Postponing surgery to optimise patients with acute right-sided obstructing colon cancer - A pilot study

BACKGROUND

Right-sided obstructing colon cancer is most often treated with acute resection. Recent studies on right-sided obstructing colon cancer report higher mortality and morbidity rates than those in patients without obstruction. The aim of this study is to retrospectively analyse whether it is possible to optimise the health condition of patients with acute right-sided obstructing colon cancer, prior to surgery, and whether this improves postoperative outcomes.

METHOD

All consecutive patients with high suspicion of, or histologically proven, right-sided obstructing colon cancer, treated with curative intent between March 2013 and December 2019, were analysed retrospectively. Patients were divided into two groups: optimised group and non-optimised group. Pre-operative optimisation included additional nutrition, physiotherapy, and, if needed, bowel decompression.

RESULTS

In total, 54 patients were analysed in this study. Twenty-four patients received optimisation before elective surgery, and thirty patients received emergency surgery, without optimisation. Scheduled surgery was performed after a median of eight days (IQR 7-12). Postoperative complications were found in twelve (50%) patients in the optimised group, compared to twenty-three (77%) patients in the non-optimised group (p = 0.051). Major complications were diagnosed in three (13%) patients with optimisation, compared to ten (33%) patients without optimisation (p = 0.111). Postoperative in-hospital stay, 30-day mortality, as well as primary anastomosis were comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSION

This pilot study suggests that pre-operative optimisation of patients with obstructing right sided colonic cancer may be feasible and safe but is associated with longer in-patient stay.

Self-expandable metallic stent as bridge to surgery vs. emergency resection in obstructive right-sided colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Emergency resection is common for malignant right-sided obstructive colon cancer. As there is evidence showing a potential benefit of self-expandable metal stents as a bridge to surgery, a new debate has been initiated.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare self-expandable metal stents with emergency resection in right-sided obstructive colon cancer.

DATA SOURCE

A systematic search was conducted accessing Medline/PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies reporting either emergency surgery or stent placement in right-sided obstructive colon cancer were included.

INTERVENTION

Stent or emergency resection in right-sided obstructive colon cancer.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Morbidity rate, mortality rate, stoma rate, laparoscopic resection rate, anastomotic insufficiency rate, success rate of stent.

RESULTS

A total of 6343 patients from 16 publications were analyzed. The stent success rate was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.87 to 0.95) with perforation of 0.03 (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.06). Emergency resection was performed laparoscopically at a rate of 0.15 (95% CI, 0.09 to 0.24). Primary anastomosis rate in emergency resection was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.91 to 0.97) with an anastomotic insufficiency rate of 0.07 (95% CI, 0.04 to 0.11). The mortality rate after emergency resection was 0.05 (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.09). Primary anastomosis and anastomotic insufficiency rate were similar between the two groups (RR: 1.02; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.1; p = 0.56 and RR: 0.53; 95% CI, 0.14 to 1.93; p = 0.33). The mortality rate in emergency resection was higher compared to stent (RR: 0.51, 95% CI 0.30 to 10.89, p = 0.016).

LIMITATION

No randomized controlled trials are available.

CONCLUSION

Stent is a safe and successful alternative to emergency resection and may increase the rate of minimally invasive surgery. Emergency resection, however, remains safe and did not result in higher rate of anastomotic insufficiency. Further high-quality comparative studies are warranted to assess long-term outcomes.

Risk factors for a permanent stoma after resection of left-sided obstructive colon cancer - A prediction model

INTRODUCTION

In patients with left-sided obstructive colon cancer (LSOCC), a stoma is often constructed as part of primary treatment, but with a considerable risk of becoming a permanent stoma (PS). The aim of this retrospective multicentre cohort is to identify risk factors for a PS in LSOCC and to develop a pre- and postoperative prediction model for PS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data was retrospectively obtained from 75 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients who had curative resection of LSOCC between January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2016 were included with a minimum follow-up of 6 months after resection. The interventions analysed were emergency resection, decompressing stoma or stent as bridge-to-elective resection. Main outcome measure was presence of PS at the end of follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for PS at primary presentation (T₀) and after resection, in patients having a stoma in situ (T₁). These risk factors were used to construct a web-based prediction tool.

RESULTS

Of 2099 patients included in the study (T₀), 779 had a PS (37%). A total of 1275 patients had a stoma in situ directly after resection (T₁), of whom 674 had a PS (53%). Median follow-up was 34 months. Multivariable analysis showed that older patients, female sex, high ASA-score and open approach were independent predictors for PS in both the T₀ and T₁ population. Other predictors at T₀ were sigmoid location, low Hb, high CRP, cM1 stage, and emergency resection. At T₁, subtotal colectomy, no primary anastomosis, not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy and high pTNM stage were additional predictors. Two predictive models were built, with an AUC of 0.74 for T₀ and an AUC of 0.81 for T₁.

CONCLUSIONS

PS is seen in 37% of the patients who have resection of LSOCC. In patients with a stoma in situ directly after resection, 53% PS are seen due to non-reversal. Not only baseline characteristics, but also treatment strategies determine the risk of a PS in patients with LSOCC. The developed predictive models will give physicians insight in the role of the individual variables on the risk of a PS and help in informing the patient about the probability of a PS.

Comparison of the prognosis of four different treatment strategies for acute left malignant colonic obstruction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

There is controversy regarding the efficacy of different treatment strategies for acute left malignant colonic obstruction. This study investigated the 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of several treatment strategies for acute left malignant colonic obstruction.

Methods

We searched for articles published in PubMed, Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), Web of Science, and Cochrane Library between January 1, 2000, and July 1, 2020. We screened out the literature comparing different treatment strategies. Evaluate the primary and secondary outcomes of different treatment strategies. The network meta-analysis summarizes the hazard ratio, odds ratio, mean difference, and its 95% confidence interval.

