Improved Survival After Adjuvant Therapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Patients With Pathologic Complete Response.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of adjuvant therapy is unclear in patients with rectal cancer achieving a pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and total mesorectal excision. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy on survival among rectal cancer patients with a pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: National Cancer Database (2004-2017). PATIENTS: Patients with clinical stage 2 or 3 rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation (50-50.4 Gy in 25-28 fractions) followed by total mesorectal excision with a pathologic complete response were included. INTERVENTION: Adjuvant chemotherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall survival. RESULTS: There were 20,518 patients and 2221 (11%) had a pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Of 2221 patients, 1441 (65%) did not receive adjuvant therapy and 780 (35%) did. Patients who received adjuvant therapy were more likely to be younger (median 58 vs 62 y), have private insurance (61% vs 49%), and have node-positive disease (57% vs 48%) (all p < 0.05). There were no differences in sex, race, Charlson-Deyo score, clinical T-stage, tumor size and differentiation, adequate lymphadenectomy (12 or more), or sphincter preservation between groups (all p > 0.05). Overall survival at 5, 10, and 14 years was significantly longer in the adjuvant group (93%, 85%, 83%, respectively) compared to patients who did not receive adjuvant therapy (87%, 67%, 51%, respectively) ( p < 0.001). In a subgroup analysis, adjuvant therapy was associated with improved survival in patients with clinical stage 2 and 3 rectal cancer ( p < 0.001). After adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, omission of adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with significantly worse survival (HR 1.53, 95% 1.08-2.16). LIMITATIONS: Selection bias, unknown perioperative morbidity, chemotherapy regimen, recurrence status, and other unidentified factors limiting survival analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with clinical stage 2 or 3 rectal cancer, adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved overall survival in patients achieving a pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C139 . SOBREVIDA MEJORADA DESPUS DE LA TERAPIA ADYUVANTE EN PACIENTES CON CNCER DE RECTO LOCALMENTE AVANZADO CON RESPUESTA PATOLGICA COMPLETA: ANTECEDENTES:En los pacientes con cáncer de recto que logran una respuesta patológica completa después de la quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante y la escisión total del mesorrecto, el beneficio de la terapia adyuvante no está claro.OBJETIVO:Evaluar el beneficio de la quimioterapia adyuvante en la sobrevida de los pacientes con cáncer de recto con una respuesta patológica completa después de la quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.ESCENARIO:Base de Datos Nacional de Cáncer (2004-2017).PACIENTES:Pacientes con adenocarcinoma rectal en estadio clínico 2 ó 3 que se sometieron a quimiorradiación neoadyuvante (50-50,4 Gy en 25-28 fracciones) seguida de escisión mesorrectal total con una respuesta patológica completa.INTERVENCIÓN:Quimioterapia adyuvante.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Sobrevida global.RESULTADOS:Hubo 20.518 pacientes y 2.221 (11%) tuvieron una respuesta patológica completa después de la quimiorradiación neoadyuvante. Entre estos 2221 pacientes, 1441 (65%) no recibieron terapia adyuvante y 780 (35%) sí. Los pacientes que recibieron terapia adyuvante tenían más probabilidades de ser más jóvenes (mediana de 58 frente a 62 años), tener un seguro privado (61% frente a 49%) y tener enfermedad con linfonodos positivos (57% frente a 48 %) (todos p < 0,05). No hubo diferencias en género, raza, puntuación de Charlson-Deyo, estadio T clínico, tamaño y diferenciación del tumor, linfadenectomía adecuada (≥12) o preservación del esfínter entre los grupos (todos p > 0,05). La sobrevida general a los 5, 10 y 14 años fue significativamente mayor en el grupo adyuvante (93%, 85%, 83%, respectivamente) en comparación con los pacientes que no recibieron terapia adyuvante (87%, 67%, 51% respectivamente) ( p < 0,001). En un análisis de subgrupos, la terapia adyuvante se asoció con una mejor sobrevida general en pacientes con cáncer de recto en estadio clínico 2 y 3 ( p < 0,001). Después de ajustar por las características del paciente y del tumor, la omisión de la quimioterapia adyuvante se asoció con una sobrevida global significativamente peor (HR 1,53, IC del 95%, 1,08-2,16).LIMITACIONES:Sesgo de selección; morbilidad perioperatoria desconocida, régimen de quimioterapia, estado de recurrencia y otros factores no identificados que limitan el análisis de sobrevida.CONCLUSIONES:En pacientes con cáncer de recto en estadio clínico 2 ó 3, la quimioterapia adyuvante se asoció con una mejor sobrevida general en pacientes que lograron una respuesta patológica completa después de la quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C139 . (Traducción-Dr. Felipe Bellolio ).

