Time to adjuvant chemotherapy following colorectal cancer resection is associated with an improved survival

Socioeconomic and geographic variation in adjuvant chemotherapy among elderly patients with stage III colon cancer in Norway - a national register-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

About half of the patients diagnosed with colon cancer are 70 years or older. Standard treatment for stage III colon cancer is major surgical resection followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT). Norwegian guidelines recommend initiation of ACT within 6 weeks after resection.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated socioeconomic and geographic variation in the recommended provision of ACT to elderly patients with stage III colon cancer in Norway.

METHODS

This population-based retrospective cohort study included patients aged 70 years or older diagnosed with stage III colon cancer between 2011 and 2021 who underwent major surgical resection. Individual data were obtained from national registries. Multilevel logistic regression analysis was used to model variation in provision of ACT.

RESULTS

Of 4 501 included patients, 603 (13%) and 1 182 (26%) received ACT within 6 and 8 weeks after resection, respectively. The provision of ACT decreased with increasing age and frailty. Odds of ACT within 6 weeks decreased for patients with low socioeconomic status (SES) compared to high SES (odds ratio (OR) 0.67 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-0.91)), and decreased for patients living alone compared to those living with a cohabitant (OR 0.72 (95% CI 0.58-0.91)). Geographic variation was found between hospital referral areas (OR 0.41-2.58).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found that ACT provision to elderly stage III colon cancer patients is associated with SES and geography, indicating variation in guidelines adherence. Further research is needed to explore the impact of ACT timing among elderly patients with stage III colon cancer in Norway.

Risk factors affecting delay of initiating adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

Delay in initiating adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) after curative resection of colorectal cancer (CRC) has been reported to lead to poor prognosis, but few studies have looked at associated factors. This study aimed to identify risk factors for delay in initiating AC.

METHODS

Data from 200 consecutive patients who underwent curative resection and AC for stage III CRC between 2013 and 2018 were retrospectively collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

AC was initiated more than 8 weeks after surgery in 12.5% of patients (the delay group). Compared to those with no delay (the non-delay group), patients in the delay group had significantly higher rates of synchronous double cancers (2.3% vs. 16.0%, p = 0.001), preoperative bowel obstruction (10.3% vs. 32.0%, p = 0.003), laparotomy (56.0% vs. 80.0%, p = 0.02), concomitant resection (2.9% vs. 24.0%, p < 0.001), and postoperative complications (32.0% vs. 56.0%, p = 0.02), and a significantly longer length of hospital stay (median 12 vs. 30 days, p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, synchronous double cancers (odds ratio 10.2, p = 0.008), preoperative bowel obstruction (odds ratio 4.6, p = 0.01), concomitant resection (odds ratio 5.2, p = 0.03), and postoperative complications of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ IIIa (odds ratio 4.0, p = 0.03) were identified as independent risk factors for delay in initiating AC.

CONCLUSION

Careful preoperative treatment planning for CRC patients with synchronous double cancers, preoperative bowel obstruction, and concomitant resection, and management for postoperative complication are necessary to avoid delay in initiating AC.

The optimal time of starting adjuvant chemotherapy after curative surgery in patients with colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) is now well-accepted as standard for high-risk stage II and stage III colorectal cancer (CRC) patients, however the optimal time to initiate AC remains elusive.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed using the PubMed and Embase databases. The Hazard ratio (HR) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was used as an effect measure to evaluate primary endpoints. All analyses were conducted using Stata software version 12.0 with the Random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 30 studies were included in our study. Upon comparison on overall survival (OS), we identified that delaying the initiation of AC for > 8 weeks after operation was significantly associated with poor OS (HR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.27-1.48; P < 0.01). The poor prognostic value of AC delay for > 8 weeks was not undermined by subgroup analysis based on region, tumor site, sample size and study quality. No obvious differences were observed in survival between AC within 5-8 weeks and ≤ 4 weeks (HR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.96 -1.10; P = 0.46). Moreover, two studies both highlighted that the survival benefit of AC was still statistically significant when AC was applied 5-6 months after surgery compared with the non-chemotherapy group.

CONCLUSIONS

Delaying the initiation of AC for > 8 weeks after surgery was significantly associated with poor OS. AC started within 8 weeks after surgery brought more benefits to CRC patients. There were no obvious differences in survival benefits between AC within 5-8 weeks and ≤ 4 weeks. Compared to patients not receiving AC after surgery, a delay of approximately 5-6 months was still useful to improve prognosis.

Enhanced Recovery Programs in an Ambulatory Surgical Oncology Center

BACKGROUND

We describe the implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs designed to minimize postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and pain and reduce opioid use in patients undergoing selected procedures at an ambulatory cancer surgery center. Key components of the ERAS included preoperative patient education regarding the postoperative course, liberal preoperative hydration, standardized PONV prophylaxis, appropriate intraoperative fluid management, and multimodal analgesia at all stages.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed data on patients who underwent mastectomy with or without immediate reconstruction, minimally invasive hysterectomy, thyroidectomy, or minimally invasive prostatectomy from the opening of our institution on January 2016 to December 2018. Data collected included use of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA), rate of PONV rescue, time to first oral opioid, and total intraoperative and postoperative opioid consumption. Compliance with ERAS elements was determined for each service. Quality outcomes included time to first ambulation, postoperative length of stay (LOS), rate of reoperation, rate of transfer to acute care hospital, 30-day readmission, and urgent care visits ≤30 days.

