Trends and outcomes of sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer: a national cancer database study

Timing of Surgery and Social Determinants of Health Related to Pathologic Complete Response after Total Neoadjuvant Therapy for Rectal Adenocarcinoma: Retrospective Study of National Cancer Database

Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) for rectal adenocarcinoma (RAC) involves multi-agent chemotherapy and radiation before definitive surgery. Previous studies of the rest period (time between radiation and surgery) and pathologic complete response (pCR) have produced mixed results. The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between the rest period and pCR. This study utilized the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to retrospectively analyze 5997 stage-appropriate RAC cases treated with TNT from 2016 to 2020. The overall pCR rate was 18.6%, with most patients undergoing induction chemotherapy followed by long-course chemoradiation (81.5%). Multivariable logistic regression models revealed a significant non-linear relationship between the rest period and pCR (p = 0.033), with optimal odds at 14.7-15.9 weeks post radiation (odds ratio: 1.49, 95% confidence interval: 1.13-1.98) when compared to 4.0 weeks. Medicaid, distance to the treatment facility, and community education were associated with decreased odds of pCR. Findings highlight the importance of a 15-16-week post-radiation surgery window for achieving pCR in RAC treated with TNT and socioeconomic factors influencing pCR rates. Findings also emphasize the need for clinical trials to incorporate detailed analyses of the rest period and social determinant of health to better guide clinical practice.

Efficiency of the Robotic Platform in Improving the Rate of Sphincter Preservation in Patients With Mid and Low Rectal Cancer

Background

The aim of this study was to investigate whether the robotic platform can have a positive impact on the rate of sphincter preservation in patients with rectal tumors, undergoing robotic total mesorectal excision (TME), in comparison with laparoscopic or open TME. We also analyzed and compared short-term outcomes.

Methods

A prospectively collected robotic database was reviewed and compared with the trust and national data. Three groups were designed according to the surgical technique: open, laparoscopic and robotic. This includes all resections for mid and low rectal cancer which were performed with the robotic platform, over a period of 4 years, versus the trust data for the same period.

Results

Two hundred ninety-seven patients with mid and low rectal cancers were analyzed. Demographics for the groups (gender, age, and body mass index) were similar but distance from anal verge was shorter in the robotic group (7 vs. 8.5 cm, P < 0.001). The percentage of abdominoperineal resection (APR) rate was significantly lower in the robotic group (13.5% vs. 39.6% vs. 52.4% for the open group, P < 0.001). Median length of stay, complication rate, and positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) rate for the robotic group were also statistically significantly lower than those for both laparoscopic and open groups.

Conclusion

Robotic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer is safe and feasible, and could help surgeons perform ultra-low anterior resections, rather than APRs and save patients' sphincters. Positive CRM is low, which could lead to improved oncological outcomes.

The impact of restorative proctectomy versus permanent colostomy on health-related quality of life after rectal cancer surgery using the patient-generated index

BACKGROUND

The impact of bowel dysfunction versus colostomy on quality of life after rectal cancer surgery is poorly understood.

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the quality of life after rectal cancer surgery in patients with colostomy versus restorative proctectomy.

METHODS

A mixed-methods study measuring quality of life using the Patient-Generated Index, patients were asked to list up to 5 areas of their life affected by their surgery. Areas were then weighted according to patients' preferences for improvement to generate a score from 0-100. The areas reported by patients were linked to the International Classification of Functioning for content analysis. Bowel dysfunction was measured using the low anterior resection syndrome score, and patients were then grouped according to (1) colostomy, (2) no/minor, or (3) major low anterior resection syndrome. Quality of life was compared between groups.

RESULTS

Overall, 121 patients were included (colostomy n = 39, restorative proctectomy n = 82). There were no differences in demographics, neoadjuvant radiotherapy, or time to follow-up between groups. In the restorative proctectomy group, 53% had no/minor, and 47% had major low anterior resection syndrome. Overall, patients with colostomy had significantly lower quality-of-life scores than those with restorative proctectomy. However, patients with major low anterior resection syndrome scored similarly to those with colostomy. On content analysis, patients with colostomies reported more problems with sexual function, body image, and sports. Patients with restorative proctectomy reported more problems with sleep, using transportation, and taking care of themselves.

