Is an elective diverting colostomy warranted in patients with an endoscopically obstructing rectal cancer before neoadjuvant chemotherapy?

Effects of Planned Stoma Before Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation in Patients With Endoscopically Obstructing Colorectal Cancer

PurposeIn order to investigate whether colorectal cancer (CRC) patients with endoscopic obstruction benefited from a planned stoma before neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT).MethodsPatients who were diagnosed with CRC with endoscopic obstruction at a single clinical center from January 2017 to April 2022 were retrospectively collected. Baseline characteristics and short-term and long-term outcomes were compared between the stoma group and the no stoma group. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (version 22.0) software.ResultsA total of 51 CRC patients with endoscopic obstruction were included in this study. Eleven (21.6%) patients received a planned stoma before nCRT, and 40 (78.4%) patients were treated with immediate nCRT. The mean time from diagnosis to nCRT was 30.6 days for the stoma group and 11.9 days for the no stoma group. There was a significant delay in the initiation of nCRT in the stoma group (P < 0.05). In terms of complications, there was a statistical difference between the stoma group and the no stoma group (P < 0.05). Planned stoma before nCRT did not affect survival for patients with endoscopically obstructing CRC (P > 0.05).ConclusionA planned stoma caused delay in nCRT; the no stoma group was more likely to develop perforation or obstruction of the tumor during nCRT. A comprehensive assessment might be needed to determine whether a planned stoma was necessary in CRC patients with endoscopic obstruction.

Stoma versus no stoma prior to long-course neoadjuvant therapy in rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Large bowel obstruction is a possible complication in patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer; however, it may be prevented by placing a pretreatment defunctioning stoma. The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate complication rates in patients with rectal cancer undergoing long-course neoadjuvant therapy, comparing those with and without a prophylactic stoma.

METHODS

All patients with rectal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant therapy between 2007 and 2022 in Region Västerbotten, Sweden, were identified using the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry. Patients not planned for curative long-course neoadjuvant therapy and those requiring a stoma due to urgent bowel-related issues before treatment were excluded. The primary outcome was the incidence of complications between diagnosis and resection surgery or end of follow-up. The secondary outcomes were 30-day complications following resection, time to treatment (neoadjuvant therapy and surgery), and overall survival. Multivariable regression analysis was used, with adjustment for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists fitness grade, and clinical tumour stage.

RESULTS

Of 482 identified patients, 105 were analysed after exclusion. Among these, 22.9% (24 of 105) received a pretreatment stoma, whereas 77.1% (81 of 105) received upfront neoadjuvant therapy. The complication incidence before resection in the group with a defunctioning stoma and in the group without a defunctioning stoma was 75.0% (18 of 24) and 29.6% (24 of 81) respectively. A considerable number of complications were directly caused by the stoma surgery. Patients in the stoma group had an adjusted OR of 6.71 (95% c.i. 2.17 to 20.76) for any complication. However, for 30-day complications following resection, an adjusted non-significant OR of 2.05 (95% c.i. 0.62 to 6.81) was documented for the stoma group, in comparison with the control group. Neoadjuvant treatment was also delayed for the stoma group (adjusted mean time difference: 21 (95% c.i. 14 to 27) days), whereas the difference was not significant for the time to resection surgery. The median survival after diagnosis was 4.7 years in the stoma group and 12.2 years in the control group (P = 0.015); however, adjustment in the multivariable analysis rendered the estimate non-significant (HR 1.71 (95% c.i. 0.93 to 3.14)).

CONCLUSION

Patients with rectal cancer who receive a stoma before long-course neoadjuvant therapy, in the absence of urgent symptoms, experience more complications than those without a stoma and a delay with regard to the start of neoadjuvant treatment.

Diverting ostomy prior to neoadjuvant treatment in rectal cancer should be used selectively: A retrospective single-center cohort study

BACKGROUND

Rectal cancer patients commonly benefit from neoadjuvant therapy before resection surgery. For these patients, an elective ostomy diversion is frequently considered, despite the absence of conclusive evidence when a diversion is advantageous. This is a retrospective observational single-center study on a 4-year consecutive rectal cancer cohort undergoing neoadjuvant therapy, aiming at improving the understanding of risks and benefits associated with ostomy diversion.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Baseline characteristics, tumor-specific data, clinical events, and outcomes were collected using the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry and medical records.

RESULTS

Thirty-two (30.2%) of the 106 included patients presented with endoscopic impassable tumors at diagnosis, of which 18 (56.2%) had diverting ostomy. Three out of 14 with impassable tumor and no diversion developed a bowel obstruction. None of the patients with an endoscopically passable tumor at diagnosis (n = 74) experienced a bowel obstruction. The elective diversions (n = 40) were not associated with serious complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ⩾ 3b). Patients with a diverting ostomy (n = 30) had similar time intervals from diagnosis to neoadjuvant treatment and to definite tumor resection as those without diversion but experienced more complex primary tumor resections in terms of blood loss and operation time.

