% at year 1, 66% at year 3 and 53% at year 5. In patients who retained their device, the number of incontinent episodes per week and Cleveland Clinic incontinence scores significantly decreased from baseline, and there were significant improvements in all 4 scales of the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life instrument. There were 30 adverse events reported in 20 patients, most commonly defecatory dysfunction (20%), pain (14%), erosion (11%), and infection (11%). LIMITATIONS: This study does not allow for comparison between surgical treatments and involves a limited number of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic anal sphincter augmentation provided excellent outcomes in patients who retained a functioning device at long-term follow-up. Protocols to reduce early complications will be important to improve overall results.

Colorectal Surgery Outcomes in Chronic Dialysis Patients: An American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Study.

BACKGROUND: More than 450,000 US patients with end-stage renal disease currently dialyze. The risk of morbidity and mortality for these patients after colorectal surgery has been incompletely described. OBJECTIVE: We analyzed the 30-day morbidity and mortality rates of chronic dialysis patients who underwent colorectal surgery. DESIGN: This was a retrospective analysis. SETTINGS: Hospitals that participate in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program were included. PATIENTS: The study included adult patients who underwent emergency or elective colon or rectal resection between 2009 and 2014. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Baseline characteristics were compared by dialysis status. The impact of chronic dialysis on 30-day mortality and serious postoperative morbidity was examined using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: We identified 128,757 patients who underwent colorectal surgery in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Chronic dialysis patients accounted for 1% (n = 1285) and were more likely to be older (65.4 vs 63.2 years; p < 0.0001), black (27.2% vs 8.7%; p < 0.0001), preoperatively septic (22.1% vs 7.1%; p < 0.0001), require emergency surgery (52.0% vs 14.7%; p < 0.0001), have ischemic bowel (15.7% vs 1.6%; p < 0.0001), or have perforation/peritonitis (15.5% vs 4.2%; p < 0.0001). Chronic dialysis patients were also less likely to have a laparoscopic procedure (17.3% vs 45.0%; p < 0.0001). Chronic dialysis patients had higher unadjusted mortality (22.4% vs 3.3%; p < 0.0001), serious postoperative morbidity (47.9% vs 18.8%; p < 0.0001), and median length of stay (9 vs 6 days; p < 0.0001). In emergent cases (n = 19,375), multivariate logistic regression models demonstrated a higher risk of mortality for dialysis patients (OR = 1.73 (95% CI, 1.38-2.16)) but not for serious morbidity. Models for elective surgery demonstrated a similar effect on mortality (OR = 2.47 (95% CI, 1.75-3.50)) but also demonstrated a higher risk of serious morbidity (OR = 1.28 (95% CI, 1.04-1.56)). LIMITATIONS: The postoperative 30-day window may underestimate the true incidence of serious morbidity and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic dialysis patients undergoing elective or emergent colorectal procedures have a higher risk-adjusted mortality.

Immune status does not predict high-risk HPV in anal condyloma.

BACKGROUND: More than 90% of anal condyloma is attributed to nonhigh risk strains of human papillomavirus (HPV), thus patients with anal condyloma do not necessarily undergo HPV serotyping unless they are immunocompromised (IC). We hypothesized that IC patients with anal condyloma have a higher risk of high-risk HPV and dysplasia than nonimmunocompromised (NIC) patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent surgical treatment by a single surgeon for anal condyloma from 1/2000 to 1/2012. HPV serotyping was performed on all patient samples. We compared incidence of high-risk HPV and dysplasia in condyloma specimens from IC and NIC patients. RESULTS: High-risk HPV was identified in 14 specimens with serotypes 16, 18, 31, 33, 51, 52, and 67. Twenty-two cases (18.3%) had dysplasia. Invasive carcinoma was identified in one IC patient. The prevalence of dysplasia or high-risk HPV was not significantly different between IC and NIC groups. High-risk HPV was a significant independent predictor of dysplasia (odds ratio [OR] = 5.2; 95% CI = 1.24-21.62). Immune status, however, was not a significant predictor of high-risk HPV (OR = 1.11; 95% CI = 0.16-5.12) nor dysplasia (OR = 0.27; 95% CI = 0.037-1.17). CONCLUSIONS: IC patients did not have a significantly higher prevalence or risk of high-risk HPV or dysplasia in our study. HPV typing of all condylomata, regardless of immune status, should be considered as it may help predict risk of neoplastic transformation or identify NIC patients with an increased risk of developing anal intraepithelial neoplasia.

Quality-of-life measures in fecal incontinence: is validation valid?

BACKGROUND: Multiple health measurement scales have been used to study patients with fecal incontinence, but none have met the needs for clinical use and research perfectly. These include severity scales and generic and condition-specific quality-of-life scales. Several different approaches have been used to develop and evaluate the internal and external validity of these scales. OBJECTIVE: As a step toward an improved quality-of-life instrument for fecal incontinence, the present study aimed to provide a critical review of the psychometric methodology of existing generic and condition-specific quality-of-life scales by using a standard measurement model. DESIGN: This study is a retrospective review. SETTINGS: Two investigators experienced in psychometric methodology reviewed source articles from frequently used fecal incontinence quality-of-life scales. PATIENTS: Patients with fecal incontinence were identified. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measured was the demonstration of at least 1 reliability criterion, content validity, construct validity, and either criterion validity or discriminative validity. RESULTS: A total of 12 scales were identified. The reported methodology varied considerably. Most scales demonstrated convergent validity and test-retest reliability, whereas very few scales demonstrated internal consistency or predictive validity. Generic scales were found to be reliable and valid, but not responsive to condition severity. There was a wide range of methodology used in scale development and a wide diversity in the psychometric rigor. LIMITATIONS: Variations in scale construction, data reporting, and validity testing made the evaluation of fecal incontinence quality-of -life scales by using a standardized measurement model difficult. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying deficiencies in validity testing and reporting of existing scales is vital for future creation of a useful validated instrument to measure quality of life in patients with fecal incontinence.

Early removal of urinary catheters after rectal surgery is associated with increased urinary retention.

BACKGROUND: Urinary retention after rectal resection is common and managed prophylactically by prolonging urinary catheterization. However, because indwelling urinary catheterization is a well-established risk factor for urinary tract infection, the ideal timing for urinary catheter removal following a rectal resection is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that early urinary catheter removal (on or before postoperative day 2) would be associated with urinary retention. DESIGN: This study is a retrospective review of medical records. SETTING: This study was conducted at a colorectal surgery service at a tertiary care academic teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Adults undergoing rectal resection operations by colorectal surgeons in 2005 to 2010 were selected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome measured was urinary retention. RESULTS: Of 205 patients included, 41 (20%) developed urinary retention. Male sex (OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.7-9), increased intraoperative intravenous fluid (OR for each liter, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.04-1.48), and urinary catheter removal on postoperative day 2 or earlier (OR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.4-10.5) were associated with urinary retention on multivariable analysis. Early catheter removal was not associated with decreased urinary tract infection rates (p = 0.29) but was associated with shorter length of stay (6.5 vs 8.9 days; p = 0.005). LIMITATIONS: The retrospective nature of this study did not allow for a precise definition of urinary retention. Preoperative urinary function was not available, and the patient sample was heterogeneous, including several indications for rectal resection. Urinary catheters were not removed per protocol and therefore subject to bias. The study is likely underpowered to detect differences in urinary tract infection between urinary catheter removal groups. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing rectal resection, we found that urinary catheter removal on or before postoperative day 2 was associated with urinary retention (see Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/DCR/A172).