Compliance With Preoperative Elements of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Rectal Cancer Surgery Checklist Improves Pathologic and Postoperative Outcomes

End-to-end anastomosis provides similar quality-of-life, compared with other reconstructive techniques six months following total mesorectal excision: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Colorectal malignancy ranked third globally in cancer incidence with 1.9 million cases and nearly 1 million deaths in 2020. Rectal cancer is primarily treated with total mesorectal excision (TME). This study examines surgical, functional, and quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes for different anastomosis types. Pre-registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022368907), the systematic search on November 8, 2022, covered three databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane Central. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) assessing adults post-TME, comparing end-to-end anastomosis (EEA) to colonic J-pouch (CJP) and/or side-to-end anastomosis (SEA) were eligible. 29 studies out of 4459 were included. EEA vs. CJP showed no significant differences in anastomotic leakage (AL) (RR: 1.03; CI: [0.84-1.26]) or mortality (RR: 0.77; CI: [0.30-1.98]). At 12 months, the mean bowel movement difference was 1.59/day (CI: [(-)0.66-3.84]). QoL at six and 12 months was similar (SMD: -0.22; CI: [(-)0.82-0.37]). Compared with SEA, EEA had similar AL ratios (RR: 1.59; CI: [0.54-4.72]) and QoL at six months (SMD: -0.04; CI: [(-)0.66-0.58]). EEA demonstrates surgical efficacy comparable to other techniques. Six months postoperatively, EEA's impact on QoL appears similar to CJP or SEA, irrespective of daily stool frequency.

Is Collaborative Care the Future of Medicine? Lessons Learned from the Care of Children with Colorectal Conditions

The treatment of patients with colorectal disorders requires care from a wide variety of medical and surgical specialties over the course of their lifetime. This is ideally handled by a collaborative center which facilitates the assessment and development of patient care among multiple specialties which can enhance the quality and implementation of treatment plans, improve communication among different specialties, decrease morbidity, and improve patient satisfaction and outcomes. This collaborative approach can serve as a model for other parts of medicine requiring a similar multi-disciplinary and integrated method of care delivery. We describe the process, as well as the lessons learned in developing such a program.

Global Cancer Surgery: pragmatic solutions to improve cancer surgery outcomes worldwide

The first Lancet Oncology Commission on Global Cancer Surgery was published in 2015 and serves as a landmark paper in the field of cancer surgery. The Commission highlighted the burden of cancer and the importance of cancer surgery, while documenting the many inadequacies in the ability to deliver safe, timely, and affordable cancer surgical care. This Commission builds on the first Commission by focusing on solutions and actions to improve access to cancer surgery globally, developed by drawing upon the expertise from cancer surgery leaders across the world. We present solution frameworks in nine domains that can improve access to cancer surgery. These nine domains were refined to identify solutions specific to the six WHO regions. On the basis of these solutions, we developed eight actions to propel essential improvements in the global capacity for cancer surgery. Our initiatives are broad in scope, pragmatic, affordable, and contextually applicable, and aimed at cancer surgeons as well as leaders, administrators, elected officials, and health policy advocates. We envision that the solutions and actions contained within the Commission will address inequities and promote safe, timely, and affordable cancer surgery for every patient, regardless of their socioeconomic status or geographic location.

Patient driven change: Is collaborative care the future of medicine? Lessons learned from the care of children with colorectal problems

A basic premise in the care of complex patients is that experience, increased volume of cases, and an integrated, multi-disciplinary approach yields improved outcomes. Is this true using the example of the care of children with colorectal and pelvic reconstructive needs? This review gives a brief historical context on how care for this patient group evolved, delineates the key elements to create a collaborative care model, and describes multiple advances that have been developed, based on the model, which have improved patient care and quality of life. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Review.

Variations in Care and Real World Outcomes in those with Rectal Cancer: A protocol for the Ontario Rectal Cancer Cohort (OntaReCC) (Preprint)

Background

Individuals with rectal cancer require a number of pretreatment investigations, often require multidisciplinary treatment, and require ongoing follow-ups after treatment is completed. Due to the complexity of treatments, large variations in practice patterns and outcomes have been identified. At present, few comprehensive, population-level data sets are available for assessing interventions and outcomes in this group.