RESULTS

We analyzed 6781 ambulatory surgery cases (2965 mastectomies, 1099 hysterectomies, 680 thyroidectomies, and 1976 prostatectomies). PONV rescue decreased most appreciably for mastectomy (28% decrease; 95% confidence interval [CI], -36 to -22). TIVA use increased for both mastectomies (28%; 95% CI, 20-40) and hysterectomies (58%; 95% CI, 46-76). Total intraoperative opioid administration decreased over time across all procedures. Time to first oral opioid decreased for all surgeries; decreases ranged from 0.96 hours (95% CI, 2.1-1.4) for thyroidectomies to 3.3 hours (95% CI, 4.5 to -1.7) for hysterectomies. Total postoperative opioid consumption did not change by a clinically meaningful degree for any surgery. Compliance with ERAS measures was generally high but varied among surgeries.

CONCLUSIONS

This quality improvement study demonstrates the feasibility of implementing ERAS at an ambulatory surgery center. However, the study did not include either a concurrent or preintervention control so that further studies are needed to assess whether there is an association between implementation of ERAS components and improvements in outcomes. Nevertheless, we provide benchmarking data on postoperative outcomes during the first 3 years of ERAS implementation. Our findings reflect progressive improvement achieved through continuous feedback and education of staff.

Multimodal treatment of colorectal postsurgical leaks: long-term results of the over-thescope clip (OTSC) application

BACKGROUND

Post-surgical anastomotic colorectal leaks often require a surgical second look with a definite morbidity and the risk of delaying adjuvant treatment. The aim of this study is to analyse the long-term results of the endoscopic closure of colorectal leak following low anterior resection (LAR) using the over-the-scope (Ovesco™) clip.

METHODS

Patients who were submitted to endoscopic closure of a colorectal leak of maximum 2 cm with an Ovesco™ clip following LAR from 2016 to 2018 were enrolled in this retrospective single-center study (Humanitas Mater Domini Clinical Institute, Italy). The follow-up was obtained through radiologic and clinic assessments.

RESULTS

In the study period 48 patients were submitted to LAR. Six patients were enrolled in the study. The median diameter of the leak was 7 mm. 14/6t or 12/6t OTSC® clip was applied. Three patients were managed exclusively endoscopically, 2 of them had a protective ileostomy; 3 patients underwent urgent laparotomy with ostomy and then underwent endoscopic procedure. Complete healing was reached in all patients in a median of 23 days. Adjuvant chemotherapy was indicated and performed in 4 patients after a median of 64 days from the surgery. Among the 5 carriers of an ostomy, 4 patients underwent recanalization. The median follow-up was 21.5 months. During the follow-up no leak reoccurrence or complications were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

In the multimodal management of anastomotic leaks following LAR , Ovesco™ clipping system appears a safe and effective technique in the closure of small leaks (<2 cm), allowing an early recanalization of the bowel and not delaying adjuvant chemotherapy when indicated.

A Single Institution Propensity Score Weighted Analysis of Time to Chemotherapy After Minimally Invasive Versus Open Colorectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Oncologic outcomes for colon cancer are optimal when chemotherapy is started within 6 to 8 weeks after surgery. The study objective was to investigate the impact of operative modality and urgency on the time interval from surgery to adjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODS

This is a retrospective institutional tumor registry cohort study of open and laparoscopic/robotic colorectal resections for stage II-IV cancer between April 2010 and January 2018. Primary outcome was time from surgery to chemotherapy. Predictor variables were adjusted for imbalances by propensity score weighting.

RESULTS

A total of 220 patients met inclusion criteria: 171 elective (108 laparoscopic/robotic and 63 open) and 49 urgent colectomies. After propensity score weighting, there was no significant difference in time to chemotherapy between elective minimally invasive and open surgical approaches (48 days vs. 58 days, P = .187). Only 68.9% of minimally invasive and 50.8% of open colectomy patients started chemotherapy within 8 weeks of surgery. There was a significant difference (P = .037) among surgical sites with rectal resections having the longest (55 days), and right colectomies having the shortest (46 days), time to chemotherapy. Patients who had urgent operations had significantly longer hospital length of stay (P < .001) and higher post-discharge emergency department visit rates (P < .001) than the elective operation group. However, there was no significant difference in time to chemotherapy.

DISCUSSION

Neither operative modality nor operative urgency resulted in a significant difference in postoperative time to initiating chemotherapy. Future efforts should be focused on identifying postoperative recovery criteria and optimum multidisciplinary communication methods that allow recovered patients to start chemotherapy sooner.

