Differences in effectiveness and use of laparoscopic surgery in locally advanced colon cancer patients

Maximizing Readmission Reduction in Colon Cancer Patients

INTRODUCTION

Multiple studies have identified risk factors for readmission in colon cancer patients. We need to determine which risk factors, when modified, produce the greatest decrease in readmission for patients so that limited resources can be used most effectively by implementing targeted evidence-based performance improvements. We determined the potential impact of various modifiable risk factors on reducing 30-d readmission in colon cancer patients.

METHODS

We used a cohort design with the 2012-2020 American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data to track colon cancer patients for 30 d following surgery. Colon cancer patients who received colectomies and were discharged alive were included. Readmission (to the same or another hospital) for any reason within 30 d of the resection was the outcome measure. Modifiable risk factors were the use of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) versus open colectomy, mechanical bowel preparation, preoperative antibiotic use, functional status, smoking, complications (deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, infections, anastomotic leakage, prolonged postoperative ileus, extensive blood loss, and sepsis), serum albumin, and hematocrit.

RESULTS

111,691 patients with colon cancer were included in the analysis. About half of the patients were male, most were aged 75 or older, and were discharged home. Overall, 11,138 patients (10.0%) were readmitted within 30 d of surgery. In adjusted analysis, the reduction in readmission would be largest by preventing both prolonged ileus and by switching open colectomies to MIS (28.0% relative reduction) followed by preventing anastomotic leaks (6.2% relative reduction). Improving other modifiable risk factors would have a more limited impact.

CONCLUSIONS

The focus of readmission reduction should be on preventing prolonged ileus, increasing the use of MIS, and preventing anastomotic leaks.

Laparoscopic radical surgery for locally advanced T4 transverse colon cancer and prognostic factors analysis: Evidence from multi-center databases

The safety and efficacies of laparoscopic radical procedures are still controversial for locally advanced pathological T4 (pT4) TCC (transverse colon cancer). Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate the oncologic and perioperative outcomes and to recognize the prognostic factors in radical resection for pT4 TCC derived from multi-center databases. 314 patients with TCC who underwent radical resection between January 2004 and May 2017, including 139 laparoscopic resections and 175 open resections, were extracted from multicenter databases. Oncological as well as perioperative outcomes were investigated. The baseline characteristics of the 2 groups did not differ significantly. Nevertheless, the laparoscopic technique was found to be linked with a significantly longer duration of surgery (208.96 vs 172.89 minutes, P = .044) and a significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay (12.23 vs 14.48 days, P = .014) when compared to the conventional open approach. In terms of oncological outcomes, lymph node resection (16.10 vs 13.66, P = .886), 5-year overall survival (84.7% vs 82.7%, P = .393), and disease-free survival (82.7% vs 83.9%, P = .803) were similar between the 2 approaches. Based on multivariate analysis, it was determined that differentiation and N classification were both independent prognostic factors for overall survival. However, it was found that only N classification was an independent prognostic factor for disease-free survival. These findings underscore the significance of differentiation and N classification as key determinants of patient outcomes in this context. Overall, the laparoscopic approach may offer advantages in terms of shorter hospital stays, while maintaining comparable oncological outcomes. Laparoscopic radical procedure can gain a couple of short-term benefits without reducing long-term oncological survival for patients with pT4 TCC.

Mid-term outcomes of laparoscopic vs open colectomy for pathological T4 and/or N2 colon cancer patients: Multicenter study using propensity score matched analysis

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess mid-term outcomes after laparoscopic surgery (LAP) vs open surgery (OP) for pathological T4 (pT4) and/or N2 (pN2) colon cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 255 primary tumor resections for pT4 and/or pN2 colon cancer performed from 2015 to 2020 at six hospitals, divided into LAP (n = 204) and OP groups (n = 51). After propensity score matching to minimize selection bias, 47 matched patients per group were assessed.