Objective

Our study aims to create a comprehensive database of individuals with rectal cancer who have been treated in a single-payer, universal health care system. This database will provide an excellent resource that investigators can use to study variations in the delivery of care to and real-world outcomes of this population.

Methods

The Ontario Rectal Cancer Cohort database will include comprehensive details about the management and outcomes of individuals with rectal cancer who have been diagnosed in Ontario, Canada (population: 14.6 million), between 2010 and 2019. Linked administrative data sets will be used to construct this comprehensive database. Individual and care provider characteristics, investigations, treatments, follow-ups, and outcomes will be derived and linked. Surgical pathology details, including the stage of disease, histopathology characteristics, and the quality of surgical excision, will be included. Ethics approval for this study was obtained through the Queen’s University Health Sciences and Affiliated Teaching Hospitals Research Ethics Board.

Results

Approximately 20,000 individuals who meet the inclusion criteria for this study have been identified. Data analysis is ongoing, with an expected completion date of March 2023. This study was funded through the Canadian Institute of Health Research Operating Grant.

Conclusions

The Ontario Rectal Cancer Cohort will include a comprehensive data set of individuals with rectal cancer who received care within a single-payer, universal health care system. This cohort will be used to determine factors associated with regional variability and adherence to recommended care, and it will allow for an assessment of a number of understudied areas within the delivery of rectal cancer treatment.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR1-10.2196/38874

Fragmented Care in the Treatment of Rectal Cancer and Time to Definitive Therapy

BACKGROUND

The National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer (NAPRC) emphasizes a multidisciplinary approach for treating rectal cancer and has developed performance measures to ensure that patients receive standardized care. We hypothesized that rectal cancer patients receiving care at multiple centers would be less likely to receive timely and appropriate care.

STUDY DESIGN

A single institution retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was performed. All patients undergoing proctectomy and ≤1 other treatment modality (eg radiation and/or chemotherapy) for Stage II/III rectal adenocarcinoma were included. Unified care was defined as receiving all modalities of care at our institution, and fragmented care was defined as having at least 1 treatment modality at another institution.

RESULTS

From 2009 to 2019, 415 patients met inclusion criteria, with 197 (47.5%) receiving fragmented care and 218 (52.5%) receiving unified care. The unified cohort patients were more likely to see a colorectal surgeon before starting treatment (89.0% vs 78.7%, p < 0.01) and start definitive treatment within 60 days of diagnosis (89.0% vs 79.7%, p = 0.01). On adjusted analysis, unified care patients were 2.78 times more likely to see a surgeon before starting treatment (95% CI 1.47-5.24) and 2.63 times more likely to start treatment within 60 days (95% CI 1.35-5.13). There was no difference in 90-day mortality or 5-year disease-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective cohort study suggests patients with rectal cancer receiving fragmented care are at an increased risk of delays in care without any impact on disease-free survival. These findings need to be considered within the context of ongoing regionalization of rectal cancer care to ensure all patients receive optimal care, irrespective of whether care is delivered across multiple institutions.

Minimizing variance in pediatric surgical care through implementation of a perioperative colon bundle: A multi-institution retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Employing an institutional initiative to minimize variance in pediatric surgical care, we implemented a set of perioperative bundled interventions for all colorectal procedures to reduce surgical site infections (SSIs).

METHODS

Implementation of a standard colon bundle at two children's hospitals began in December 2014. Subjects who underwent a colorectal procedure during the study period were analyzed. Demographics, outcomes, and complications were compared with Wilcoxon Rank-Sum, Chi-square and Fisher exact tests, as appropriate. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess the influence of time period (independent of protocol implementation) on the rate of subsequent infection.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-five patients were identified (preprotocol=68, postprotocol= 77). Gender, diagnosis, procedure performed and wound classification were similar between groups. Superficial SSIs (21% vs. 8%, p=0.031) and readmission (16% vs. 4%, p=0.021) were significantly decreased following implementation of a colon bundle. Median hospital days, cost, reoperation, intraabdominal abscess, and anastomotic leak were unchanged before and after protocol implementation (all p > 0.05). Multivariable logistic regression found time period to be independent of SSIs (OR: 0.810, 95% CI: 0.576-1.140).

CONCLUSION

Implementation of a standard pediatric perioperative colon bundle can reduce superficial SSIs. Larger prospective studies are needed to evaluate the impact of colon bundles in reducing complications, hospital stay and cost.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III - Retrospective cohort study.