Rectal Cancer: Clinical and Molecular Predictors of a Complete Response to Total Neoadjuvant Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Total neoadjuvant therapy in rectal cancer may increase pathological complete response rates, potentially allowing for a nonoperative approach. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify patient and tumor characteristics that predict a complete response following total neoadjuvant therapy. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a university-based National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. PATIENTS: The patients include those with stage 2 or 3 rectal adenocarcinoma. INTERVENTIONS: Interventions included total neoadjuvant therapy, total mesorectal excision, and nonoperative management. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Complete response was defined as either patients with a clinical complete response undergoing nonoperative management who remained cancer-free or patients undergoing surgery with a pathological complete response. RESULTS: Among 102 patients, median age was 54 years, 69% were male, median carcinoembryonic antigen level was 3.0 ng/mL, and the median distance of the tumor above the anorectal ring was 3 cm. Thirty-eight (37%) patients had a complete response, including 15 of 18 (83%) nonoperative patients who remained cancer free at a median of 22 months (range, 7-48 months) and 23 of 84 (27%) patients who underwent surgery and had a pathological complete response. The incomplete response group consisted of 61 patients who underwent initial surgery and 3 nonoperative patients with regrowth. There were no differences in gender, T-stage, or tumor location between groups. Younger age (median, 49 vs 55 years), normal carcinoembryonic antigen (71% vs 41%), clinical node-negative (24% vs 9%), smaller tumors (median 3.9 vs 5.4 cm), and wild-type p53 (79% vs 47%) and SMAD4 (100% vs 81%) were more likely to have a complete response (all p < 0.05). LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective study with a small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with rectal cancer treated with total neoadjuvant therapy, more than one-third will achieve a pathological complete response or sustained clinical complete response with nonoperative management, making oncological resection superfluous in these patients. Smaller, wild-type p53 and SMAD4, and clinically node-negative cancers are predictive features of a complete response. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B889 . CNCER DE RECTO PREDICTORES CLNICOS Y MOLECULARES DE UNA RESPUESTA COMPLETA A LA TERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE TOTAL: ANTECEDENTES:La terapia neoadyuvante total en el cáncer de recto puede aumentar las tasas de respuesta patológica completa y permitir potencialmente un enfoque no quirúrgico.OBJETIVO:El objetivo fue identificar las características tanto del paciente y del tumor que logren predecir una respuesta completa después de la terapia neoadyuvante total.DISEÑO:Este fue un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.AJUSTES:Este estudio se realizó en un Centro Integral de Cáncer designado por el Instituto Nacional del Cáncer con sede universitaria.PACIENTES:Los pacientes incluyen aquellos con adenocarcinoma de recto en estadio 2 o 3.INTERVENCIONES:Terapia neoadyuvante total, escisión total del mesorrecto, manejo conservador no quirúrgico.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:La respuesta completa se definió como pacientes con una respuesta clínica completa sometidos a tratamiento no quirúrgico que permanecieron libres de cáncer o pacientes sometidos a cirugía con una respuesta patológica completa.RESULTADOS:Entre 102 pacientes, la mediana de edad fue de 54 años, el 69% fueron hombres, la mediana del nivel de antígeno carcinoembrionario fue de 3.0 ng/ml y la mediana de la distancia del tumor por encima del anillo anorrectal fue de 3 cm. Thirty-eight (37%) pacientes tuvieron una respuesta completa que incluyó a 15 de 18 (83%) pacientes con manejo no operatorio y que permanecieron libres de cáncer en una mediana de 22 meses (rango 7- 48 meses) y 23 de 84 (27%) pacientes que fueron sometidos a cirugía y tuvieron una respuesta patológica completa. El grupo de respuesta incompleta consistió en 61 pacientes que fueron sometidos inicialmente a cirugía y 3 pacientes no quirúrgicos con recrecimiento. No se encontró diferencias de género, estadio T o ubicación del tumor entre los grupos. Edad más joven (mediana 49 frente a 55), antígeno carcinoembrionario normal (71% frente a 41%), ganglios clínicos negativos (24% frente a 9%), tumores más pequeños (mediana de 3,9 frente a 5,4 cm) y p53 de tipo salvaje (79 % vs 47%) y SMAD4 (100% vs 81%) tenían más probabilidades de tener una respuesta completa (todos p < 0,05).LIMITACIONES:Este fue un estudio retrospectivo y con un tamaño de muestra pequeño.CONCLUSIONES:En pacientes con cáncer de recto tratados con terapia neoadyuvante total, más de un tercio logrará una respuesta patológica completa o una respuesta clínica completa sostenida con manejo no operatorio, logrando que la resección oncológica sea superflua en estos pacientes. Los cánceres más pequeños, clínicamente con ganglios negativos, con p53 de tipo salvaje y SMAD4, son características predictoras de una respuesta completa. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B889 . (Traducción-Dr. Osvaldo Gauto ).