RESULTS

Before matching, the rate of males (53.9% vs. 37.3%, P = .042), left sided colon cancer (53.9% vs 37.3%, P = .042), D3 lymph node dissection (90.7% vs 68.6%, P < .001) and body mass index (kg/m2 ) (22.3 vs 21.8, P = .039) were significantly greater in the LAP group. The rate of pT4b (7.8% vs 40.4%, P < .001) was lower and pN2 was higher (57.4% vs 37.3%, P = .012) in the LAP group. After matching, preoperative characteristics and pathologic status were equivalent between the groups. The LAP and OP groups showed comparable overall survival (OS) (2-year OS, 84.5% vs 76.8%, P = .055) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) (2-year RFS, 73.9% vs 52.8%, P = .359). In the patients with pT4, OS (2-year OS, 79.4% vs 75.7%, P = .359) and RFS (2-year RFS, 71.3% vs 58.7%) were comparable. In the patients with pN2, OS (2-year OS, 83.4% vs 76.3%) and RFS (2-year RFS, 69.6% vs 36.2%) were also comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

LAP for pT4 and/or pN2 colon cancer showed comparable mid-term outcomes compared with OP. LAP was an acceptable surgical approach in this cohort.

Tumor extent impacts survival benefit in minimally invasive colectomy for T4 colon cancer: A propensity matched national cohort analysis

BACKGROUND

T4 colon cancers have been underrepresented in randomized trials comparing minimally invasive colectomy (MC) versus open colectomy (OC). Retrospective studies suggest improved survival with MC versus OC, but have not addressed the impact of tumor extent.

METHODS

Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we analyzed patients undergoing colectomy for T4 colon adenocarcinoma from 2010 to 2014. Propensity score matching was performed between MC and OC patients. Tumor extent was defined by zones based on adjacent organ involvement.

RESULTS

Of the 19 178 eligible patients, 6564 (34%) underwent MC. After matching, MC was associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratios: 0.71, 95% confidence interval: 0.67-0.76; median OS 59 vs. 42 months, p < 0.001). Compared to MC patients, those undergoing OC had: a higher margin positive rate (p = 0.009); lower median nodes examined (p < 0.001); a lower rate of adjuvant chemotherapy (p < 0.001); and a longer median time to chemotherapy (p < 0.001). Stratified survival analyses demonstrated that MC was associated with improved overall survival compared to OC in all zones except zone 3 and 4.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to OC, MC for T4 colon cancer is associated with improved oncologic outcomes when performed for zone 0-2 tumors. For, zone 3 and 4 tumors MC and OC have similar oncologic outcomes and patients should be cautiously selected.

Outcomes following open versus laparoscopic multi-visceral resection for locally advanced colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aims to compare morbidity, mortality, oncological safety, and survival outcomes after laparoscopic multi-visceral resection (MVR) of the locally advanced primary colorectal cancer (CRC) compared with open surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of multiple electronic data sources was conducted, and all studies comparing laparoscopic and open surgery in patients with locally advanced CRC undergoing MVR were selected. The primary endpoints were peri-operative morbidity and mortality. Secondary endpoints were R0 and R1 resection, local and distant disease recurrence, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) rates. RevMan 5.3 was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Ten comparative observational studies reporting a total of 936 patients undergoing laparoscopic MVR (n = 452) and open surgery (n = 484) were identified. Primary outcome analysis demonstrated a significantly longer operative time in laparoscopic surgery compared with open operations (P = 0.008). However, intra-operative blood loss (P<0.00001) and wound infection (P = 0.05) favoured laparoscopy. Anastomotic leak rate (P = 0.91), intra-abdominal abscess formation (P = 0.40), and mortality rates (P = 0.87) were comparable between the two groups. Moreover the total number of harvested lymph nodes, R0/R1 resections, local/distant disease recurrence, DFS, and OS rates were also comparable between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Although inherent limitations exist with observational studies, the available evidence demonstrates that laparoscopic MVR in locally advanced CRC seems to be a feasible and oncologically safe surgical option in carefully selected cohorts.

Colorectal cancer disparities across the continuum of cancer care: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Disparate colorectal cancer outcomes persist in vulnerable populations. We aimed to examine the distribution of research across the colorectal cancer care continuum, and to determine disparities in the utilization of Surgery among Black patients.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of colorectal cancer disparities studies was performed. The meta-analysis assessed three utilization measures in Surgery.

RESULTS

Of 1,199 publications, 60% focused on Prevention, Screening, or Diagnosis, 20% on Survivorship, 15% on Treatment, and 1% on End-of-Life Care. A total of 16 studies, including 1,110,674 patients, were applied to three meta-analyses regarding utilization of Surgery. Black patients were less likely to receive surgery, twice as likely to refuse surgery, and less likely to receive laparoscopic surgery, when compared to White patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Since 2011, the majority of research focused on prevention, screening, or diagnosis. Given the observed treatment disparities among Black patients, future efforts to reduce colorectal cancer disparities should include interventions within Surgery.