The impact of early adjuvant chemotherapy in rectal cancer

PURPOSES

Although adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) has been established as a standard of treatment for advanced rectal cancer, there is no guideline regarding the timing of AC initiation. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the oncologic outcome of early AC initiation and clarify the ideal time to AC among rectal cancer patients receiving preoperative chemo-radiotherapy (preCRT).

METHODS

The medical records of 719 patients who underwent curative resection followed by AC for rectal cancer were analyzed retrospectively. Data distributions were compared according to the calculated cut-off for AC initiation, survival results, and chemotherapy-induced toxicity. Additionally, patients were divided into two groups according to preCRT status and compared with respect to differences in the optimal time to AC.

RESULTS

Overall, a cut-off time point of 20 days after surgery for AC initiation was identified as the optimal interval; this yielded a significant difference in disease-free survival but no significant difference in AC toxicity. In the cut-off analysis of patients treated without preCRT, 19 days was identified as the optimal time to AC. However, for patients treated with preCRT, no significant value affected the survival outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Earlier initiation of AC (within approximately 3 weeks) was associated with better oncological outcomes among patients with rectal cancer. Additionally, the optimal timing of AC was unclear among patients who received preCRT; this might be attributable to an undetermined role of AC after preCRT or the effects of complications such as anastomotic leakage.

Implementation of an Enhanced Recovery Protocol Is Associated With On-Time Initiation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Delayed initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy negatively impacts long-term survival in patients with colorectal cancer. Colorectal enhanced recovery protocols result in decreased complications and length of stay; however, the impact of enhanced recovery on the timing of adjuvant chemotherapy remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to identify factors associated with on-time delivery of adjuvant chemotherapy after colorectal cancer surgery, hypothesizing that implementation of an enhanced recovery protocol would result in more patients receiving on-time chemotherapy.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study comparing the rate of on-time adjuvant chemotherapy delivery after colorectal cancer resection before and after implementation of an enhanced recovery protocol.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at a large academic medical center.

PATIENTS

All of the patients who underwent nonemergent colorectal cancer resections for curative intent from January 2010 to June 2017, excluding patients who had no indication for adjuvant chemotherapy, had received preoperative systemic chemotherapy, or did not have medical oncology records available were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patients before and enhanced recovery were compared, with the rate of on-time adjuvant chemotherapy delivery as the primary outcome. Adjuvant chemotherapy delivery was considered on time if initiated ≤8 weeks postoperatively, and treatment was considered delayed or omitted if initiated >8 weeks postoperatively (delayed) or never received (omitted). Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of on-time chemotherapy delivery.

RESULTS

A total of 363 patients met inclusion criteria, with 189 patients (52.1%) undergoing surgery after enhanced recovery implementation. Groups differed in laparoscopic approach and median procedure duration, both of which were higher after enhanced recovery. Significantly more patients received on-time chemotherapy after enhanced recovery implementation (p = 0.007). Enhanced recovery was an independent predictor of on-time adjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.014).

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited by its retrospective and nonrandomized before-and-after design.

CONCLUSIONS

Enhanced recovery was associated with receiving on-time adjuvant chemotherapy. As prompt initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in colorectal cancer, future investigation of long-term oncologic outcomes is necessary to evaluate the potential impact of enhanced recovery on survival. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B21. LA IMPLEMENTACIÓN DE UN PROTOCOLO DE RECUPERACIÓN ACELERADA SE ASOCIA CON EL INICIO A TIEMPO DE QUIMIOTERAPIA ADYUVANTE EN CÁNCER COLORRECTAL:: El inicio tardío de la quimioterapia adyuvante afecta negativamente la supervivencia a largo plazo en pacientes con cáncer colorrectal. Los protocolos de recuperación acelerada colorrectales dan lugar a una disminución de las complicaciones y la duración de estancia hospitalaria; sin embargo, el impacto de la recuperación acelerada en el momento de inicio de quimioterapia adyuvante sigue siendo desconocido.Este estudio tuvo como objetivo identificar los factores asociados con la administración a tiempo de la quimioterapia adyuvante después de la cirugía de cáncer colorrectal, con la hipótesis de que la implementación de un protocolo de recuperación acelerada daría lugar a que más pacientes reciban quimioterapia a tiempo.Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo que compara la tasa de administración de quimioterapia adyuvante a tiempo después de la resección del cáncer colorrectal antes y después de la implementación de un protocolo de recuperación acelerada.Centro médico académico grande.Todos los pacientes que se sometieron a resecciones de cáncer colorrectal no emergentes con intención curativa desde enero de 2010 hasta junio de 2017, excluyendo a los pacientes que no tenían indicación de quimioterapia adyuvante, que recibieron quimioterapia sistémica preoperatoria o no tenían registros médicos de oncología disponibles.Los pacientes se compararon antes y después de la implementación de la recuperación acelerada, con la tasa de administración de quimioterapia adyuvante a tiempo como el resultado primario. La administración de quimioterapia adyuvante se consideró a tiempo si se inició ≤8 semanas después de la operación, y el tratamiento se consideró retrasado / omitido si se inició> 8 semanas después de la operación (retrasado) o nunca fue recibido (omitido). La regresión logística multivariable identificó predictores de administración de quimioterapia a tiempo.363 pacientes cumplieron con los criterios de inclusión, con 189 (52.1%) pacientes sometidos a cirugía después de la implementación de recuperación acelerada. Los grupos difirieron en el abordaje laparoscópico y la duración media del procedimiento; ambos factores fueron mayores después de la recuperación acelerada. Significativamente más pacientes recibieron quimioterapia a tiempo después de la implementación de recuperación acelerada (p = 0.007). La recuperación acelerada fue un factor predictivo independiente de quimioterapia adyuvante a tiempo (p = 0.014).Diseño retrospectivo, tipo ¨antes y después¨ no aleatorizado.La recuperación acelerada se asoció con la recepción de quimioterapia adyuvante a tiempo. Debido a que el inicio rápido de la quimioterapia adyuvante mejora la supervivencia en el cáncer colorrectal, en el futuro será necesario investigar los resultados oncológicos a largo plazo para evaluar el impacto potencial de la recuperación acelerada en la supervivencia. Vea el Resumen en Video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B21.