High Complication Rate After Early Ileostomy Closure: Early Termination of the Short Versus Long Interval to Loop Ileostomy Reversal After Pouch Surgery Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with ulcerative colitis who undergo IPAA, a diverting ileostomy is used to diminish the severity of anastomotic complications. Typically, the ileostomy is closed after an interval of 2 to 4 months. The safety of earlier closure of the ileostomy after pouch surgery is unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare postoperative outcomes in patients randomly assigned to early (7-12 days) or late (≥8 weeks) ileostomy closure after ileal pouch construction. DESIGN: This was a multicenter, prospective randomized trial. SETTING: The study was conducted at colorectal surgical units at select United States hospitals. PATIENTS: Adults with ulcerative colitis who underwent 2- or 3-stage proctocolectomy with IPAA were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes included Comprehensive Complication Index at 30 days after ileostomy closure. The secondary outcomes included complications, severe complications, reoperations, and readmissions within 30 days of ileostomy closure. RESULTS: The trial was stopped after interim analysis because of a high rate of complications after early ileostomy closure. Among 36 patients analyzed, 1 patient (3%) had unplanned proctectomy with end-ileostomy. Of the remaining 35 patients, 28 patients (80%) were clinically eligible for early closure and underwent radiologic assessment. There were 3 radiologic failures. Of the 25 remaining patients, 22 patients (88%) were randomly assigned to early closure (n = 10) or late closure (n = 12), and 3 patients were excluded. Median Comprehensive Complication Index was 14.8 (0-54) and 0 (0-23) after early and late closure (p = 0.02). One or more complications occurred in 7 patients (70%) after early closure and in 2 patients (17%) after late closure (p = 0.01)' and complications were severe in 3 patients (30%) after early closure and 0 patients after late closure (p = 0.04). Reoperation was required in 1 patient (10%) and 0 patients (p = 0.26) after early closure and readmission was required in 7 patients (70%) and 1 patient (8%) after late closure (p = 0.003). LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by early study closure and selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: Early closure of a diverting ileostomy in patients with ulcerative colitis who underwent IPAA is associated with an unacceptably high rate of complications. