Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of surgical delays on short- and long-term survival among colon cancer patients. METHODS:Adult patients undergoing surgery for stage I, II, or III colon cancer were identified from the National Cancer Database (2010-2016). After categorization by wait times from diagnosis to surgery (<1 week, 1-3 weeks, 3-6 weeks, 6-9 weeks, 9-12 weeks, and >12 weeks), 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, and 5-year overall survival were compared between patients both overall and after stratification by pathological disease stage. RESULTS:< .001 for all). Subgroup analysis after stratification by disease stage demonstrated that patients with stage III colon cancer were able to wait up to 9 weeks before exhibiting worse 5-year overall survival, compared to 6 weeks for patients with stage I or II disease. CONCLUSIONS:Colon cancer patients should undergo surgery 3-6 weeks after diagnosis, as all surgical delays beyond 6 weeks were associated with worse 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, and 5-year overall survival.

BACKGROUND:Preoperative steroid use has been associated with worse surgical outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine whether laparoscopic surgery reduces the risk of septic shock/sepsis among ulcerative colitis patients with preoperative chronic steroid use. METHODS:Patients with ulcerative colitis undergoing a total abdominal colectomy were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database (2005-2019). Patients were stratified based on preoperative chronic steroid use and operative approach (open versus laparoscopic). The primary outcome was septic shock/sepsis. Multivariable regression models were used to assess the association between laparoscopic surgery and rates of septic shock/sepsis among steroid users and non-steroid users in both the elective and emergent settings. RESULTS:Among 8,644 patients undergoing a total abdominal colectomy, 67.1% were steroid users and 32.9% were non-steroid users. Compared with an open approach, elective laparoscopic surgery was associated with lower rates of septic shock/sepsis, albeit with higher readmission rates for both steroid users (15.1% [laparoscopic] vs 12.0% [open], P = .005) and non-steroid users (12.6% [laparoscopic] vs 9.4% [open], P = .019). On adjusted analysis, ulcerative colitis patients with chronic steroid use undergoing an elective laparoscopic total abdominal colectomy demonstrated a reduced risk of septic shock/sepsis compared to open surgery (odds ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.49-0.76, P < .001). Similar findings were seen among chronic steroid users undergoing emergent laparoscopic procedures (odds ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.31-0.95, P = .031). CONCLUSION:Laparoscopic surgery was associated with a reduced risk of septic shock/sepsis among ulcerative colitis patients with preoperative chronic steroid use, suggesting that minimally invasive surgery may be a promising option among this unique patient population.

AIM:Depression is a prevalent disorder that is associated with adverse health outcomes, but an understanding of its effect in colorectal surgery remains limited. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of history of depression among patients undergoing colectomy. METHOD:United States patients from Marketscan (2010-2017) who underwent colectomy were included and stratified by whether they had a history of depression within the past year, defined as (1) a diagnosis of depression during the index admission, (2) a diagnosis of depression during any inpatient or (3) outpatient admission within the year, and/or (4) a pharmacy claim for an antidepressant within the year. The primary outcomes were length of stay (LOS) and inpatient hospital charge. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality and postoperative complications. Logistic, negative binomial, and quantile regressions were performed. RESULTS:Among 88 981 patients, 21 878 (24.6%) had a history of depression. Compared to those without, patients with a history of depression had significantly longer LOS (IRR = 1.06, 95% CI [1.05, 1.07]), increased inpatient charge (β = 467, 95% CI [167, 767]), and increased odds of in-hospital mortality (OR = 1.37, 95% CI [1.08, 1.73]) after adjustment. History of depression was also independently associated with increased odds of respiratory complication, pneumonia, and delirium (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSION:History of depression was prevalent among individuals undergoing colectomy, and associated with greater mortality and inpatient charge, longer LOS, and higher odds of postoperative complication. These findings highlight the impact of depression in colorectal surgery patients and suggest that proper identification and treatment may reduce postoperative morbidity.

BACKGROUND:Rectal cancer treatment is often multimodal, comprising of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. However, the impact of coordination between these modalities is currently unknown. We aimed to assess whether delivery of nonsurgical therapy within same facility as surgery impacts survival in patients with rectal cancer. METHODS:A patient cohort with rectal cancer stages II to IV who received multimodal treatment between 2004 and 2016 from National Cancer Database was retrospectively analyzed. Patients were categorized into three groups: (A) surgery + chemotherapy + radiotherapy at same facility (surgery + 2); (B) surgery + chemotherapy or radiotherapy at same facility (surgery + 1); or (C) only surgery at reporting facility (chemotherapy + radiotherapy elsewhere; surgery + 0). The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival (OS), analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, and Cox proportional-hazards models. RESULTS:A total of 44,716 patients (16,985 [37.98%] surgery + 2, 12,317 [27.54%] surgery + 1, and 15,414 [34.47%] surgery + 0) were included. In univariate analysis, we observed that surgery+2 patients had significantly greater 5-year OS compared to surgery + 1 or surgery + 0 patients (5-year OS: 63.46% vs 62.50% vs 61.41%, respectively; P= .002). We observed similar results in multivariable Cox proportional-hazards analysis, with surgery + 0 group demonstrating increased hazard of mortality when compared to surgery + 2 group (HR: 1.09; P< .001). These results held true after stratification by stage for stage II (HR 1.10; P= .022) and stage III (HR 1.12; P< .001) but not for stage IV (P= .474). CONCLUSION:Greater degree of care coordination within the same facility is associated with greater OS in patients with stage II to III rectal cancer. This finding illustrates the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration in multimodal rectal cancer therapy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW:This review aims to clarify the current role of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer, highlighting short- and long-term outcomes from the latest trials and studies. RECENT FINDINGS:Data from previous trials has been conflicting, with some failing to demonstrate non-inferiority of laparoscopic surgical resection of rectal cancer compared to an open approach and others demonstrating similar clinical outcomes. Robot-assisted surgery was thought to be a promising solution to the challenges faced by laparoscopic surgery, and even though the only randomized controlled trial to date comparing these two techniques did not show superiority of robot-assisted surgery over laparoscopy, more recent retrospective data suggests a statistically significant higher negative circumferential resection margin rate, decreased frequency of conversion to open, and less sexual and urinary complications. Minimally invasive surgery techniques for resection of rectal cancer, particularly robot-assisted, offer clear short-term peri-operative benefits over an open approach; however, current data has yet to display non-inferiority in terms of oncological outcomes.

