Fast track multi-discipline treatment (FTMDT trial) versus conventional treatment in colorectal cancer--the design of a prospective randomized controlled study

Retrospective analysis of safety and efficacy of enhanced recovery pathways in stage II-III colorectal cancer patients submitted to surgery and adjuvant therapy

Background

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons is suggesting laparoscopic surgeries for colorectal cancer. Conventional perioperative procedures like long preoperative fasting and bowel procedures are not useful and harmful to patients undergoing surgeries for colorectal cancer. The objectives of the study were to compare surgery outcomes, hospital stays, and survival of patients who received fast-track (laparoscopy/open) surgical procedure followed by chemotherapy against those who received conventional (laparoscopy/open) surgical procedure followed by chemotherapy for colorectal cancer.

Methods

The study analyzes the outcomes of a total of 542 colorectal cancer (preoperative biopsies stage II or III) patients submitted to surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. The study cohort is retrospectively subdivided in 4 groups submitted to open or laparoscopic resection with or without fast-track protocol appliance and two different chemotherapy regimens. Patients who ended up being TNM stage I have not received the adjuvant chemotherapy.

Results

The fast-track surgical procedure had shorter total hospital stays and postoperative hospital stays than the conventional surgical procedures. Flatus resumption time, the time until first defecation, and intraoperative blood loss were shorter for the fast-track surgical procedures than the conventional surgical procedures. Those surgery outcomes were also shorter for the fast-track laparoscopy than the open fast-track. Resumption of a fluid diet and ambulation onset time were shorter for the fast-track surgical procedures than the conventional surgical procedures. The surgical checkpoints that were compliance by patient of fast-track surgeries were significantly fewer than those of the conventional surgeries. Clinically significant difference for QLQ-C30/CR38 score after chemotherapy was reported between patients who received open conventional surgeries and those patients who received fast-track laparoscopy (59.63 ± 2.26 score/patient vs. 71.67 ± 5.19 score/patient). There were no significant differences for the number of patients with any grade adverse effects (p = 0.431) or with grade 3–4 adverse effects (p = 0.858), and the disease-free and overall survival among cohorts.

Conclusions

The fast-track surgical procedure is effective and safe even in a multidisciplinary scenario as colorectal cancer treatment in which surgery is only a part of management.

Level of evidence: III

Technical efficacy stage: 4.

Fast-track multidisciplinary treatment versus conventional treatment for colorectal cancer: a multicenter, open-label randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery, fast-track perioperative treatment and XELOX chemotherapy are effective strategies for shortening the duration of hospital stay for cancer patients. This trial aimed to clarify the safety and efficacy of the fast-track multidisciplinary treatment (FTMDT) model compared to conventional surgery combined with chemotherapy in Chinese colorectal cancer patients.

METHODS

This trial was a prospective randomized controlled study with a 2 × 2 balanced factorial design and was conducted at six hospitals. Patients in group 1 (FTMDT) received fast-track perioperative treatment and XELOX adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients in group 2 (conventional treatment) received conventional perioperative treatment and mFOLFOX6 adjuvant chemotherapy. Subgroups 1a and 2a had laparoscopic surgery and subgroups 1b and 2b had open surgery. The primary endpoint was total length of hospital stay during treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 374 patients were randomly assigned to the four subgroups, and 342 patients were finally analyzed, including 87 patients in subgroup 1a, 85 in subgroup 1b, 86 in subgroup 2a, and 84 in subgroup 2b. The total hospital stay of group 1 was shorter than that of group 2 [13 days, (IQR, 11-17 days) vs. 23.5 days (IQR, 15-42 days), P = 0.0001]. Compared to group 2, group 1 had lower surgical costs, fewer in-hospital complications and faster recovery (all P < 0.05). Subgroup 1a showed faster surgical recovery than that of subgroup 1b (all P < 0.05). There was no difference in 5-year overall survival between groups 1 and 2 [87.1% (95% CI, 80.7-91.5%) vs. 87.1% (95% CI, 80.8-91.4%), P = 0.7420].

CONCLUSIONS

The FTMDT model, which integrates laparoscopic surgery, fast-track treatment, and XELOX chemotherapy, was the superior model for enhancing the recovery of Chinese patients with colorectal cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01080547 , registered on March 4, 2010.