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C68. ALTA TASA DE COMPLICACIONES DESPUS DEL CIERRE PRECOZ DE LA ILEOSTOMA TERMINACIN TEMPRANA DEL ENSAYO ALEATORIZADO DE INTERVALO CORTO VERSUS LARGO PARA LA REVERSIN DE LA ILEOSTOMA EN ASA DESPUS DE LA CIRUGA DE RESERVORIO ILEAL: ANTECEDENTES:En los pacientes con colitis ulcerosa que se someten a una anastomosis del reservorio ileoanal, se utiliza una ileostomía de derivación para disminuir la gravedad de las complicaciones de la anastomosis. Por lo general, la ileostomía se cierra después de un intervalo de 2 a 4 meses. Se desconoce la seguridad del cierre más temprano de la ileostomía después de la cirugía de reservorio.OBJETIVO:Comparar los resultados posoperatorios en pacientes asignados al azar al cierre temprano (7-12 días) o tardío (≥ 8 semanas) de la ileostomía después de la construcción de un reservorio ileal.DISEÑO:Este fue un ensayo aleatorizado prospectivo multicéntrico.ESCENARIO:El estudio se realizó en unidades quirúrgicas colorrectales en hospitales seleccionados de los Estados Unidos.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron adultos con colitis ulcerosa que se sometieron a proctocolectomía en 2 o 3 tiempos con anastomosis ileoanal con reservorio.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los resultados primarios incluyeron el Índice Integral de Complicaciones a los 30 días después del cierre de la ileostomía. Los resultados secundarios incluyeron complicaciones, complicaciones graves, reoperaciones y readmisiones dentro de los 30 días posteriores al cierre de la ileostomía.RESULTADOS:El ensayo se detuvo después del análisis interino debido a una alta tasa de complicaciones después del cierre temprano de la ileostomía. Entre los 36 pacientes analizados, 1 (3%) tuvo una proctectomía no planificada con ileostomía terminal. De los 35 pacientes restantes, 28 (80%) fueron clínicamente elegibles para el cierre temprano y se sometieron a una evaluación radiológica. Hubo 3 fracasos radiológicos. De los 25 pacientes restantes, 22 (88 %) se asignaron al azar a cierre temprano (n = 10) o tardío (n = 12) y 3 fueron excluidos. La mediana del Índice Integral de Complicaciones fue de 14,8 (0-54) y 0 (0-23) después del cierre temprano y tardío (p = 0,02). Una o más complicaciones ocurrieron en 7 pacientes (70%) después del cierre temprano y 2 (17%) pacientes después del cierre tardío (p = 0,01) y fueron graves en 3 (30%) y 0 pacientes, respectivamente (p = 0,04). Requirieron reintervención en 1 (10%) y 0 (p = 0,26) y reingreso en 7 (70%) y 1 (8%) pacientes (p = 0,003).LIMITACIONES:Este estudio estuvo limitado por el cierre temprano del estudio; sesgo de selección.CONCLUSIONES:El cierre temprano de una ileostomía de derivación en pacientes con colitis ulcerosa con anastomosis de reservorio ileoanal se asocia con una tasa inaceptablemente alta de complicaciones. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C68. (Traducción-Dr. Felipe Bellolio).