CONCLUSION

Colostomy has a more detrimental impact on quality of life than restorative proctectomy. However, bowel dysfunction severity is important to consider. The patient experience between treatments differs.

Predictors of pre- and post-treatment bowel dysfunction severity in patients with rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Treatment of rectal cancer is frequently associated with low anterior resection syndrome. However, data concerning the contribution rectal tumors have on pretreatment bowel-dysfunction is scarce. We sought to evaluate the impact of the untreated rectal cancer on bowel-dysfunction and the relationship of pretreatment and post-treatment function.

METHODS

A prospective database of adults with rectal cancer at a single university-affiliated colorectal referral center from August 2018 to March 2022 was queried. Bowel-dysfunction was measured using the low anterior resection syndrome score questionnaire (categorized as no, minor, or major low anterior resection syndrome) which was provided to patients at their primary visit, and after treatment. Patients were included if they underwent rectal cancer treatment and had pre- and post-treatment low anterior resection syndrome measurements. Observed low anterior resection syndrome scores were compared to normative low anterior resection syndrome data for age and sex-specific distributions from published data. Multiple multinomial regression compared pre- and post-treatment low anterior resection syndrome scores.

RESULTS

Overall, 121 patients were included with mean age 62.0 years (standard deviation 12.3), 74% male, and mean tumor height 8.7 cm (standard deviation 5.72). The proportion of pretreatment observed low anterior resection syndrome were 48% no low anterior resection syndrome, 28% minor, and 24% major. Male and older patients were more likely to have worse than predicted low anterior resection syndrome categories (P < .05). On average, low anterior resection syndrome category did not change after treatment (P = .618) and pretreatment low anterior resection syndrome category was a significant independent predictor of post-treatment category (P = .037).

CONCLUSION

Pretreatment bowel-dysfunction in rectal cancer patients is common and significantly worse than predicted for older and male patients. Importantly, pretreatment bowel-dysfunction predicted postoperative function. These results may better inform the shared decision-making process.

The impact of the anastomotic configuration on low anterior resection syndrome 3 years after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a national cohort study

AIM

After low anterior resection, the bowel can be anastomosed in different ways. It is not clear which configuration is optimal from a functional and complication point of view. The primary aim was to investigate the impact of the anastomotic configuration on bowel function evaluated by the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score. Secondarily, the impact on postoperative complications was evaluated.

METHOD

All patients who had undergone low anterior resection from 2015 to 2017 were identified in the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry. Three years after surgery, patients were sent an extensive questionnaire and were analysed based on anastomotic configuration ('J-pouch/side-to-end anastomosis' or 'straight anastomosis'). Inverse probability weighting by propensity score was used to adjust for confounding factors.

RESULTS

Among 892 patients, 574 (64%) responded, of whom 494 patients were analysed. After weighting, the anastomotic configuration had no significant impact on the LARS score (J-pouch/side-to-end OR 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-1.34). The J-pouch/side-to-end anastomosis was significantly associated with overall postoperative complications (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.06-1.95). No significant difference was seen regarding surgical complications (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.78-1.66).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study investigating the impact of the anastomotic configuration on long-term bowel function, evaluated by the LARS score, in an unselected national cohort. Our results suggested no benefit for J-pouch/side-to-end anastomosis on long-term bowel function and postoperative complication rates. The anastomotic strategy may be based upon the anatomical conditions of the patient and surgical preference.

Does the Low Anterior Resection Syndrome Score Accurately Represent the Impact of Bowel Dysfunction on Health-Related Quality of Life?

BACKGROUND

Bowel dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery is common, but its effect on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is complex. Objective measures of bowel function may not be a good representation on the actual impact on HRQOL. Therefore, the objective of this study is to determine whether there are differences between patient-reported bowel-related impairment versus a standardized measure of bowel dysfunction on HRQOL.