Association Between Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Overall Survival in Patients With Rectal Cancer and Pathological Complete Response After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Resection

Importance

Although American guidelines recommend use of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, individuals who achieve a pathological complete response (pCR) following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy are less likely to receive adjuvant treatment than incomplete responders. The association and resection of adjuvant chemotherapy with survival in patients with pCR is unclear.

Objective

To determine whether patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who achieve pCR after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy and resection benefit from the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study identified patients with locally advanced rectal cancer from the National Cancer Database from 2006 through 2012. We selected patients with nonmetastatic invasive rectal cancer who achieved pCR after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy and resection.

Exposures

We matched patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy to patients who did not receive adjuvant treatment in a 1:1 ratio. We separately matched subgroups of patients with node-positive disease before treatment and node-negative disease before treatment to investigate for effect modification by pretreatment nodal status.

Main Outcome and Measures

We compared overall survival between groups using Kaplan-Meier survival methods and Cox proportional hazards models.

Results

We identified 2455 patients (mean age, 59.5 years; 59.8% men) with rectal cancer with pCR after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy and resection. We matched 667 patients with pCR who received adjuvant chemotherapy and at least 8 weeks of follow-up after surgery to patients with pCR who did not receive adjuvant treatment. Over a median follow-up of 3.1 years (interquartile range, 1.94-4.40 years), patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy demonstrated better overall survival than those who did not receive adjuvant treatment (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.28-0.70). When stratified by pretreatment nodal status, only those patients with pretreatment node-positive disease exhibited improved overall survival with administration of adjuvant chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.10-0.58).

Conclusions and Relevance

The administration of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with rectal cancer with pCR is associated with improved overall survival, particularly in patients with pretreatment node-positive disease. Although this study suggests a beneficial effect of adjuvant treatment on survival in patients with pCR, these results are limited by the presence of potential unmeasured confounding in this nonrandomized study.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Minimally Invasive Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of elective rectal resection for rectal cancer in adults by robotic surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Technological advantages of robotic surgery favor precise dissection in narrow spaces. However, the evidence base driving recommendations for the use of robotic surgery in rectal cancer primarily hinges on observational data.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials (until August 2016) comparing robotic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery. Data on the following endpoints were evaluated: circumferential margin status, mesorectal grade, number of lymph nodes harvested, rate of conversion to open surgery, postoperative complications, and operative time. Data were summarized as relative risks (RR) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Risk of bias of studies was assessed with standard methods.

RESULTS

Five trials were eligible, including 334 robotic and 337 laparoscopic surgery cases. Meta-analysis showed that RS was associated with lower conversion rate (7.3%; 4 studies, 544 participants, RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.35-0.97, P = 0.04, I = 0%) and longer operating time (MD 38.43 minutes, 95% CI 31.84-45.01: P < 0.00001) compared with laparoscopic surgery. Perioperative mortality, rate of circumferential margin involvement (2 studies, 489 participants, RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.39-1.73), and lymph nodes collected (mean 17.4 Lymph Nodes; 5 trials, 674 patients, MD -0.35, 95% CI -1.83 to 1.12) were similar. The quality of the evidence was moderate for most outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Evidence of moderate quality supports that robotic surgery for rectal cancer produces similar perioperative outcomes of oncologic procedure adequacy to conventional laparoscopic surgery. Robotic surgery portraits lower rate of conversion to open surgery, while operating time is significantly longer than by laparoscopic approach.

Integrating perioperative medicine with anaesthesia in India: Can the best be achieved? A review

Integrating perioperative medicine with anaesthesia is the need of the hour. Evolution of a new superspeciality called perioperative anaesthesia can improve surgical outcomes by quality perioperative care and guarantee imminent escalation of influence and power for anaesthesiologists. All original peer-reviewed manuscripts pertaining to surgery-specific perioperative surgical home models involving preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative initiatives spanning the past 5 years have been reviewed using PubMed and Google Scholar. Whether the perioperative surgical home model is feasible or still a distant dream in the Indian perspective has been analysed.

