Trends in the Characteristics, Treatment, and Outcomes of Rectal Adenocarcinoma in the US From 2004 to 2019: A National Cancer Database Analysis

Association of National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer Accreditation with Outcomes after Rectal Cancer Surgery

BACKGROUND

The National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer (NAPRC) defined a set of standards in 2017 centered on multidisciplinary program structure, evidence-based care processes, and internal audit to address widely variable rectal cancer practices and outcomes across US hospitals. There have been no studies to-date testing the association between NAPRC accreditation and rectal cancer outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective, observational study of Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 to 99 years with rectal cancer who underwent proctectomy from 2017 to 2020. The primary exposure was NAPRC accreditation and the primary outcomes included mortality (in-hospital, 30 day, and 1 year) and 30-day complications, readmissions, and reoperations. Associations between NAPRC accreditation and each outcome were tested using multivariable logistic regression with risk-adjustment for patient and hospital characteristics.

RESULTS

Among 1,985 hospitals, 65 were NAPRC-accredited (3.3%). Accredited hospitals were more likely to be nonprofit and teaching with 250 or more beds. Among 20,202 patients, 2,078 patients (10%) underwent proctectomy at an accredited hospital. Patients at accredited hospitals were more likely to have an elective procedure with a minimally invasive approach and sphincter preservation. Risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality (1.1% vs 1.3%; p = 0.002), 30-day mortality (2.1% vs 2.9%; p < 0.001), 30-day complication (18.3% vs 19.4%; p = 0.01), and 1-year mortality rates (11% vs 12.1%; p < 0.001) were significantly lower at accredited compared with nonaccredited hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

NAPRC-accredited hospitals have lower risk-adjusted morbidity and mortality for major rectal cancer surgery. Although NAPRC standards address variability in practice, without directly addressing surgical safety, our findings suggest that NAPRC-accredited hospitals may provide higher quality surgical care.

Upfront laparotomy versus conversion from minimally invasive surgery to open surgery in colon cancer: Is there a difference in outcomes?

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether conversion from minimally invasive surgery to laparotomy in patients with colon cancer contributes to worse outcomes compared with those operated by laparotomy. In this study, we aimed to assess the implications of transitioning from minimally invasive surgery to laparotomy in patients with colon cancer compared with patients undergoing upfront laparotomy.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Database, including patients with stages I to III colon cancer (2010-2019). Patients who underwent either upfront laparotomy (Open Surgery Group) or minimally invasive surgery converted to open surgery (Converted Surgery Group) were included. Groups were balanced using propensity-score matching. Primary outcome was overall survival, and secondary outcomes included 30- and 90-day mortality and 30-day readmission rates.

RESULTS

The study included 65,083 operated patients with stage I to III colon cancer; 57,091 patients (87.7%) were included in the Open Surgery group and 7,992 (12.3%) in the Converted Surgery group. 93.5% were converted from laparoscopy, and 6.5% were converted from robotic surgery. After propensity-score matching, 7,058 patients were included in each group. Median overall survival was significantly higher in the Converted Surgery group (107.3 months) than in the Open Surgery group (101.5 months; P = .006). A survival benefit was seen in patients >65 years of age (79.5 vs 71.9 months; P = .001), left-sided disease (129.4 vs 114.5 months; P < .001), and with a high Charlson comorbidity index score (=3; 58.9 vs 42.3 months; P = .03). Positive margin rates were similar between the groups (6.3% vs 5.6%; P = .07). Converted patients had a higher 30-day readmission rate (6.7% vs 5.6%, P = .006) and shorter duration of stay (median, 5 vs 6 days, P < .001) than patients in the Open Surgery group. In addition, 30-day mortality was comparable between the groups (2.9% vs 3.5%; P = .07).