Diagnosis and Management of Colonic Volvulus.

CASE SUMMARY: An 88-year-old man with no significant medical history, and in a good state of health, presented to the emergency department with 4 days of obstipation, progressive abdominal pain, and bloating. Examination revealed abdominal distension and generalized tenderness without signs of peritonitis. Laboratory values, including lactate and complete blood count, were within normal limits. Computed tomography imaging of the abdomen and pelvis revealed radiological signs of sigmoid volvulus and no evidence of bowel perforation (Fig. 1). Flexible sigmoidoscopic examination revealed no evidence of mucosal ischemia and enabled detorsion of the colon. The patient's symptoms resolved after the detorsion. He was seen in consultation by a surgeon who advised surgical treatment only if the volvulus recurred. After hospital discharge, the patient self-educated about sigmoid volvulus and sought a second surgical opinion. Five weeks after his initial presentation and 1 week after complete colonoscopy, he underwent laparoscopic sigmoidectomy with colorectal anastomosis. His postoperative course was uneventful. At 6-month follow-up, he remained well with no bowel-related concerns.

Outcomes in rectal cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic low anterior resection compared to open: a propensity-matched analysis of the NCDB (2010-2015).

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive resection of rectal cancer is controversial due to concerns of the oncologic efficacy and the difficulties of a laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME). METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), for the period 2010-2015, perioperative outcomes and overall survival (OS) in patients with rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic or robotic low anterior resection (LLAR or RLAR) were compared to open LAR (OLAR) after propensity score matching. RESULTS: 26,047 patients underwent LAR: 4062 (16%) RLAR, 9236 (35%) LLAR, and 12,749 (49%) OLAR. Patient and clinical tumor characteristics were similar between groups after matching. The conversion rates among patients undergoing LLAR and RLAR were 15% and 8%, respectively. In matched OLAR and LLAR patients, longitudinal and circumferential resection margins (CRM) were positive in 5.4% and 3.2% (p < 0.001) and 5.5% and 4.1% (p < 0.001); length of stay was 6 and 5 days, (p < 0.001); readmission was required in 6.5% and 7.0% (p = 0.112); OS at 1, 3, and 5 years were 95.5%, 83.7%, and 72.0% and 95.9%, 86.3%, and 76.4%, respectively (p < 0.001). In matched OLAR and RLAR patients, longitudinal and CRM were positive in 5.4% and 3.2% (p < 0.001) and 5.5% and 3.9% (p < 0.001); length of stay was 6 and 5 days (p < 0.001); readmission was required in 6.1% and 7.9%, (p = 0.010); and OS at 1, 3, and 5 years were 96.2%, 86.5%, and 77.1% and 97.5%, 89.4%, and 79.7%, respectively (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this national sample of propensity matched patients with rectal cancer who underwent open, laparoscopic, or robotic sphincter-saving rectal resection, only small differences in terms of resection margin status, length of stay, readmission, and overall survival were revealed. With acknowledgement of the limitations introduced by selection bias, our data indicate that each of the evaluated operative techniques results in acceptable outcomes for patients with rectal cancer.

Improved survival in rectal cancer patients who are treated with long-course versus short-course neoadjuvant radiotherapy: A propensity-matched analysis of the NCDB.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated comparable survival outcomes for short-course (SCRT) and long-course neoadjuvant radiotherapy (LCRT) in patients with rectal cancer. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Data Base (2004-2015), a propensity score was used to match 188 patients with rectal cancer receiving SCRT to 376 patients receiving LCRT. Perioperative, oncologic, and survival outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Patient and clinical tumor characteristics were similar between groups. Patients in the LCRT were more likely to undergo surgery (91% vs 85%; P = 0.03). The LCRT group were more likely to have tumor (T) (56% vs 43%) and nodal (N) (25% vs 19%) downstaging, and a complete pathological response (15% vs 6%) compared with the SCRT group (all P < 0.05). Length of stay (6 vs 8 days), 30-day (1% vs 5%) mortality, and 90-day mortality (1% vs 10%) were significantly lower in the LCRT group (all P < 0.05). After adjusting for patient and tumor-related characteristics, LCRT was associated with a 50% reduction in the risk of mortality compared with SCRT (hazard ratios, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.70). CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, LCRT was superior to SCRT in terms of tumor response to neoadjuvant therapy, perioperative mortality, and overall survival. These findings provide evidence for the use of LCRT when neoadjuvant therapy is indicated.

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Colon Cancer.

