Clinical Outcomes of Ileostomy Closure before Adjuvant Chemotherapy after Rectal Cancer Surgery: An Observational Study from a Chinese Center

Impact of chemotherapy on surgical outcomes in ileostomy reversal: a propensity score matching study from a single centre

PURPOSE

In patients with chemotherapy, there is no consensus on the timing of ileostomy closure. Ileostomy reversal could improve the quality of life and minimise the long-term adverse events of delayed closure. In this study, we evaluated the impact of chemotherapy on ileostomy closure and searched for the predictive factors for complications.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed 212 patients with rectal cancer who underwent ileostomy closure surgery during and without chemotherapy and were consecutively enrolled between 2010 and 2016. As a result of the heterogeneity of the two groups, propensity score matching (PSM) was performed with a 1:1 PSM cohort.

RESULTS

A total of 162 patients were included in the analysis. The overall stoma closure-related complications (12.4% vs. 11.1%, p = 1.00) and major complications (2.5% vs. 6.2%, p = 0.44) were not significantly different between the two groups. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that chronic kidney disease and bevacizumab use are risk factors for major complications.

CONCLUSION

Patients with oral or intravenous chemotherapy can safely have ileostomy closure with an adequate time delay from chemotherapy. When patients use bevacizumab, major complications related to ileostomy closure should still be cautioned.

Comparison of clinical outcomes of stoma reversal during versus after chemotherapy for rectal cancer patients

PURPOSE

The optimal timing of stoma closure during or after adjuvant chemotherapy for rectal cancer patients undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery remains unknown. This study aimed to investigate the influence of clinical and oncological outcomes depending on the timing of stoma closure.

METHODS

Between January 2006 and December 2015, we enrolled 244 consecutive rectal cancer patients who underwent curative-intent sphincter-preserving surgery with diverting transverse colostomy and adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with stoma closure during (During group) adjuvant chemotherapy were compared to those who had stoma closure after adjuvant chemotherapy (After group).

RESULTS

Parastomal hernia occurred more frequently in the after group than in the during group. (10% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.028). Overall, no significant difference was observed in overall survival (OS) or disease-free survival (DFS) between the two groups (p = 0.911 for OS, p = 0.505 for DFS). However, an inferior OS occurred if reopen surgery was performed within 30 days of stoma closure in the during group, as compared with the after group (p = 0.004). In addition, a marginally poor DFS was observed in the group of patients who received further operations due to 30-day stoma closure complications compared to the other patients (p = 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

For rectal cancer patients who underwent sphincter-preserving surgery, attention should be given to avoid 30-day major complications after stoma reversal because patients who require reoperation during adjuvant chemotherapy may have poor long-term survival.

A novel nomogram to predict low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) after ileostomy reversal for rectal cancer patients

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) in patients undergoing low or ultra-low anterior resection (LAR) is a common problem and significantly impacts the quality of life. Patients with an ileostomy after LAR are more likely to develop LARS. However, there hasn't been a model predicting LARS occurrence in these patients. This study aims to construct a nomogram to predict the probability of LARS occurrence in patients with temporary ileostomy and guide preventive strategies before reversal.

METHODS

168 patients undergoing LAR with ileostomy from one center were enrolled as the training cohort, and 134 patients of the same inclusion criteria from another center were enrolled as the validation cohort. The training cohort was screened for risk factors for major LARS using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. The nomogram was constructed using the filtered variables, the ROC curve was used to describe the model's discrimination, and the calibration was used to describe the accuracy.

RESULTS

The optimal cut-off value for stoma closure time was 128 days. Three risk factors were identified using logistic regression analysis: preoperative radiotherapy (OR = 3.038, [95%CI 1.75-5.015], P = 0.005), stoma closure time (OR = 2.298, [95%CI 1.088-4.858], P = 0.029) and pN stage (OR = 1.739, [95%CI 1.235-3.980], P = 0.001). A nomogram was constructed based on these three variables and showed good performance predicting major LARS after stoma reversal. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.827 in the training group and 0.821 in the validation group; The calibration curve suggested good precision in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This novel nomogram can accurately predict the probability of major LARS occurrence after ileostomy reversal for rectal cancer patients. This model can help screen ileostomy patients with high risks and guide individualized preventive strategies before stoma reversal.

Does temporary ileostomy via specimen extraction site affect the short outcomes and complications after laparoscopic low anterior resection in rectal cancer patients? A propensity score matching analysis

Purpose

The purpose of the current study was to compare the outcomes of temporary stoma through the specimen extraction site (SSES) and stoma through a new site (SNS) after laparoscopic low anterior resection.

Methods

The rectal cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic low anterior resection plus temporary ileostomy were recruited in a single clinical database from Jun 2013 to Jun 2020. The SSES group and the SNS group were compared using propensity score matching (PSM) analysis.

Results

A total of 257 rectal cancer patients were included in this study, there were 162 patients in the SSES group and 95 patients in the SNS group. After 1:1 ratio PSM, there was no difference in baseline information (p > 0.05). The SSES group had smaller intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.016 < 0.05), shorter operation time (p < 0.01) and shorter post-operative hospital stay (p = 0.021 < 0.05) than the SNS group before PSM. However, the SSES group shorter operation time (p = 0.006 < 0.05) than the SNS group after PSM, moreover, there was no significant difference in stoma-related complications (p > 0.05). In the multivariate analysis, longer operation time was an independent factor (p = 0.019 < 0.05, OR = 1.006, 95% CI = 1.001–1.011) for the stoma-related complications.

Conclusion

Based on the current evidence, the SSES group had smaller intraoperative blood loss, shorter operation time and shorter post-operative hospital stay before PSM, and shorter operation time after PSM. Therefore, SSES might be superior than SNS after laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer patients.