CONCLUSION

Conversion to open surgery from minimally invasive surgery was associated with better overall survival compared with upfront open surgery. A survival benefit was mainly seen in patients >65 years of age, with significant comorbidities, and with left-sided tumors. We believe these data suggest that, in the absence of an absolute contraindication to minimally invasive surgery, it should be the preferred approach in patients with colon cancer.

Trends in incidence, treatment, and relative survival of colorectal cancer in the Netherlands between 2000 and 2021

BACKGROUND

The epidemiology of colorectal cancer (CRC) has changed rapidly over the years. The aim of this study was to assess the trends in incidence, treatment, and relative survival (RS) of patients diagnosed with CRC in the Netherlands between 2000 and 2021.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

2 75667 patients diagnosed with CRC between 2000 and 2021 were included from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Analyses were stratified for disease extent (localised: T1-3N0M0; regional: T4N0M0/T1-4N1-2M0; distant: T1-4N0-2M1) and localisation (colon; rectum). Trends were assessed with joinpoint regression.

RESULTS

CRC incidence increased until the mid-2010s but decreased strongly thereafter to rates comparable with the early 2000s. Amongst other trend changes, local excision rates increased for patients with localised colon (2021: 13.6 %) and rectal cancer (2021: 34.9 %). Moreover, primary tumour resection became less common in patients with distant colon (2000-2021: 60.9-12.5 %) or rectal cancer (2000-2021: 47.8-6.9 %), while local treatment of metastases rates increased. Five-year RS improved continuously for localised and regional colon (97.7 % and 72.0 % in 2017, respectively) and rectal cancer (95.2 % and 76.3 % in 2017, respectively). The rate of anti-cancer treatments decreased in distant colon (2010-2021: 80.3 % to 67.2 %; p < 0.001) and rectal cancer (2011-2021: 86.0 % to 77.0 %; p < 0.001). The improvement of five-year RS stagnated for distant colon (2010-2017: 11.2 % to 11.9 %; average percentage of change [APC]: 2.1, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: -7.6, 4.7) and rectal cancer (2009-2017: 12.7 % to 15.6 %; APC: 1.4, 95 % CI: -19.1, 5.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Major changes in the incidence and treatment of CRC between 2000 and 2021 were identified and quantified. Five-year RS increased continuously for patients with localised and regional CRC, but stagnated for patients with distant CRC, likely caused by decreased rates of anti-cancer treatment in this group.

Trends in management and outcomes of colon cancer in the United States over 15 years: Analysis of the National Cancer Database

Management of colon cancer has changed over the last few decades. We assessed the trends in management and outcomes using the US National Cancer Database (NCDB). A retrospective analysis of all patients with colonic adenocarcinoma between 2005 and 2019 was conducted. The cohort was divided into three equal time periods: Period 1 (2005-2009), Period 2 (2010-2014), and Period 3 (2015-2019) to examine treatment and outcomes trends. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival (OS). The study included 923,275 patients. A significant increase in patients with stage IV disease was noted in Period 3 compared to Period 1 (47.9% vs. 27.9%, respectively), whereas a reciprocal reduction was seen in patients with locally advanced disease (stage II: 20.8%-12%; stage III: 14.5%-7.7%). Use of immunotherapy significantly increased from 0.3% to 7.6%. Mean 5-year OS increased (43.6 vs. 42.1 months) despite the increase in metastatic disease and longer time from diagnosis to definitive surgery (7 vs. 14 days). A reduction in 30-day readmission (5.1%-4.2%), 30- (3.9%-2.8%), and 90-day mortality (7.1%-5%) was seen. Laparoscopic and robotic surgery increased from 45.8% to 53.1% and 2.9% to 12.7%, respectively. Median postoperative length of hospital stay decreased by 2 days. Rate of positive resection margins (7.2%-6%) and median number of examined lymph nodes (14-16) also improved. Minimally invasive surgery and immunotherapy for colon cancer significantly increased in recent years. Patient outcomes including OS improved over time.