CONCLUSION

An elective diverting ostomy is a relatively safe procedure in rectal cancer patients requiring neoadjuvant therapy. More than one out of five non-diverted patients with endoscopically impassable rectal tumors developed bowel obstruction and would potentially have benefited from an elective diversion.

Pre-emptive Laparoscopic Colostomy Creation in Obstructing Locally Advanced Rectal and Anal Cancer Does Not Delay the Starting of Oncological Treatments

BACKGROUND

Managing patients with obstructing rectal cancer is challenging due to the risks of gastrointestinal obstruction and perforation. This study evaluates the outcomes of pre-emptive laparoscopic colostomy creation in patients with locally advanced rectal and anal cancer to prevent symptoms and facilitate therapy initiation.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study includes patients with locally advanced rectal or anal cancer assessed by our Colorectal Multidisciplinary Team from January 2017 to February 2024. Patients who underwent pre-emptive laparoscopic colostomy were compared to a control group of non-obstructing rectal cancer patients who started direct oncological treatment. The primary endpoint was the time from diagnosis to the initiation of oncological treatments. The secondary endpoints were the rate and timing of subsequent radical resection, surgical morbidity and hospital stay. A Weibull regression was used to evaluate the time differences between the groups.

RESULTS

There were 37 patients who received pre-emptive laparoscopic colostomy, compared to 207 control patients. The mean time from diagnosis to the start of neoadjuvant therapy was 38.3 ± 2.3 days. Despite higher rates of malnutrition and more advanced stages in the colostomy group, no significant differences were observed in the time to start therapy (p = 0.083) or time to radical resection (p = 0.187) between the groups. The laparoscopic procedure showed low rates of postoperative complications and acceptable lengths of stay.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Pre-emptive laparoscopic colostomy is a feasible approach for managing obstructing rectal or anal cancer. Treatment timelines were not extended compared to timelines for non-obstructing cases, despite differences in nutritional status and staging. Further prospective studies with larger cohorts are needed to validate these findings and refine treatment protocols for obstructing gastrointestinal malignancies.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Pre-Treatment Loop Colostomy for Fecal Diversion in Rectal Cancer Patients: Is Laparoscopic Colostomy Better?

Diversion colostomy plays a crucial role in the management of carcinoma rectum in low- and middle-income countries as significant number of patients present with partial intestinal obstruction. The aim of this study was to compare laparoscopic and open approaches for fecal diversion done in patients with adenocarcinoma of the rectum as a pretreatment procedure. The primary end point of our study was time to initiation of neoadjuvant chemo radiation. It was a retrospective study that included all patients diagnosed to have carcinoma rectum and underwent a pretreatment fecal diversion between 2012 and 2014. A total of 55 patients underwent pretreatment diversion colostomy of which 33 were performed via the laparoscopic approach while 22 had open diversion. The time for initiation of neoadjuvant therapy was shorter in the laparoscopic group compared to the open approach (16 days vs. 20.5 days, P = 0.31). The study concluded that pretreatment diversion colostomy using the laparoscopic approach was a safe option in low- and middle-income countries as it was associated with faster recovery and early initiation of neoadjuvant therapy in patients with partially obstructed locally advanced carcinoma rectum.

Defunctioning stoma before neoadjuvant treatment or resection of endoscopically obstructing rectal cancer

AIM

To investigate whether patients with endoscopically untraversable rectal cancer may benefit from a defunctioning stoma created before neoadjuvant therapy or resectional surgery.

METHODS

This retrospective study comprise patients diagnosed with rectal cancer during 2007-2020 in Region Västerbotten, Sweden. The primary outcome was time between diagnosis and any treatment, while survival and the incidence of complications were secondary outcomes. Excluded were patients without endoscopic obstruction, patients already having a stoma, patients with recurrent disease, palliative patients, and patients receiving a stoma shortly after diagnosis due to any urgent bowel-related complication. Data were obtained from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry and medical records. Kaplan-Meier failure curves were drawn, and a multivariable Cox regression model was employed for confounding adjustment.

RESULTS

Out of 843 patients, 57 remained after applying exclusion criteria. Some 12/57 (21%) patients received a planned stoma before treatment, and the remainder received upfront neoadjuvant therapy or surgery. Median time to any treatment was 51 days for the planned stoma group and 36 days for the control group, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.28 (95% confidence interval: 0.12-0.64). Complications occurred at a rate of 5/12 (42%) and 7/45 (16%) in the planned stoma group and control group, respectively. Survival was similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

A planned stoma results in treatment delay, but it remains unclear whether this is clinically relevant. Complications were more common in the planned stoma group, although the data are limited. While larger studies are needed, it seems feasible to avoid defunctioning stomas even in endoscopically obstructing rectal cancers.