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons is dedicated to ensuring high-quality patient care by advancing the science, prevention, and management of disorders and diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus. The Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee is composed of society members who are chosen because they have demonstrated expertise in the specialty of colon and rectal surgery. This committee was created to lead international efforts in defining quality care for conditions related to the colon, rectum, and anus. This is accompanied by developing Clinical Practice Guidelines based on the best available evidence. These guidelines are inclusive and not prescriptive. Their purpose is to provide information on which decisions can be made, rather than to dictate a specific form of treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners, health care workers, and patients who desire information about the management of the conditions addressed by the topics covered in these guidelines. It should be recognized that these guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the physician in light of all the circumstances presented by the individual patient.

Laparoscopic colectomy in obese patients: a comparison of laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic techniques.

BACKGROUND: Recent American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (ACS-NSQIP)-based evidence indicates that laparoscopic (LAP) colectomy results in improved outcomes compared to hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL) colectomy in the general population. Previous comparative studies demonstrated that the HAL technique offers distinct advantages for obese patients. The aim of this study was to perform comparative analyses of HAL and LAP colectomy and low anterior resection (LAR) in obese patients. METHODS: The ACS-NSQIP public use file and targeted colectomy dataset, 2012-2014, were utilized for patients undergoing colectomy and LAR. Only obese patients (BMI > 30) and laparoscopic or hand-assisted operations were included. Patient, operation, and outcome variables were compared in two separate cohorts: colectomy and LAR. Bivariate analysis compared the approaches, followed by multivariable regression. RESULTS: Of 9610 obese patients included, HAL and LAP colectomy were performed in 3126 and 3793 patients and LAR in 1431 and 1260 patients, respectively. In comparison to LAP colectomy, HAL colectomy patients had increased comorbidities including class 2 and 3 obesity. HAL colectomy was associated with higher overall morbidity (20 vs. 16%, p < 0.001), infectious complications (10.2 vs. 7.7%, p < 0.001), anastomotic leaks (3.0 vs. 2.2%, p = 0.03), and ileus (11 vs. 8%, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis indicated that overall morbidity (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.11-1.44), infectious complications (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.14-1.59), and ileus (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.12-1.57) were each increased in the HAL colectomy cohort but not different for HAL and LAP LAR. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to LAP colectomy, the HAL technique is used more often in obese patients with an increased operative risk profile. While inherent bias and unmeasured variables limit the analysis, the available data indicate that the HAL technique is associated with increased perioperative morbidity. Alternatively, HAL and LAP LAR are performed in obese patients with a similar risk profile and result in similar postoperative outcomes.

The Multidisciplinary Approach to GI Cancer Results in Change of Diagnosis and Management of Patients. Multidisciplinary Care Impacts Diagnosis and Management of Patients.

BACKGROUND: The multidisciplinary approach to GI cancer is becoming more widespread as a result of multimodality therapy. At the University of Colorado Hospital (UCH), we utilize a formal multidisciplinary approach through specialized clinics across a variety of settings, including pancreas and biliary cancer, esophageal and gastric cancer, liver cancer and neuroendocrine tumors (NET), and colorectal cancer. Patients with these suspected diagnoses are seen in a multidisciplinary clinic. We evaluated whether implementation of disease-specific multidisciplinary programs resulted in a change in diagnosis and/or change in management for these patients. METHODS: Data from 1747 patients were prospectively collected from inception of each multidisciplinary program through December 31, 2015. Change in diagnosis was defined as a change in radiographic or endoscopic findings that resulted in a change in cancer stage or clinical diagnosis and/or a change in pathologic diagnosis. Reports of incidental findings unrelated to primary diagnosis on radiographic evaluation were also assessed, but not included in overall change in diagnosis findings. We further evaluated if patients had a change in the management of their disease compared with outside recommendations. RESULTS: Of 1747 patients evaluated, change occurred in 38 % (pancreas and biliary), 13 % (esophageal and gastric); 22 % (liver and NET), and 16 % (colorectal). Change in management for each multidisciplinary program occurred in 35 % (pancreas and biliary), 20 % (esophageal and gastric), 27 % (liver and NET), and 13 % (colorectal). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a multidisciplinary clinic to manage GI cancer has a substantial impact in change in diagnosis and/or management in more than one-third of patients evaluated.