Timing of Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Survival in Colorectal, Gastric, and Pancreatic Cancer. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: The optimal timing of adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) in gastrointestinal malignancies is still a matter of debate. For colorectal cancer, it is recommended to start post-operative treatment within eight weeks. The objective of this study was to assess the clinical effects of starting adjuvant CT within or after 6–8 weeks post-surgery in colorectal, gastric, and pancreatic cancer. (2) Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched in December 2018. Publications comparing the outcomes of patients treated with adjuvant CT administered before (early) or after (delayed) 6–8 weeks post-surgery for colorectal, gastric, and pancreatic cancer were identified. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). (3) Results: Out of 8752 publications identified, 34 comparative studies assessing a total of 141,853 patients were included. Meta-analysis indicated a statistically significant increased risk of death with delayed CT (>6–8 weeks post-surgery) in colorectal cancer (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21–1.33; p <0.001). Similarly, for gastric cancer, delaying adjuvant CT was associated with inferior overall survival (HR = 1.2, 95% CI 1.04–1.38; p = 0.01). Conversely, the benefit of earlier CT was not evident in pancreatic cancer (HR = 1, 95% CI 1–1.01; p = 0.37). Conclusions: Starting adjuvant CT within 6–8 weeks post-surgery is associated with a significant survival benefit for colorectal and gastric cancer, but not for pancreatic cancer.

Early closure of the protective ileostomy after rectal resection should become part of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol: a randomized, prospective, two-center clinical trial

Introduction

Protective loop ileostomy (PLI) is used to reduce the anastomotic leak rate after resection of the rectum. It is an effective, yet burdensome procedure contradicting the aims of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) by slowing down recovery. Early closure (EC) of the PLI has the potential to change the situation, and it should become part of ERAS.

Aim

To analyze the effectiveness of EC in ERAS patients.

Material and methods

A randomized clinical trial was performed between October the 1^st, 2016 and December the 31^st, 2017. Fifty-eight adult patients (24 females, 34 males, mean age: 55.7 and 56.2) operated on for rectal carcinoma according to the ERAS protocol with PLI were randomly assigned to the late (L) or early (E) closure group (14 days after discharge). Time to start adjuvant chemotherapy, complication rate, and health care costs were analyzed.

Results

There were no significant differences between groups regarding the length of surgery (83.2 ±15.9 vs. 87.1 ±21.7 min, in E and L, respectively), intraoperative blood loss (15.2 ±7.5 vs. 17.3 ±11.1 ml, respectively), median hospital stay, or the time to pass flatus and stool. The difference in the time needed to start the adjuvant treatment (38.7 ±5.7 vs. 33.2 ±5.8 days, p < 0.01), was compensated by the reduction of time living with a stoma (17.2 vs. 299.0 days) and health care costs: (43.68 vs. 698.42 USD).

Conclusions

Early closure is a safe and effective therapeutic approach, improving the recovery. Therefore it should be implemented as part of the ERAS protocol for rectal cancer patients.

Postoperative complications are associated with worse survival after laparoscopic surgery for non-metastatic colorectal cancer - interim analysis of 3-year overall survival

Introduction

Postoperative morbidity after colorectal resections for cancer remains a significant problem. Data on the influence of complications on survival after laparoscopic colorectal resection are still limited.

Aim

To analyze the impact of postoperative complications on long-term survival after radical laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer.

Material and methods

Two hundred and sixty-five consecutive non-metastatic colorectal cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resection for cancer were included in the analysis. The entire study group was divided into two subgroups based on the occurrence of postoperative complications. Group 1 included patients without postoperative morbidity and group 2 included patients with complications. The primary outcome was overall survival.

Results

Median follow-up was 45 (IQR: 34–55) months. Group 1 consisted of 187 (70.5%) patients and group 2 comprised 78 (29.5%) patients. Studied groups were comparable in terms of sex, age, body mass index, ASA class, cancer staging, localization of the tumor and operative time. Patients in group 1 had significantly better overall 3-year survival compared to those with complications (84.9% vs. 69.8%, p = 0.022). Kaplan-Meier curves showed significantly improved survival rates in patients without complications compared with complicated cases. The Cox proportional multivariate model showed that postoperative complications (HR = 2.83; 95% CI: 1.35–5.92; p = 0.0058) and AJCC III (HR = 3.17; 95% CI: 1.52–6.6; p = 0.0021) were independent predictors of worse survival after laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.