METHODS

A prospective database starting in September 2018 of adult patients who had undergone sphincter preserving rectal cancer surgery up to October 2021 was queried. Patients were excluded if they had local recurrence, metastasis, persistent stoma, or had less than 1-year follow-up. Patients were administered the study instruments at their standard surveillance visit: patient-reported bowel-related quality of life(BQOL) impairment, HRQOL using the Short Form-36 (SF-36), and bowel dysfunction using the low anterior resection syndrome(LARS) score.

RESULTS

Overall, 136 patients were included. There were 43% with no LARS, 22% with minor LARS, and 35% with major LARS. For the BQOL, 26% of subjects reported no impairment, 57% minor impairment, and 17% major impairment. There was a high proportion of discordance between BQOL and LARS, with 23% minor or major LARS in patients with no BQOL impairment, and 32% with no or minor LARS with major BQOL impairment. The BQOL was associated with more changes in SF-36 scores compared to the LARS score.

CONCLUSIONS

The patient-reported BQOL is likely to be a more relevant outcome of interest to patients than the objective LARS score. This has important implications for shared decision-making for rectal cancer treatments.

[Prognostic factors of dehydration and renal damage in patients with formed preventive ileostomy during rectal resection for cancer]

Despite the potential advantages of a preventive intestinal stoma after the formation of a low colon anastomosis during rectal resections, the formation of a preventive loop ileostomy is associated with a significant frequency of complications.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the potential prognostic factors of complications associated with ileostomy dysfunction in patients who have undergone rectal resection for cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients over the age of 18 who underwent open and laparoscopic resection of the rectum with the formation of a preventive ileostomy from January 2015 to May 2022. To determine the influence of potential predictors on the frequency of complications associated with large ileostomy losses, a single-factor logistic regression analysis was used. Complications associated with large ileostomy losses were primarily water-electrolyte disorders, dehydration and acute renal failure, which required intensive therapy and re-hospitalization.

RESULTS

Of the 120 patients included in the study, 26 (21.7%) suffered complications associated with large losses of fluid and electrolytes in the stoma. In this group of patients, at least one repeated emergency hospitalization to a medical institution was required (average value 1.6). Factors associated with ileostomy dysfunction in a single-factor analysis were: the presence of signs of intestinal obstruction (OR=2.6; p=0.047), the development of postoperative complications (OR=3; p=0.024), steroid use (OR=4.3; p=0.010), smoking (OR=4.8; p=0.017) the average amount of discharge from the stoma at discharge is more than 1000 ml/24 h (OR=3.2; p=0.016) and the need for Loperamide at the time of discharge (OR=2.8; p=0.032). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed an independent risk factor for complications leading to re-hospitalization: ileostomy losses at discharge ≥1000 ml/24 h (OR=3.3 (1.18-9.37); p=0.023).

CONCLUSION

In our study, those patients whose ileostomy discharge exceeded 1000 ml/24 h at discharge were at increased risk of dehydration, hypokalemia, hypocalcemia, acute prerenal renal failure, which led to repeated hospitalization to correct these disorders, sometimes in the intensive care unit.

Analysis of bowel function, urogenital function, and long-term follow-up outcomes associated with robotic and laparoscopic sphincter-preserving surgical approaches to total mesorectal excision in low rectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

The present study comparatively analyzed short-term clinical effectiveness and long-term follow-up endpoints associated with robotic-assisted sphincter-preserving surgery (RAS) and laparoscopic-assisted sphincter-preserving surgery (LAS) when used to treat low rectal cancer.

METHOD

Within such a single-center retrospective cohort analysis, low rectal cancer patients that underwent RAS (n=200) or LAS (n=486) between January 2015 and beginning of July 2018 were enrolled.

RESULTS

The mean operative durations in the RAS and LAS cohorts were 249±64 min and 203±47 min, respectively (P<0.001). Temporary ileostomy rates in the RAS and LAS cohorts were 64.5% and 51.6% (P = 0.002). In addition, major variations across such cohorts regarding catheter removal timing, time to liquid intake, time to first leaving bed, and length of hospitalization (all P<0.001). This distal resection margin distance within the RAS cohort was diminished in comparison to LAS cohort (P=0.004). For patients within the LAS cohort, the time required to recover from reduced urinary/female sexual function was > 6 months post-surgery (P<0.0001), whereas within the RAS cohort this interval was 3 months (P<0.0001). At 6 months post-surgery, male sexual function within RAS cohort was improved in comparison to LAS cohort (P<0.001). At 6 months post-surgery, Wexner scores revealed similar results (P<0.001). No major variations within overall or disease-free survival were identified across these cohorts at 3 or 5 years post-surgery.