An artificial intelligence-designed predictive calculator of conversion from minimally invasive to open colectomy in colon cancer

Minimally invasive surgery is safe and effective in colorectal cancer. Conversion to open surgery may be associated with adverse effects on treatment outcomes. This study aimed to assess risk factors of conversion from minimally invasive to open colectomy for colon cancer and impact of conversion on short-term and survival outcomes. This case-control study included colon cancer patients undergoing minimally invasive colectomy from the National Cancer Database (2015-2019). Logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine independent predictors of conversion from laparoscopic and robotic colectomy to open surgery. 26,546 patients (mean age: 66.9 ± 13.1 years) were included. Laparoscopic and robotic colectomies were performed in 79.1% and 20.9% of patients, respectively, with a 10.6% conversion rate. Independent predictors of conversion were male sex (OR: 1.19, p = 0.014), left-sided cancer (OR: 1.35, p < 0.001), tumor size (OR: 1, p = 0.047), stage II (OR: 1.25, p = 0.007) and stage III (OR: 1.47, p < 0.001) disease, undifferentiated carcinomas (OR: 1.93, p = 0.002), subtotal (OR: 1.25, p = 0.011) and total (OR: 2.06, p < 0.001) colectomy, resection of contiguous organs (OR: 1.9, p < 0.001), and robotic colectomy (OR: 0.501, p < 0.001). Conversion was associated with higher 30- and 90-day mortality and unplanned readmission, longer hospital stay, and shorter overall survival (59.8 vs 65.3 months, p < 0.001). Male patients, patients with bulky, high-grade, advanced-stage, and left-sided colon cancers, and patients undergoing extended resections are at increased risk of conversion from minimally invasive to open colectomy. The robotic platform was associated with reduced odds of conversion. However, surgeons' technical skills and criteria for conversion could not be assessed.

Colorectal Cancer: Epidemiology, Risk Factors, and Prevention

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the second most common cause of cancer mortality worldwide. There are disparities in the epidemiology of CRC across different populations, most probably due to differences in exposure to lifestyle and environmental factors related to CRC. Prevention is the most effective method for controlling CRC. Primary prevention includes determining and avoiding modifiable risk factors (e.g., alcohol consumption, smoking, and dietary factors) as well as increasing protective factors (e.g., physical activity, aspirin). Further studies, especially randomized, controlled trials, are needed to clarify the association between CRC incidence and exposure to different risk factors or protective factors. Detection and removal of precancerous colorectal lesions is also an effective strategy for controlling CRC. Multiple factors, both at the individual and community levels (e.g., patient preferences, availability of screening modalities, costs, benefits, and adverse events), should be taken into account in designing and implementing CRC screening programs. Health policymakers should consider the best decision in identifying the starting age and selection of the most effective screening strategies for the target population. This review aims to present updated evidence on the epidemiology, risk factors, and prevention of CRC.

Outcomes of Early Versus Standard Closure of Diverting Ileostomy After Proctectomy: Meta-analysis and Meta-regression Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare outcomes of early and standard closure of diverting loop ileostomy (DLI) after proctectomy and determine risk factors for anastomotic leak (AL) and complications.

BACKGROUND

Formation of DLI has been a routine practice after proctectomy to decrease the incidence and potential adverse sequela of AL.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared outcomes of early versus standard closure of DLI after proctectomy. Main outcome measures were postoperative complications, AL, ileus, surgical site infection, reoperation, readmission, and hospital stay following DLI closure.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs (932 patients; 57% male) were included. Early closure group included 474 patients and standard closure 458 patients. Early closure was associated with higher odds of AL [odds ratio (OR): 2.315, P =0.013] and similar odds of complications (OR: 1.103, P =0.667), ileus (OR: 1.307, P =0.438), surgical site infection (OR: 1.668, P =0.079), reoperation (OR: 1.896, P =0.062), and readmission (OR: 3.431, P =0.206). Hospital stay was similar (weighted mean difference: 1.054, P =0.237). Early closure had higher odds of AL than standard closure when early closure was done ≤2 weeks (OR: 2.12, P =0.047) but not within 3 to 4 weeks (OR: 2.98, P =0.107). Factors significantly associated with complications after early closure were diabetes mellitus, smoking, and closure of DLI ≤2 weeks, whereas factors associated with AL were ≥ American Society of Anesthesiologists II classification and diabetes mellitus.

