Outcomes of patients with perforated colon cancer: A systematic review

Standardizing data collection in adjuvant colon cancer trials: A consensus project from the IDEA and ACCENT international consortia and national experts

BACKGROUND

Despite contributions provided by the recent clinical trials, several issues and challenges still remain unsolved in adjuvant colon cancer (CC). Hence, further studies should be planned to better refine risk assessment as well as to establish the optimal treatment strategy in the adjuvant setting. However, it is necessary to request adequate, contemporary and relevant variables and report them homogeneously in order to bring maximal information when analyzing their prognostic value.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The project was devised to gain a consensus from experts engaged in the planning, accrual and analyses of stage II and III CC clinical trials, to identify mandatory and recommended baseline variables in order to i) harmonize future data collection worldwide in clinical trials dedicated to adjuvant treatment of CC; ii) propose guidance for Case Report Forms to be used for clinical trials in this setting. A total of 72 questions related to variables that should be reported and how to report them in adjuvant clinical trials were approved and then voted to reach a final consensus from panelists.

RESULTS

Data items on patient-related factors, histopathological features, molecular profile, circulating biomarkers and blood analyses were analyzed and discussed by the whole expert panel. For each item, we report data supporting the acquired consensus and the relevant issues that were discussed. Nineteen items were deemed to be mandatory for resected stage III patients and 24 for resected stage II disease. In addition, 9 and 4 items were judged as recommended for stage III and II, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In our opinion, these 28 variables should be used and uniformly reported in more comprehensive CRFs as research groups design future clinical trials in the field of adjuvant colon cancer.

Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols following emergency intra-abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate whether Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols for patients undergoing emergency intra-abdominal surgery improve postoperative outcomes as compared to conventional care.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, WoS, CENTRAL, and Pubmed were searched from inception to December 2022. Articles were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials (RCT) or non-randomized studies comparing ERAS protocols to conventional care for patients undergoing emergency intra-abdominal surgery. The outcomes included postoperative length of stay (LOS), postoperative morbidity, prolonged postoperative ileus (PPOI), and readmission. An inverse variance random effects meta-analysis was performed. A risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane tools. Certainty of evidence was assessed with GRADE.

RESULTS

After screening 1018 citations, 20 studies with 1615 patients in ERAS programs and 1933 patients receiving conventional care were included. There was a reduction in postoperative LOS in the ERAS group for patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal (GI) surgery (MD3.35, 95% CI 2.52-4.17, p < 0.00001) and lower GI surgery (MD2.80, 95% CI 2.62-2.99, p < 0.00001). There was a reduction in postoperative morbidity in the ERAS group for patients undergoing upper GI surgery (RR0.56, 95% CI 0.30-1.02, p = 0.06) and lower GI surgery (RR 0.66, 95%CI 0.52-0.85, p = 0.001). In the upper and lower GI subgroup, there were nonsignificant reductions in PPOI in the ERAS groups (RR0.59, 95% CI 0.30-1.17, p = 0.13; RR0.49, 95% CI 0.21-1.14, p = 0.10). There was a nonsignificant increased risk of readmission in the ERAS group (RR1.60, 95% CI 0.57-4.50, p = 0.50).

CONCLUSION

There is low-to-very-low certainty evidence supporting the use ERAS protocols for patients undergoing emergency intra-abdominal surgery. The currently available data are limited by imprecision.

Determinants of survival and recurrence in patients with stage I colorectal cancer

Background

Due to the novel advanced screening methods, the number of patients diagnosed with stage I colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing. This retrospective cohort study aimed to identify recurrence and survival risk factors of patients with stage I CRC after surgery.

Materials and methods

Patients with stage I CRC were evaluated, and their demographic and clinicopathologic variables were recorded. The log-rank test assessed the association of variables with overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), local recurrence, and distant metastasis.

Results

The median overall survival period was 51 months. The recurrence rate was 13.7%: 7.2% local and 9.3% distant recurrence. One-, two-, three-, and five-year RFS were 92%, 89%, 87%, and 83%, respectively, and OS were 96%, 93%, 90%, and 89%, respectively. Local and distant recurrence rates were higher in patients with higher tumor grades. Additionally, RFS and OS were worse in patients with higher tumor grades, and perforation was associated with worse OS.

Conclusions

The determinants of survival and recurrence identified in the present study can be used to improve patient outcomes by early diagnosis and appropriate management of high-risk patients.

Evaluation of Factors That Contribute to Intraoperative and Postoperative Complications Following Colorectal Cancer Surgeries at King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major contributor to cancer-related mortality and morbidity due to its high prevalence. Surgery remains the curative option. Colorectal cancer patients come to our institute at an advanced stage due to the lack of adequate national screening programs in developing countries. This carries a particularly high risk of morbidity and mortality. In this study, we aim to provide an overview of the complications of colorectal cancer surgery and to describe the preoperative and intraoperative factors associated with it.

METHODS

This retrospective record review was done at King Abdulaziz University Hospital (KAUH), a tertiary center in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. It included all patients aged 18 and older who have undergone colorectal cancer surgeries from January 2017 until August 2022.

RESULTS

In our sample of 195 patients, 52.3% of the patients were males. The mean age of our sample was 59.32 ± 13.21. We found that 19 (9.7%) patients had an intraoperative complication (IOC). The most frequent IOC was bleeding reported in seven patients (3.6%), followed by intestinal injury in three (1.2%), bladder injury in three (1.2%), and ureter injury in three (1.2%). Regarding preoperative lab tests, patients who had low blood albumin levels (P = 0.004) and high preoperative white blood cell count (WBC; P = 0.015) were more likely to experience IOC. There was a statistically significant relationship between the patient's ASA score and IOC (P = 0.011). Postoperative complications (POC) occurred in 58 patients (29.7%). The most frequent POC was surgical site infection (SSI; 16.4%), followed by urinary tract infections (UTI) (6.7%) and prolonged postoperative ileus (5.6%). Patients who initially presented with vomiting (P = 0.015), had free air on a preoperative abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan (P = 0.028), required intraoperative blood transfusions (P = 0.033), were diagnosed with transverse colon tumors (P = 0.045), and required longer hospital stays (P = 0.011) were found to have a higher rate of POC.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of colorectal cancer is increasing, and surgery is a successful treatment option. However, complications from surgery may result in morbidities and prolonged hospital stays. The risk of IOC is increased by preoperative variables such as high WBC levels, low albumin, and ASA scores. Patients with initial obstruction signs, free air on CT scans, intraoperative blood transfusions, transverse colon tumors, and longer hospital stays have a higher rate of POC. Patient monitoring and the provision of standardized clinical tools enhance general survival and quality of life.