Endoscopic colostomy with percutaneous colopexy: an animal feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Indications for colostomy in colorectal diseases are obstruction of the large bowel, such as in cancer, diverticular disease in the acute phase, post-radiotherapy enteritis, complex perirectal fistulas, anorectal trauma and severe anal incontinence. Some critically ill patients cannot tolerate an exploratory laparotomy, and laparoscopic assisted colostomy also requires general anesthesia.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility, safety and efficacy of performing colostomy assisted by colonoscopy and percutaneous colopexy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Five pigs underwent endoscopic assisted colostomy with percutaneous colopexy. Animals were evaluated in post-operative days 1, 2, 5 and 7 for feeding acceptance and colostomy characteristics. On day 7 full colonoscopy was performed on animals followed by exploratory laparotomy.

RESULTS

Average procedure time was 27 minutes (21-54 min). Postoperative mobility and feeding of animals were immediate after anesthesia recovery. Position of the colostomy, edges color, appearance of periostomal area, as well as its function was satisfactory in four animals. Retraction of colostomy was present in one pig. The colonoscopy and laparotomy control on the seventh day were considered as normal. A bladder perforation that was successfully repaired through the colostomy incision occurred in one pig. The main limitation of this study is its experimental nature.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic assisted colostomy with percutaneous colopexy proves to be a safe and effective method with low morbidity for performing colostomy in experimental animals, with possible clinical application in humans.

Second St. Gallen European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Gastrointestinal Cancer Conference: consensus recommendations on controversial issues in the primary treatment of rectal cancer

Primary treatment of rectal cancer was the focus of the second St. Gallen European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Gastrointestinal Cancer Conference. In the context of the conference, a multidisciplinary international expert panel discussed and voted on controversial issues which could not be easily answered using published evidence. Main topics included optimal pretherapeutic imaging, indication and type of neoadjuvant treatment, and the treatment strategies in advanced tumours. Here we report the key recommendations and summarise the related evidence. The treatment strategy for localised rectal cancer varies from local excision in early tumours to neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (RCT) in combination with extended surgery in locally advanced disease. Optimal pretherapeutic staging is a key to any treatment decision. The panel recommended magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or MRI + endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) as mandatory staging modalities, except for early T1 cancers with an option for local excision, where EUS in addition to MRI was considered to be most important because of its superior near-field resolution. Primary surgery with total mesorectal excision was recommended by most panellists for some early tumours with limited risk of recurrence (i.e. cT1-2 or cT3a N0 with clear mesorectal fascia on MRI and clearly above the levator muscles), whereas all other stages were considered for multimodal treatment. The consensus panel recommended long-course RCT over short-course radiotherapy for most clinical situations where neoadjuvant treatment is indicated, with the exception of T3a/b N0 tumours where short-course radiotherapy or even no neoadjuvant therapy were regarded to be an option. In patients with potentially resectable tumours and synchronous liver metastases, most panel members did not see an indication to start with classical fluoropyrimidine-based RCT but rather favoured preoperative short-course radiotherapy with systemic combination chemotherapy or alternatively a liver-first resection approach in resectable metastases, which both allow optimal systemic therapy for the metastatic disease. In general, proper patient selection and discussion in an experienced multidisciplinary team was considered as crucial component of care.

The Impact of Surgical Diversion Before Neoadjuvant Therapy for Rectal Cancer

Up-front fecal diversion can palliate emergent symptoms related to locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) allowing patients to receive neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (nCRT). We analyzed outcomes of pretreatment-diverted LARC patients relative to nondiverted patients to define the impact of this management strategy. We retrospectively collected data on 103 LARC patients treated with nCRTand surgery. Medical records were reviewed for patient characteristics, staging, treatment plan, and outcomes. Thirteen LARC patients underwent pretreatment diversion for urgent symptoms and 90 LARC patients proceeded directly to nCRT. In all, 50 per cent of diverted patients presented with T4 tumor compared with 14 per cent in the nondiverted patients ( P = 0.003). Diverted patients experienced a delay in time-to-treatment initiation of 12 days, although this difference was not statistically significant. Similar rates of chemoradiation and surgical toxicities were observed. Even though diverted patients demonstrated less pathologic response to nCRT compared with nondiverted patients ( P = 0.04), there was no significant difference in overall survival. In conclusion, our study demonstrates the effectiveness of up-front fecal diversion at managing emergent obstructive symptoms related to advanced rectal cancer without additional complications, allowing patients to proceed with nCRT followed by radical surgery.