Is there a link between appendicitis and the risk of diverticular disease?: a large German cohort study

PURPOSE

Appendicitis, characterized by inflammation of the vermiform appendix, is a common abdominal emergency necessitating appendectomy. Recent evidence suggests a potential link between appendicitis and subsequent diverticular disease, yet population-based studies investigating this association are limited.

METHODS

Utilizing the Disease Analyzer database encompassing data from over 1000 primary care practices in Germany, we conducted a retrospective cohort study. We included 25,379 adults diagnosed with appendicitis and an equal number of matched controls without appendicitis. The incidence of diverticular disease over a 10-year follow-up period was compared between the two cohorts. Cox regression analysis was performed to assess the association between appendicitis and diverticular disease, adjusting for potential confounders.

RESULTS

Our findings revealed a significant association between appendicitis and subsequent diverticular disease (HR: 1.76; 95% CI: 1.57-1.97), with an increased risk observed across all age groups. Notably, this association was stronger in men (HR: 2.00; 95% CI: 1.68-2.37) than in women (HR: 1.58; 95% CI: 1.36-1.84). The cumulative 10-year incidence of diverticular disease was higher in patients with appendicitis (6.5%) compared to those without (3.6%). Additionally, we observed a clear age-dependent increase in the incidence of diverticular disease.

CONCLUSION

This large-scale population-based study provides valuable insights into the interaction between appendicitis and diverticular disease. The study underscores the need for further research elucidating the underlying mechanisms linking appendicitis to diverticular disease. Probiotics emerge as a potential therapeutic avenue warranting exploration in the management of both conditions. These findings have important implications for clinical practice, highlighting the importance of considering appendicitis as a potential risk factor for diverticular disease, particularly in men. Further investigation is warranted to validate these findings and explore potential therapeutic interventions targeting the shared pathophysiological pathways underlying both conditions.

Outcome Quality After Colorectal Cancer Resection in Certified Colorectal Cancer Centers–Patient-Reported and Short-Term Clinical Outcomes

BACKGROUND

In this observational study, patient-reported outcomes and short-term clinical outcome parameters in patients with colorectal cancer were studied 12 months after the start of treatment. Outcomes were also compared across German Certified Colorectal Cancer Centres.

METHODS

Data were collected from 4239 patients with colorectal cancer who had undergone elective tumor resection in one of 102 colorectal cancer centers and had responded to a quality-of-life questionnaire before treatment (EORTC QLQ-C30 and -CR29). 3142 (74.1%) of these patients completed a post-treatment questionnaire 12 months later. Correlation analyses were calculated and case-mix adjusted comparisons across centers were made for selected patient-reported outcomes, anastomotic insufficiency, and 30-day-mortality.

RESULTS

At 12 months, mild improvements were seen in mean quality-of-life scores (66 vs. 62 points), constipation (16 vs. 19), and abdominal pain (15 vs. 17). Worsening was seen in physical function (75 vs. 82) and pain (22 vs. 19). Better patient-reported outcomes at 12 months were associated with better scores before treatment. Better results in at least three of the five scores were associated with male sex, higher educational level, higher age, and private health insurance. Major worsening of fecal incontinence was seen among patients with rectal cancer without a stoma. The largest differences across centers were found with respect to physical function. Anastomotic insufficiency was found in 4.3% of colon cancer patients and 8.2% of rectal cancer patients. 1.9% of patients died within 30 days after their resection.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians can use these findings to identify patients at higher risk for poorer patient-reported outcomes. The differences among cancer centers that were found imply that measures for quality improvement would be desirable.