Conclusions

Our analysis of interim results after 3 years confirms that complications after laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery have an impact on survival. For this reason, these patients should be carefully monitored after surgery aiming at early detection of recurrence.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy significantly shortens the time to postoperative chemotherapy in patients undergoing major hepatectomies

BACKGROUND

The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy occurs with early initiation, but is commonly delayed due to postoperative complications. Minimally invasive surgery is proven to significantly reduce complications and hospital length of stay. This study compares open versus laparoscopic liver resection in patients requiring adjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODS

120 consecutive patients with metastatic colorectal liver cancer who underwent liver resection between 2007 through 2012 were reviewed from an IRB prospective database.

RESULTS

44 laparoscopic cases were compared to 76 open cases having equivalent resections. Laparoscopic liver resection patients had lower blood loss (276 ml) than patients with open resection (614 ml). Patients with laparoscopy had shorter length of hospital stay (5 days) than patients with open resection (9 days). Patients with laparoscopic resection had a shorter time of chemotherapy initiation postoperatively (24 days v 39 days). Overall complication rates were higher, but statistically insignificant in patients with open resection.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data showed that the shorter LOS with laparoscopic major hepatectomies allows earlier initiation of chemotherapy compared to the open group, without jeopardizing surgical margins or extent of resection.

SUMMARY

Over the past decade multiple authors have established that, despite occasional longer operating times, laparoscopic liver surgery is associated with reduced blood loss, reduced postoperative morbidity and shorter hospital stay. The purpose of this analysis was to determine if the advantages of a minimally invasive approach correspond to shorter initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy versus an open approach.

Initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy within 8 weeks of elective colorectal resection improves overall survival regardless of reoperation

AIM

Reoperation after elective colorectal resection may delay the start of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC). The study investigated the dual impact of a reoperation and AC delay on overall survival (OS).

METHOD

The Hospital Episode Statistics database was analysed between 1997 and 2012. Patients were divided into colon and rectal cancer cohorts and data were analysed based on whether there was delay in receiving AC beyond 8 weeks and whether a patient suffered reoperation within 30 days. Multivariate regression analysis was undertaken to investigate the relationship between delay in giving AC and reoperation and their combined effect on OS.

RESULTS

Logistic regression showed reoperation, amongst other things, to be an independent predictor of AC delay, in both colon and rectal cancer (colon, odds ratio 2.31, P < 0.001; rectal, odds ratio 2.19, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in OS between patients who had no AC delay but suffered a reoperation and patients who had no AC delay and no reoperation. Patients who had AC delay but no reoperation, however, had significantly worse OS compared to those who had no AC delay and no reoperation [colon, hazard ratio (HR) 1.16, P < 0.001; rectal, HR 1.17, P < 0.001]. Individuals who had both AC delay and a reoperation also had worse OS compared with patients who had neither (colon, HR 1.33, P = 0.037; rectal, HR 1.38, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Delayed receipt of AC beyond 8 weeks after surgery is associated with significantly reduced OS regardless of reoperation status in both colon and rectal cancer patients.

Successful management of adult lymphoma-associated intussusception by laparoscopic reduction and appendectomy

Although primary gastrointestinal lymphoma is a rare malignancy, it can cause an intussusception in adults and can be a clinically challenging condition to manage. Intussusception could progress to life-threatening complications if left untreated or could delay chemotherapy if inappropriate surgical management is used. We report a 31-year-old man diagnosed with human immunodeficiency virus who was being treated with antiretroviral therapy. He presented with nausea, vomiting, poor appetite, and intermittent, cramping abdominal pain for over 1 wk. Abdominal computed tomography revealed a well-defined homogeneous mass in the mesenteric root region, together with a long segmental wall thickening in the ileum with ileocolic-type intussusception, which was suspected to be caused by a lymphoma. The intussusception was successfully laparoscopically reduced, and the tumor involvement of the appendix was confirmed by appendectomy with intraoperative frozen section. Systemic chemotherapy was immediately initiated after surgery without the need for bowel resection.

Selection for laparoscopic resection confers a survival benefit in colorectal cancer surgery in England

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic surgery is being increasingly used in colorectal cancer resections. The aim of this national study was to determine whether laparoscopy confers a long-term survival advantage in colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A national administrative data set (Hospital Episode Statistics-HES) encompassing all elective hospital admissions in England between 2001 and 2011 was analysed. All patients that had a colorectal cancer resection (open or laparoscopic) were identified. Cox hazard regression was used to determine differences in overall survival (10 year) between the open and laparoscopy groups.

RESULTS

A total of 141,682 patients underwent elective surgery for colorectal cancer, of which 20.9 % (n = 29,550) had a laparoscopic procedure. The median 5-year survival in the open group was 36.1 months compared with 46.1 months in the laparoscopic group (p = <0.001). Survival analysis demonstrated laparoscopy to be an independent predictor of survival. Patients who underwent laparoscopic resection were 18 % less likely to die than patients who had an open CRC resection (HR 0.82, CI 0.79-0.83, p < 0.001). This survival benefit persisted even when initial post-operative mortality (90 day) was excluded (HR 0.87, CI 0.85-0.90, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis, exploring the effect of CRC laparoscopic surgery on survival in the elderly (>79 years old), demonstrated similar survival benefit amongst patients treated using laparoscopy (HR 0.90, CI 0.86-0.94, p < 0.001). Patients not undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy were more likely to survive if they underwent laparoscopic resection (HR 0.81, CI 0.78-0.83, p < 0.001). Similarly, patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy demonstrated a survival benefit if a minimal access surgical approach was utilised (HR 0.86, CI 0.81-0.91, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy confers a survival benefit, irrespective of age and administration of adjuvant chemotherapy, beyond the initial post-operative period in patients selected for elective colorectal cancer resection.