CONCLUSIONS

Early closure of DLI after proctectomy has a higher risk of AL, particularly within 2 weeks of DLI formation. On the basis of this study, routine early ileostomy closure cannot be recommended.

Temporal Trends in Treatment and Outcomes of Endometrial Carcinoma in the United States, 2005-2020

Endometrial cancer has continued to see a rising incidence in the US over the years. The main aim of this study was to assess current trends in patients' characteristics and outcomes of treatment for endometrial carcinoma over 16 years. A dataset from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) for patients diagnosed with endometrial carcinoma from 2005 to 2020 was used in this retrospective, case series study. The main outcomes and measures of interest included tumor characteristics, hospitalization, treatments, mortality, and overall survival. Then, 569,817 patients who were diagnosed with endometrial carcinoma were included in this study. The mean (SD) age at diagnosis was 62.7 (11.6) years, but 66,184 patients (11.6%) were younger than 50 years, indicating that more patients are getting diagnosed at younger ages. Of the patients studied, 37,079 (6.3%) were Hispanic, 52,801 (9.3%) were non-Hispanic Black, 432,058 (75.8%) were non-Hispanic White, and 48,879 (8.6%) were other non-Hispanic. Patients in the 4th period from 2017 to 2020 were diagnosed more with stage IV (7.1% vs. 5.2% vs. 5.4% vs. 5.9%; p < 0.001) disease compared with those in the other three periods. More patients with severe comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index score of three) were seen in period 4 compared to the first three periods (3.9% vs. ≤1.9%). Systemic chemotherapy use (14.1% vs. 17.7% vs. 20.4% vs. 21.1%; p < 0.001) and immunotherapy (0.01% vs. 0.01% vs. 0.2% vs. 1.1%; p < 0.001) significantly increased from period 1 to 4. The use of laparotomy decreased significantly from 42.1% in period 2 to 16.7% in period 4, while robotic surgery usage significantly increased from 41.5% in period 2 to 64.3% in period 4. The 30-day and 90-day mortality decreased from 0.6% in period 1 to 0.2% in period 4 and 1.4% in period 1 to 0.6% in period 4, respectively. Over the period studied, we found increased use of immunotherapy, chemotherapy, and minimally invasive surgery for the management of endometrial cancer. Overall, the time interval from cancer diagnosis to final surgery increased by about 6 days. The improvements observed in the outcomes examined can probably be associated with the treatment trends observed.

Full robotic cholecystectomy: first worldwide experiences with HUGO RAS surgical platform

BACKGROUND

The Hugo RAS™ system (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA), approved for gynaecological and urological procedures, has been recently certified for the use in few general surgeries. Only bariatric and colorectal procedures have been described so far.

METHODS

Here, we report the first worldwide experience with three cases of full-robotic cholecystectomies with the Hugo RAS™ system.

RESULTS

A description of the operative room setup, of the docking angles and details of the procedures is reported. Docking time was 12, 10, and 6 min, respectively. The total operative time was 105 min in the first case, 100 min in the second and 88 in the third case. Intra- and post-operative courses were uneventful.

CONCLUSIONS

With this pre-defined set up, the innovative conformation of Hugo RAS™ system can safely allow performing full robotic cholecystectomy avoiding the need for additional ports.