Results

The network meta-analysis involved 48 articles, including 8 (randomized controlled trials) RCTs and 40 non-RCTs. Primary outcomes: the 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of the CS-BTS strategy and the DS-BTS strategy were significantly better than those of the ES strategy, and the 5-year OS of the DS-BTS strategy was significantly better than that of CS-BTS. The long-term survival of TCT-BTS was not significantly different from those of CS-BTS and ES. Secondary outcomes: compared with emergency resection (ER) strategies, colonic stent-bridge to surgery (CS-BTS) and transanal colorectal tube-bridge to surgery (TCT-BTS) strategies can significantly increase the primary anastomosis rate, CS-BTS and decompressing stoma-bridge to surgery (DS-BTS) strategies can significantly reduce mortality, and CS-BTS strategies can significantly reduce the permanent stoma rate. The hospital stay of DS-BTS is significantly longer than that of other strategies. There was no significant difference in the anastomotic leakage levels of several treatment strategies.

Conclusion

Comprehensive literature research, we find that CS-BTS and DS-BTS strategies can bring better 5-year OS and DFS than ER. DS-BTS strategies have a better 5-year OS than CS-BTS strategies. Without considering the hospital stays, DS-BTS strategy is the best choice.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13017-021-00355-2.

Emergency resection surgery for colorectal cancer: Patterns of recurrent disease and survival

AIM

To evaluate prognostic pathological factors associated with early metachronous disease and adverse long-term survival in these patients.

METHODS

Clinical and histological features were analysed retrospectively over an eight-year period for prognostic impact on recurrent disease and overall survival in patients undergoing curative resection of a primary colorectal cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 266 patients underwent curative surgery during the study period. The median age of the study cohort was 68 year (range 26 to 91) with a follow-up of 7.9 years (range 4.6 to 12.6). Resection was undertaken electively in 225 (84.6%) patients and emergency resection in 35 (13.2%). Data on timing of surgery was missing in 6 patients. Recurrence was noted in 67 (25.2%) during the study period and was predominantly early within 3 years (82.1%) and involved hepatic metastasis in 73.1%. Emergency resection (OR = 3.60, P = 0.001), T4 stage (OR = 4.33, P < 0.001) and lymphovascular invasion (LVI) (OR = 2.37, P = 0.032) were associated with higher risk of recurrent disease. Emergency resection, T4 disease and a high lymph node ratio (LNR) were strong independent predictors of adverse long-term survival.

CONCLUSION

Emergency surgery is associated with adverse disease free and long-term survival. T4 disease, LVI and LNR provide strong independent predictive value of long-term outcome and can inform surveillance strategies to improve outcomes.

Emergency surgery for colorectal cancer does not affect nodal harvest comparing elective procedures: a propensity score-matched analysis

PURPOSE

About 30% of colorectal cancers (CRCs) present with acute symptoms. The adequacy of oncologic resections is a matter of concern since few authors reported that emergency surgery in these patients results in a lower lymph node harvest (LNH). In addition, emergency resections have been reported with a longer hospital stay and higher morbidity rate. We thus conducted a propensity score-matched analysis with the aim of investigating LNH in emergency specimens comparing with elective ones. Secondary aim was the comparison of morbidity and hospital stay.

METHODS

Eighty-seven consecutive R0 emergency surgical procedures were matched with elective CRCs using the propensity score method and the following covariates: age, sex, stage, and localization. Groups were compared using univariate and multivariate analyses. Outcome measures were LNH, nodal ratio, Clavien's morbidity grades, and hospital stay.

RESULTS

Emergency patients presented more metastatic nodes compared with elective ones (p 0.017); however, both presented a comparable mean LNH. Multivariate analysis documented that a T stage ≥3 was the only variable correlated with a nodal positivity (OR 6.3). On univariate analysis, emergency CRCs had a longer mean hospital stay compared with elective resections (p 0.006) and a higher rate of Clavien ≥4 events (p 0.0173). Finally, emergency resection and an age >66 years were variables independently correlated with a mean hospital stay >10 days (OR, respectively, 3.7 and 3.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency CRC resections were equivalent to the elective procedures with respect to LNH. However, emergency surgery correlated with a longer mean hospital stay. Graphical abstract Emergency and Elective resections for CRC provide similar LNH.

Emergency management with resection versus proximal stoma or stent treatment and planned resection in malignant left-sided colon obstruction

Background

Emergency surgery for colon cancer, as a result of obstruction, has been vitiated by a high frequency of complications and poor survival. The concept of “bridge to surgery” includes either placement of self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS) or diverting stoma of an obstructing tumour and subsequent planned resection. The aim of this study was to compare acute resection with stoma or stent and later resection regarding surgical and oncological outcomes and total hospital stay.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study. All 2424 patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer during 1997–2013 were reviewed. All whom underwent acute surgery with curative intention for left-sided malignant obstruction were included in the study.

Results

One hundred patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Among them, 57 patients were treated with acute resection and 43 with planned resection after either acute diverting colostomy (n = 23) or stent placement (n = 20). The number of harvested lymph nodes in the resected specimen was higher in the planned resection group compared with acute resection group (21 vs. 8.7; p = 0.001). Fewer patients were treated with adjuvant chemotherapy in the acute resection group than in the stoma group (14 % (8/57 patients) vs. 43 %, (10/23 patients; p = 0.024)). Patients operated with acute resection had a higher 30-day mortality rate and were more frequently left with a permanent stoma.

Conclusions

Decompression of emergency obstructive left colon cancer with stent or stoma and subsequent curative resection appears safer and results in a higher yield of lymph node harvest, and fewer patients are left with a permanent stoma.