Continuous intraoperative temperature measurement and surgical site infection risk: analysis of anesthesia information system data in 1008 colorectal procedures.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the association between intraoperative temperature and surgical site infection (SSI) in colorectal surgery with anesthesia information system data. METHODS: Continuously measured intraoperative anesthesia information system temperature data for adult abdominal colorectal surgery procedures at a large tertiary center for 1 year were linked to 30-day American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program SSI outcomes. Univariable and multivariable analyses of SSI to descriptive temperature statistics, absolute and relative temperature threshold times, and other clinically relevant variables were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 1008 patients (48% female, median age: 53 years) underwent major colorectal procedures (7% emergent, 72% open, 173 ± 95 minutes mean procedure time) with median intraoperative temperature 36.0°C, using active rewarming in 92% and 1-hour presurgical antibiotic administration in 91%. Thirty-day overall and organ/space infection rates were 17.4% (175) and 8.5% (86). Maximum, minimum, ending, and median temperatures were similar for those with or without SSI (36.6°C vs 36.5°C, 34.9°C vs 35.0°C, 36.4°C vs 36.2°C, and 36.1°C vs 36.0°C, P = not significant) and percent minutes using incremental cutoffs failed to correlate SSI with temperature. Absolute minutes for higher temperature cutoffs correlated with SSI because of longer procedure times. On multivariable analysis, factors associated with SSI were preoperative diabetes [odds ratio: 1.81 (1.07-3.07), P = 0.022] and blood loss of more than 500 mL [odds ratio: 1.61 (1.01-2.58), P = 0.047]. CONCLUSIONS: Although active rewarming remains an accepted and valid process measure, highly granular anesthesia information system temperature data did not demonstrate a correlation between temperature measures and SSI. SSI prevention efforts should focus on more efficacious interventions as opposed to currently mandated publicly reported normothermia measures.

Accidental puncture or laceration in colorectal surgery: a quality indicator or a complexity measure?

BACKGROUND: Accidental puncture or laceration during a surgical procedure is a patient safety indicator that is publicly reported and will factor into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid's pay-for-performance plan. Accidental puncture or laceration includes serosal tear, enterotomy, and injury to the ureter, bladder, spleen, or blood vessels. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify risk factors and assess surgical outcomes related to accidental puncture or laceration. DESIGN: This is a retrospective study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted in a single-hospital department of colorectal surgery. PATIENTS: Inpatients undergoing colorectal surgery in which an accidental puncture or laceration did or did not occur were selected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were surgical complications, length of stay, and readmission. RESULTS: Of 2897 operations, 269 had accidental puncture or laceration (9.2%) including serosal tear (47%), enterotomy (38%), and extraintestinal injuries (15%). Accidental puncture or laceration cases had more diagnoses of enterocutaneous fistula (11% vs 2%, p < 0.001), reoperative cases (91% vs 61%, p < 0.001), open surgery (96% vs 77%, p < 0.001), longer operative times (186 vs 146 minutes, p = 0.001), and increased length of stay (10 vs 7 days, p = 0.002). Patients with serosal tears had entirely similar outcomes to those without an injury, whereas patients with enterotomies had increased operative times and length of stay, and patients with extraintestinal injuries had higher rates of reoperation and sepsis (p < 0.05 for all). LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by the loss of sensitivity due to grouping extraintestinal injuries. CONCLUSIONS: Accidental puncture or laceration is more likely to occur in complex colorectal operations. The clinical consequences range from none to significant depending on the specific type of injury. To make accidental puncture or laceration a more meaningful quality indicator, we advocate that groups who use the measure eliminate the injuries that have no bearing on surgical outcome and that risk adjustment for operative complexity is performed.