Minimally invasive surgery in gastrointestinal cancer: benefits, challenges, and solutions for underutilization

Background and Objectives:

After the widespread application of minimally invasive surgery for benign diseases and given its proven safety and efficacy, minimally invasive surgery for gastrointestinal cancer has gained substantial attention in the past several years. Despite the large number of publications on the topic and level I evidence to support its use in colon cancer, minimally invasive surgery for most gastrointestinal malignancies is still underused.

Methods:

We explore some of the challenges that face the fusion of minimally invasive surgery technology in the management of gastrointestinal malignancies and propose solutions that may help increase the utilization in the future. These solutions are based on extensive literature review, observation of current trends and practices in this field, and discussion made with experts in the field.

Results:

We propose 4 different solutions to increase the use of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of gastrointestinal malignancies: collaboration between surgical oncologists/hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons and minimally invasive surgeons at the same institution; a single surgeon performing 2 fellowships in surgical oncology/hepatopancreatobiliary surgery and minimally invasive surgery; establishing centers of excellence in minimally invasive gastrointestinal cancer management; and finally, using robotic technology to help with complex laparoscopic skills.

Conclusions:

Multiple studies have confirmed the utility of minimally invasive surgery techniques in dealing with patients with gastrointestinal malignancies. However, training continues to be the most important challenge that faces the use of minimally invasive surgery in the management of gastrointestinal malignancy; implementation of our proposed solutions may help increase the rate of adoption in the future.

Does robotics improve minimally invasive rectal surgery? Functional and oncological implications

OBJECTIVE

Robot-assisted surgery has been reported to be a safe and effective alternative to conventional laparoscopy for the treatment of rectal cancer in a minimally invasive manner. Nevertheless, substantial data concerning functional outcomes and long-term oncological adequacy is still lacking. We aimed to assess the current role of robotics in rectal surgery focusing on patients' functional and oncological outcomes.

METHODS

A comprehensive review was conducted to search articles published in English up to 11 September 2015 concerning functional and/or oncological outcomes of patients who received robot-assisted rectal surgery. All relevant papers were evaluated on functional implications such as postoperative sexual and urinary dysfunction and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

Robotics showed a general trend towards lower rates of sexual and urinary postoperative dysfunction and earlier recovery compared with laparoscopy. The rates of 3-year local recurrence, disease-free survival and overall survival of robotic-assisted rectal surgery compared favourably with those of laparoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

This study fails to provide solid evidence to draw definitive conclusions on whether robotic systems could be useful in ameliorating the outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer. However, the available data suggest potential advantages over conventional laparoscopy with reference to functional outcomes.

Pathophysiology of major surgery and the role of enhanced recovery pathways and the anesthesiologist to improve outcomes

Enhanced recovery pathways have been increasingly adopted into surgical specialties with the aim of reducing the stress response and improving the metabolic response to surgical insult. Enhanced recovery pathways encompass a large range of perioperative elements that together aim to restore a patient's gut function, mobility, function and well-being to preoperative levels as soon as feasible after major surgery. There is increasing evidence that rapid recovery and return to normal function reduces complications. This may not just have a benefit by reducing morbidity and mortality but also have an effect on long-term survival. There also may be additional benefits for patients with cancer.

Minimally Invasive Resection of Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases Leads to an Earlier Initiation of Chemotherapy Compared to Open Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Previous studies have shown benefit not only from postoperative chemotherapy but also from a short interval to initiation of treatment after resection of primary colorectal cancer. The aim of this study was to determine difference in timing to postoperative chemotherapy for minimally invasive resection (MIR) vs. open resection (OR) of colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRCLM).

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of 1:1 matched patients undergoing MIR (n = 66) and OR (n = 66) for CRCLM at a single institution.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing MIR of CRCLM had significantly shorter length of hospital stay, fewer major complications, and shorter interval to postoperative chemotherapy (median 42 vs. 63 days, p < 0.001). Univariable analysis showed that surgical approach, postoperative complications, blood loss, number of lesions, and length of stay were associated with timing to chemotherapy. On multivariable analysis, surgical approach was still associated with timing to chemotherapy, and postoperative complications resulted in a delay of chemotherapy among patients who underwent OR but not among those who underwent MIR. In addition, worse disease-free survival was seen among patients who received postoperative chemotherapy more than 60 days after surgery.

CONCLUSION

By modifying the deleterious effects of postoperative complications on timing of postoperative chemotherapy, patients undergoing MIR for CRCLM are treated with chemotherapy sooner after surgery compared to those undergoing OR.