CONCLUSION

Robotic sphincter-preserving surgery is a safe and effective surgical technique in low rectal patients in terms of postoperative oncological safety and long-term endpoints. And the RAS strategy provides certain additional benefits with respect to short-term urogenital/anorectal functional recovery in treated patients compared to LAS.

Bowel Dysfunction after Low Anterior Resection for Colorectal Cancer: A Frequent Late Effect of Surgery Infrequently Treated

BACKGROUND

The development of major low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) after low anterior resection is severely detrimental to quality of life, yet awareness of it by clinicians and patients and the frequency of treatment of LARS is unclear.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients who underwent low anterior resection for sigmoid or rectal cancer at a tertiary center between 2007 and 2017 (n = 798) were surveyed in 2019 to assess LARS symptoms and report medications or treatment received for LARS. LARS scores were calculated (score range 0-42) and normalized to published data on LARS prevalence in the general population in Europe, stratified by age (<50 or ≥50) and sex.

RESULTS

Of the 594 patients (74%) who returned the survey, 255 (43%) were identified as having major LARS (LARS score ≥30). This prevalence was significantly higher than published normative data from Denmark and Amsterdam when stratified by age greater than or less than 50 and sex. Patients with major LARS infrequently reported current use of first-line therapies (antidiarrheal medications 32%, fiber supplements 16%, and both 13%). Only 3% reported receiving second-line therapy of transanal irrigations and/or pelvic floor rehabilitation, and only 1% had undergone third-line therapy of sacral nerve stimulator implantation.

CONCLUSION

Major LARS is common yet seemingly underrecognized by clinicians because less than half of patients are on first-line therapy and practically none are on second- and third-line therapies. Long-term follow-up of patients after low anterior resection, improved preoperative and postoperative education, and continued symptom assessment is necessary to improve treatment of major LARS.

Influence of non-clinical factors on restorative rectal cancer surgery: An analysis of four specialized population-based digestive cancer registries in France

BACKGROUND

This study aims to measure the association between deprivation, health care accessibility and health care system with the likelihood of receiving non-restorative rectal cancer surgery (NRRCS).

METHODS

All adult patients who had rectal resection for invasive adenocarcinoma diagnosed between 2007 and 2016 in four French specialised cancer registries were included. A multilevel logistic regression with random effect was used to assess the link between patient and health care structure characteristics on the probability of NRRCS.

RESULTS

2997 patients underwent rectal cancer resection in 68 health care structures: 708 (23.63%) had NRRCS. The likelihood of receiving NRCCS was associated with patients' characteristics (97%): age, sub peritoneal rectal tumors, neoadjuvant therapy, residual tumour and stage III . There was no impact of European Deprivation Index or remoteness on NRRCS. Inter-health care structure variability was modest (3%), of which 50% was explained by the high group volume of colorectal procedures and the type of health care structure which were associated with less NRRCS (p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

There is an influence of operating volume and type of structure on the probability of NRRCS, but it has truly little importance in explaining differences in performances. The probability of NRRCS is mainly affected by clinical determinant.

Trajectory of change of low anterior resection syndrome over time after restorative proctectomy for rectal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Restorative proctectomy for rectal cancer is associated with a high incidence of low anterior resection syndrome (LARS), but few studies report longitudinal results for bowel function. The aim of our study was to examine the trajectory of change of LARS over the first 18 months after restorative proctectomy for rectal cancer.

METHODS

A prospective database measuring functional outcomes in rectal cancer patients from a single university-affiliated specialist colorectal referral center from 10/2018 to 03/2020 was queried. Patients were included in this study if they underwent restorative proctectomy for rectal cancer and had at least three assessments in the first 18 months after primary surgery or after closure of proximal diversion. Bowel function was assessed using the LARS score, administered at every surveillance follow-up after restoration of bowel continuity. Latent-class growth curve (trajectory) analysis was used to identify different trajectories of LARS changes over the first 18 months and group patients into these trajectory groups. These groups were then compared to identify predictors for each trajectory.