Operative strategy modifies risk of pouch-related outcomes in patients with ulcerative colitis on preoperative anti-tumor necrosis factor-α therapy.

BACKGROUND: Whether preoperative biological therapy increases postoperative complications after restorative proctocolectomy remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the influence of preoperative use of biologics on outcomes after restorative proctocolectomy and to assess whether a staged approach modifies any negative influence of these medications. SETTING: The study was conducted at a single tertiary institution. DESIGN AND PATIENTS: Patients who were operated on for medically refractory ulcerative or indeterminate colitis were identified and classified by initial surgery, whether subtotal colectomy or total proctocolectomy, then categorized into biologics user and nonuser groups. Demographics, perioperative data, postoperative complications, pouch function, and quality of life were collected. OUTCOME MEASURE: Cumulative 1-year complication rates were estimated by using the Kaplan-Meier curve, and independent predictors for infectious complications were identified by using Cox proportional hazards regression models. RESULTS: From 2006 to 2010, 407 and 181 patients underwent initial subtotal colectomy with end ileostomy or total proctocolectomy with IPAA. For the 181 patients who underwent total proctocolectomy straightaway, pre- and perioperative data were comparable for biologics users (n = 25) and nonusers (n = 156). Cumulative 1-year pelvic sepsis rate was significantly greater in patients on biologics (32% vs 16%, p = 0.012). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that preoperative anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy (HR, 2.62; p = 0.027) was an independent risk factor for postoperative pelvic sepsis after total proctocolectomy. After subtotal colectomy, no differences occurred in both 30-day and cumulative 1-year postoperative complications between biologics users (n = 142) and nonusers (n = 265). Outcomes were also similar when biologics users (n = 88) and nonusers (n = 164) underwent subsequent completion proctectomy with ileal pouch creation after initial colectomy. LIMITATIONS: The retrospective nature of this study and physician's preference were limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative exposure to biologics is associated with an increased risk of pelvic sepsis after total proctocolectomy with IPAA. This risk is mitigated by the performance of an initial subtotal colectomy.

Impact of stress dose steroids on the outcomes of restorative proctocolectomy in patients with ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Stress dose steroids are administered during the perioperative period to prevent complications of secondary hypoadrenalism, which can occur after long-term steroid treatment. Steroids also increase postoperative morbidity. Patients with ulcerative colitis often require steroid therapy before definitive surgery and often receive perioperative steroids in a variety of doses. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of stress dose steroid administration on short-term postoperative outcomes after restorative proctocolectomy in patients with ulcerative colitis. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTING: The investigation took place in a high-volume, specialized colorectal surgery department. PATIENTS: Patients who had been treated with steroids for ulcerative colitis and underwent a restorative proctocolectomy from January 2009 to July 2011 were identified and categorized into 2 groups based on whether they received stress dose steroids. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Both cohorts were compared for patient demographics, duration of steroid treatment before surgery, and operative and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients received stress dose steroids and 146 patients did not. Stress dose steroids were more frequently administered to patients who were under steroid treatment immediately before restorative proctocolectomy (37.1% versus 10.3%; p < 0.001). A sinus tachycardia developed more frequently in patients who received stress dose steroids during surgery (p = 0.03). One patient in the stress dose steroid group died on postoperative day 25 because of anastomotic leak. Although no patients in either group had an adrenal crisis during surgery, 1 patient in the stress dose steroid group was diagnosed with adrenal insufficiency postoperatively. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective and nonrandomized nature. CONCLUSIONS: Although administration of stress dose steroids is not related to increased postoperative complications, the steroids do not appear to affect adrenal insufficiency outcomes. Patients who were treated with steroids for ulcerative colitis should be monitored carefully in the perioperative and early postoperative periods for signs of adrenal insufficiency, regardless of the steroid regimen used.