Laparoscopic surgery contributes more to nutritional and immunologic recovery than fast-track care in colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Many clinical trials had repeatedly shown that fast-track perioperative care and laparoscopic surgery are both preferred in the treatment of colorectal cancer. But few studies were designed to explore the diverse biochemical impacts of the two counterparts on human immunologic and nutritional status.

METHODS

Ninety-two cases of colorectal cancer patients meeting the inclusion criteria were randomized to four groups: laparoscopy with fast-track treatment (LAFT); open surgery with fast-track treatment (OSFT); laparoscopy with conventional treatment (LAC); open surgery with conventional treatment (OSC). Peripheral blood tests including nutritional factors (albumin, prealbumin, and transferrin), humoral immunologic factors (IgG, IgM, and IgA), and cellular immunologic factors (T and NK cells) were evaluated. Blood samples were collected preoperatively (baseline) and 12 and 96 h after surgery (indicated as POH12 and POH96, respectively).

RESULTS

Albumin, transferrin, prealbumin, and IgG levels were the highest in the LAFT group for both POH12 and POH96 time intervals. Repeated measures (two-way ANOVA) indicated that the difference of albumin, transferrin, and IgG level were attributed to surgery type (P < 0.05) and not perioperative treatment (P > 0.05). Only in the laparoscopy-included groups, the relative albumin and IgG levels of POH96 were obviously higher than that of POH12.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery accelerated postoperative nutrition and immune levels rising again while fast-track treatment retarded the drop of postoperative nutrition and immune levels. Laparoscopic surgery might play a more important role than fast-track treatment in the earlier postoperative recovery of nutritional and immunologic status. Combined laparoscopic surgery with fast-track treatment provided best postoperative recovery of nutrition and immune status. These results should be further compared with the clinical outcomes of our FTMDT trial (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01080547).

Systematic review and meta-analysis of enhanced recovery programmes in surgical patients

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery programmes (ERPs) have been developed over the past 10 years to improve patient outcomes and to accelerate recovery after surgery. The existing literature focuses on specific specialties, mainly colorectal surgery. The aim of this review was to investigate whether the effect of ERPs on patient outcomes varies across surgical specialties or with the design of individual programmes.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to January 2013 for randomized or quasi-randomized trials comparing ERPs with standard care in adult elective surgical patients.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight trials were included in the review, with a total of 5099 participants. Study design and quality was poor. Meta-analyses showed that ERPs reduced the primary length of stay (standardized mean difference -1·14 (95 per cent confidence interval -1·45 to -0·85)) and reduced the risk of all complications within 30 days (risk ratio (RR) 0·71, 95 per cent c.i. 0·60 to 0·86). There was no evidence of a reduction in mortality (RR 0·69, 95 per cent c.i. 0·34 to 1·39), major complications (RR 0·95, 0·69 to 1·31) or readmission rates (RR 0·96, 0·59 to 1·58). The impact of ERPs was similar across specialties and there was no consistent evidence that elements included within ERPs affected patient outcomes.

CONCLUSION

ERPs are effective in reducing length of hospital stay and overall complication rates across surgical specialties. It was not possible to identify individual components that improved outcome. Qualitative synthesis may be more appropriate to investigate the determinants of success.

Enhanced recovery after elective colorectal resection outside a strict fast-track protocol. A single centre experience

INTRODUCTION

Optimising the management of hospitalised patients is a major concern. In colorectal surgery, the concept of enhanced recovery has been popularised by means of "fast-track" protocols, aiming at patient's discharge on the second postoperative day. Nevertheless, a strict fast-track protocol has several limitations. It is very demanding for the patient and therefore applicable only to a limited number of patients.

AIM

In order to optimise, in every aspect, the postoperative recovery of each patient undergoing an elective colorectal resection inside our institution, we set up a "soft" enhanced recovery programme.

MATERIAL-METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted in 92 patients evaluating the respective impact of protocol application throughout the duration of the hospital stay.

RESULTS

When all the required measures of our protocol were correctly implemented, the median discharge day was postoperative day 3 (range 3-5 days). On the contrary, when deviations occurred, they resulted in longer hospital stay (p < 0.001). Patients operated by laparoscopy were discharged earlier than patients operated by laparotomy (p < 0.001). The use of nasogastric tube and postoperative drainage prolonged significantly the length of stay (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001 respectively). When the urinary catheter was not removed or oral feeding not resumed on postoperative day 1, the patients were discharged later (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

There are substantial possibilities of optimising the recovery process after an elective colorectal resection, outside a strict fast-track protocol.