Prince and princesses: The current status of robotic surgery in surgical oncology

Robotic surgery has experienced a dramatic increase in utilization across general surgery over the last two decades, including in surgical oncology. Although urologists and gynecologists were the first to show that this technology could be utilized in cancer surgery, the robot is now a powerful tool in the treatment of gastrointestinal, hepato-pancreatico-biliary, colorectal, endocrine, and soft tissue malignancies. While long-term outcomes are still pending, short-term outcomes have showed promise for this technologic advancement of cancer surgery.

Practice Patterns for Organ Preservation in US Patients With Rectal Cancer, 2006-2020

Importance

In March 2023, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network endorsed watch and wait for those with complete clinical response to total neoadjuvant therapy. Neoadjuvant therapy is highly efficacious, so this recommendation may have broad implications, but the current trends in organ preservation in the US are unknown.

Objective

To describe organ preservation trends among patients with rectal cancer in the US from 2006 to 2020.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective, observational case series included adults (aged ≥18 years) with rectal adenocarcinoma managed with curative intent from 2006 to 2020 in the National Cancer Database.

Exposure

The year of treatment was the primary exposure. The type of therapy was chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery (proctectomy, transanal local excision, no tumor resection). The timing of therapy was classified as neoadjuvant or adjuvant.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the absolute annual proportion of organ preservation after radical treatment, defined as chemotherapy and/or radiation without tumor resection, proctectomy, or transanal local excision. A secondary analysis examined complete pathologic responses among eligible patients.

Results

Of the 175 545 patients included, the mean (SD) age was 63 (13) years, 39.7% were female, 17.4% had clinical stage I disease, 24.7% had stage IIA to IIC disease, 32.1% had stage IIIA to IIIC disease, and 25.7% had unknown stage. The absolute annual proportion of organ preservation increased by 9.8 percentage points (from 18.4% in 2006 to 28.2% in 2020; P < .001). From 2006 to 2020, the absolute rate of organ preservation increased by 13.0 percentage points for patients with stage IIA to IIC disease (19.5% to 32.5%), 12.9 percentage points for patients with stage IIIA to IIC disease (16.2% to 29.1%), and 10.1 percentage points for unknown stages (16.5% to 26.6%; all P < .001). Conversely, patients with stage I disease experienced a 6.1-percentage point absolute decline in organ preservation (from 26.4% in 2006 to 20.3% in 2020; P < .001). The annual rate of transanal local excisions decreased for all stages. In the subgroup of 80 607 eligible patients, the proportion of complete pathologic responses increased from 6.5% in 2006 to 18.8% in 2020 (P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

This case series shows that rectal cancer is increasingly being managed medically, especially among patients whose treatment historically relied on proctectomy. Given the National Comprehensive Cancer Network endorsement of watch and wait, the increasing trends in organ preservation, and the nearly 3-fold increase in complete pathologic responses, international professional societies should urgently develop multidisciplinary core outcome sets and care quality indicators to ensure high-quality rectal cancer research and care delivery accounting for organ preservation.

The Association of Rural Residence With Surgery and Adjuvant Radiation in Medicare Beneficiaries With Rectal Cancer

Purpose

Radiation therapy and surgery are fundamental site-directed therapies for nonmetastatic rectal cancer. To understand the relationship between rurality and access to specialized care, we characterized the association of rural patient residence with receipt of surgery and radiation therapy among Medicare beneficiaries with rectal cancer.

Methods and Materials

We identified fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older diagnosed with nonmetastatic rectal cancer from 2016 to 2018. Beneficiary place of residence was assigned to one of 3 geographic categories (metropolitan, micropolitan, or small town/rural) based on census tract and corresponding rural urban commuting area codes. Multivariable regression models were used to determine associations between levels of rurality and receipt of both radiation and proctectomy within 180 days of diagnosis. In addition, we explored associations between patient rurality and characteristics of surgery and radiation such as minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).