RESULTS

A total of 95 patients were included (63 males, mean age. 61.3 ± 12.5 years). Trajectory analysis identified three distinct trajectory groups. Group 1 had stable minimal LARS over time (26%). Group 2 had early LARS scores consistent with the minor LARS category and improved with time (28%). Group 3 had persistently high LARS scores (45%). Neoadjuvant therapy, intersphincteric resection, and proximal diversion were more common in group 3.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified three main trajectories of change of LARS in the 18 months after restorative proctectomy. These data may be used to better inform patients of their expected postoperative bowel function.

Patients' preferences for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgery for low rectal cancer can be associated with severe bowel dysfunction and impaired quality of life. It is important to determine how patients value the trade-off between anorectal dysfunction versus abdominoperineal resection. Therefore, the objective was to determine patients' preferences for treatment for low rectal cancer.

METHODS

Ambulatory patients without colorectal cancer at a single high-volume academic colorectal referral center from September 2019 to March 2020 were included. Patients with prior stoma or malignancy were excluded. Participants were presented with a hypothetic scenario describing a low rectal cancer. A threshold task identified preferences for functional and oncologic outcomes for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection.

RESULTS

A total of 123 patients were recruited. Patients preferred abdominoperineal resection over sphincter preservation if there were more than a mean of 6.7 (standard deviation 4.0) daily bowel movements, 1.9 (standard deviation 2.6) daily episodes of stool incontinence, and 6.5 (standard deviation 3.2) gas incontinence. Abdominoperineal resection was preferred over sphincter preservation in 38% if daily activities were altered owing to fecal urgency. Patients were willing to accept a 10% (interquartile range, 5-25) absolute increase in risk of margin involvement with sphincter preservation to avoid abdominoperineal resection. Abdominoperineal resection was the preferred option overall for 18% of patients.

CONCLUSION

An important proportion of patients would prefer abdominoperineal resection over sphincter preservation owing to the impairments in anorectal function associated with sphincter preservation. The decision to perform sphincter preservation or abdominoperineal resection should consider how the patients' value functional outcomes with a low anastomosis.

Resting vector volume measured before ileostomy reversal may be a predictor of major fecal incontinence in patients with mid or low rectal cancer: a longitudinal cohort study using a prospective clinical database

PURPOSE

Despite a high incidence of fecal incontinence following sphincter-preservation surgery (SPS), there are no definitive factors measured before ileostomy reversal that predict fecal incontinence. We investigated whether vector volume anorectal manometry before ileostomy reversal predicts major fecal incontinence following SPS in patients with mid or low rectal cancer.

METHODS

This longitudinal prospective cohort study comprised 173 patients who underwent vector volume anorectal manometry before ileostomy reversal. The Fecal Incontinence Severity Index was measured 1 year after the primary SPS and classified as major incontinence (FISI score ≥ 25) or continent/minor incontinence (FISI score < 25). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of major incontinence.

RESULTS

Ninety-two patients (53.1%) had major incontinence. Although tumor stage, location, and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were comparable, the major incontinence group had lower resting pressure (28.4 vs. 34.3 mmHg, P = 0.027), greater asymmetry at rest (39.1% vs. 34.1%, P = 0.002) and squeezing (34.2% vs. 31.4%, P = 0.046), shorter sphincter length (3.3 vs. 3.7 cm, P = 0.034), and lower resting vector volume (143,601 vs. 278,922 mmHg² mm, P < 0.001) compared with the continent/minor incontinence group. Resting vector volume was the only independent predictor of major incontinence (odds ratio = 0.675 per 100,000 mmHg² mm, 95% confidence interval, 0.532-0.823; P = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed that resting vector volume before ileostomy reversal may predict major fecal incontinence. We suggest that the physiology of the anorectum should be discussed with patients before ileostomy reversal in patients at high risk of fecal incontinence.