Timing of adjuvant chemotherapy and its relation to survival among patients with stage III colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Currently available data suggest that delaying the start of adjuvant chemotherapy in colon cancer patients has a detrimental effect on survival. We analysed which factors impact on the timing of adjuvant chemotherapy and evaluated the influence on overall survival (OS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Stage III colon cancer patients who underwent resection and received adjuvant chemotherapy between 2008 and 2013 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Timing of adjuvant chemotherapy was subdivided into: ⩽ 4, 5-6, 7-8, 9-10, 11-12 and 13-16 weeks post-surgery. Multivariable regressions were performed to assess the influence of several factors on the probability of starting treatment within 8 weeks post-surgery and to evaluate the association of timing of adjuvant chemotherapy with 5-year OS.

RESULTS

6620 patients received adjuvant chemotherapy, 14% commenced after 8 weeks. Factors associated with starting treatment after 8 weeks were older age (Odds ratio (OR) 65-74 versus < 65 years 1.3 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.14-1.58); OR ⩾ 75 versus < 65 years 1.6 (1.25-1.94)), emergency resection (OR 1.8 (1.41-2.32)), anastomotic leakage (OR 8.1 (6.14-10.62)), referral to another hospital for adjuvant chemotherapy (OR 1.9 (1.36-2.57)) and prolonged postoperative hospital admission (OR 4.7 (3.30-6.68)). Starting 5-8 weeks post-surgery showed no decrease in OS compared to initiation within 4 weeks (Hazard ratio (HR) 5-6 weeks 0.9 (0.79-1.11); HR 7-8 weeks 1.1 (0.91-1.30)). However, commencing beyond 8 weeks was associated with decreased OS compared to initiation within 8 weeks (HR 9-10 weeks 1.4 (1.21-1.68); HR 11-12 weeks 1.3 (1.06-1.59); HR 13-16 weeks 1.7 (1.23-2.23)).

CONCLUSION

Our data support initiating adjuvant chemotherapy in stage III colon cancer patients within 8 weeks post-surgery.

Improved survival with early adjuvant chemotherapy after colonic resection for stage III colonic cancer: A nationwide study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In stage III colonic cancer, time from surgery to start of adjuvant chemotherapy may influence survival. In this study, we evaluated the effect of timing of adjuvant therapy on survival.

METHODS

Database study from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group's national database. Data on patients with stage III colonic cancer operated between January 1, 2005 and August 31, 2012 were retrieved. Perioperative variables, surgical modality, and time to adjuvant therapy (<4, 4-8, or >8 weeks) were evaluated and Cox regression was performed to identify factors influencing survival.

RESULTS

The final population included 1,827 patients scheduled for adjuvant chemotherapy. Adjuvant therapy started within 4 and 8 weeks improved survival when compared to start later than 8 weeks (HR [95%CI]: 1.7 [1.1-2.6]; P = 0.024 and 1.4 [1.07-1.8]; P = 0.013, respectively), whereas there was no significant difference in survival with start after 4 versus 8 weeks (1.2 [0.8-1.8]; P = 0.37).

CONCLUSIONS

Survival increased when adjuvant therapy was started within 8 weeks after surgery for stage III colonic cancer.

Factors Implicated for Delay of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-analysis of Observational Studies

BACKGROUND

The survival benefit of administering adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) in colorectal cancer is well established, as is the impact of its timing. Although various factors have been associated with treatment delay, their implications remain controversial. We determined clinicopathological factors associated with delay in transition to AC via systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Studies assessing factors for delay in initiating AC were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Databases. Studies were included only if relevant clinicopathological factors were adequately described and appropriate comparative groups were balanced. For each study, the odds ratio (OR) and 95 % confidence interval (CI) were estimated, regarding response to early versus delayed AC initiation.

RESULTS

We identified 15 eligible studies involving 67,537 patients. Twelve studies were multicentre studies and three were single-center cohort studies. Meta-analysis demonstrated age >75 years [4 studies, OR = 1.44 (95 % CI 1.32-1.58)], marital status-single [3 studies, OR = 1.32 (95 % CI 1.20-1.44)], low socioeconomic status (SES) [7 studies, OR = 1.67 (95 % CI 1.32-2.12)], worse comorbidity status [5 studies, OR = 1.47 (95 % CI 1.14-1.90)], low tumour grade [7 studies, OR = 1.06 (95 % CI 1.02-1.11)], prolonged length of stay [3 studies, OR 2.37 (95 % CI 2.10-2.68)], and readmission [3 studies, OR = 3.23 (95 % CI 1.66-6.26)] were significant predictors of delayed initiation of AC. Laparoscopy compared to an open surgical approach was a significant predictor of earlier AC initiation [5 studies, OR = 0.70 (95 % CI 0.51-0.97)].

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy is associated with earlier initiation of AC, encouraging its increased adoption. Social isolation and low SES merit consideration of approaches that counter the lack of social support and deprivation to improve cancer outcomes.