Results

Among 13,454 Medicare beneficiaries with nonmetastatic rectal cancer, 3926 (29.2%) underwent proctectomy within 180 days of being diagnosed with rectal cancer, and 1792 (13.3%) received both radiation and proctectomy. Small town/rural residence was associated with an increased likelihood of receiving both radiation and proctectomy within 180 days of diagnosis (adjusted subhazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.30). Furthermore, small town/rural radiation patients were significantly less likely to receive IMRT (adjusted odds ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48-0.80) or MIS (adjusted odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.97) than metropolitan patients.

Conclusions

Although small town/rural Medicare beneficiaries were overall more likely to receive both radiation and proctectomy for their rectal cancer, they were less likely to receive preoperative IMRT or MIS as part of their treatment regimen. Together, these findings clarify that among Medicare beneficiaries, there appeared to be a similar utilization of radiation resources and time to radiation treatment regardless of rural/urban status.

Comparative Analysis of NSQIP National Outcomes and Projected Outcomes versus Our Institutional Outcomes for Robotic Gastrectomy: The Future of Gastric Resection

BACKGROUND

The robotic approach has vast applications in surgery; however, the utility of robotic gastrectomy has yet to be clearly defined. This study aimed to compare outcomes following robotic gastrectomy at our institution to the national patient-specific predicted outcomes data provided by the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP).

METHODS

We prospectively studied 73 patients who underwent robotic gastrectomy under our care. ACS NSQIP outcomes after gastrectomy and predicted outcomes for our patients were compared with our actual outcomes utilizing students t test and chi-square analysis, where applicable. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

Patients were 65 (66 ± 10.7) years old with a BMI of 26 (28 ± 6.5) kg/m2. 35 patients had gastric adenocarcinomas and 22 had gastrointestinal stromal tumors Operative duration was 245 (250 ± 114.7) minutes, estimated blood loss was 50 (83 ± 91.6) mL, and there were no conversions to 'open'. 1% of patients experienced superficial surgical site infections compared to the NSQIP predicted rate of 10% (P < .05). Length of stay (LOS) was 5 (6 ± 4.2) days vs NSQIP's predicted LOS of 8 (8 ± 3.2) days (P < .05). Three patients died during their postoperative hospital course (4%), due to multi-system organ failure and cardiac arrest. 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year estimated survival for patients with gastric adenocarcinoma was 76%, 63%, and 63%, respectively.

DISCUSSION

Robotic gastrectomy yields salutary patient outcomes and optimal survival for varying gastric diseases, particularly gastric adenocarcinoma. Our patients experienced shorter hospital stays and reduced complications relative to patients in NSQIP and predicted outcome for our patients. Gastrectomy undertaken robotically is the future of gastric resection.

First worldwide report on Hugo RAS™ surgical platform in right and left colectomy

The diffusion of robotic surgery is rapidly and constantly growing in different surgical specialties. Recently, novel robotic platforms have entered into the market. To date, however, most of the reports on their clinical use have specifically focused on gynecological and urological surgery. In this study, we present the first three robotic-assisted colectomies performed with the new Hugo RAS system (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA). The surgical team had previous robotic experience and completed simulation training and an official 2-day cadaver laboratory session. Operating room setting and trocar layout were planned and two full cadaver procedures were carried out (right and left colectomy). Onsite dry-run sessions were performed before tackling clinical cases. Three patients underwent robotic-assisted colectomies: one left colectomy, two right colectomies with complete mesocolic excision (CME) and high vascular ligation (HVL) at our Institution. Preoperative diagnosis was colonic adenocarcinoma in all cases. A description of the operative room setup, robotic arm configuration and docking angles is provided. Mean docking time and console time were 8 and 259 min, respectively. All the surgical steps were completed without critical surgical errors or high-priority alarms. Neither intraoperative complications nor conversions to open surgery were recorded. Postoperative courses were uneventful with a mean length of stay of 5 days. Further clinical data and experience are required for procedural standardization and potential integration of the system into robotic general surgery and colorectal programs.