INTRODUCTION:The increased use of minimally invasive surgery in the management of colorectal cancer has led to a renewed focus on how certain factors, such as insurance status, impact the equitable distribution of both laparoscopic and robotic surgery. Our goal was to analyze surgical wait times between robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches, and to determine whether insurance status impacts timely access to treatment. METHODS:After IRB approval, adult patients from the National Cancer Database with a diagnosis of colorectal cancer were identified (2010-2016). Patients who underwent radiation therapy, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, had wait times of 0 days from diagnosis to surgery, or had metastatic disease were excluded. Primary outcomes were days from cancer diagnosis to surgery and days from surgery to adjuvant chemotherapy. Multivariable Poisson regression analysis was performed. RESULTS:Among 324,784 patients, 5.9% underwent robotic, 47.5% laparoscopic, and 46.7% open surgery. Patients undergoing robotic surgery incurred the longest wait times from diagnosis to surgery (29.5 days [robotic] vs. 21.7 [laparoscopic] vs. 17.2 [open], p < 0.001), but the shortest wait times from surgery to adjuvant chemotherapy (48.9 days [robotic] vs. 49.9 [laparoscopic] vs. 54.8 [open], p < 0.001). On adjusted analysis, robotic surgery was associated with a 1.46 × longer wait time to surgery (IRR 1.462, 95% CI 1.458-1.467, p < 0.001), but decreased wait time to adjuvant chemotherapy (IRR 0.909, 95% CI 0.905-0.913, p < 0.001) compared to an open approach. Private insurance was associated with decreased wait times to surgery (IRR 0.966, 95% CI 0.962-0.969, p < 0.001) and adjuvant chemotherapy (IRR 0.862, 95% CI 0.858-0.865, p < 0.001) compared to Medicaid. CONCLUSION:Though patients undergoing robotic surgery experienced delays from diagnosis to surgery, they tended to initiate adjuvant chemotherapy sooner compared to those undergoing open or laparoscopic approaches. Private insurance was independently associated not only with access to robotic surgery, but also shorter wait times during all stages of treatment.

BACKGROUND:Depression has been linked to increased morbidity and mortality in patients after surgery. The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of documented depression diagnosis on in-hospital postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing colorectal surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients from the National Inpatient Sample (2002-2017) who underwent proctectomies and colectomies were included. The outcomes measured included total hospital charge, length of stay, delirium, wound infection, urinary tract infection (UTI), pneumonia, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, mortality, paralytic ileus, leak, and discharge trends. Multivariable logistic and Poisson regression analyses were performed. RESULTS:Of the 4,212,125 patients, depression diagnosis was present in 6.72% of patients who underwent colectomy and 6.54% of patients who underwent proctectomy. Regardless of procedure type, patients with depression had higher total hospital charges and greater rates of delirium, wound infection, UTI, leak, and nonroutine discharge, with no difference in length of stay. On adjusted analysis, patients with a depression diagnosis who underwent colectomies had increased risk of delirium (odds ratio (OR) 2.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.93-2.32), wound infection (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.03-1.12), UTI (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.10-1.20), paralytic ileus (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.03-1.09), and leak (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.30-1.43). Patients who underwent proctectomy showed similar results, with the addition of significantly increased total hospital charges among the depression group. Depression diagnosis was independently associated with lower risk of in-hospital mortality (colectomy OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.53-0.62; proctectomy OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55-0.94). CONCLUSIONS:Patients with a diagnosis of depression suffer worse in-hospital outcomes but experience lower risk of in-hospital mortality after undergoing colorectal surgery. Further studies are needed to validate and fully understand the driving factors behind this.

BACKGROUND:There is a strong association between hospital volume and surgical outcomes in resectable colorectal cancer. The purpose of our study was to investigate the association between hospital facility type and survival of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS:Adults from the National Cancer Database (2010-2015) with a primary diagnosis of colorectal metastases were included and stratified by facility type: community cancer program, comprehensive community cancer program, and academic/research program. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival, analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves, log-rank test, and the Cox proportional hazards regression model. RESULTS:Among the 52,958 included patients, 13.72% were treated at a community cancer program, 49.89% at a comprehensive community cancer program, and 36.29% at an academic/research program. A significant increase in the proportion of patients being treated in an academic/research program has been observed from 2010 to 2015. An academic/research program tended to use more chemotherapy with colorectal radical resection and liver or lung resection and immunotherapy with chemotherapy. In adjusted analysis, the academic/research program had decreased risk of mortality in comparison to the community cancer program and the comprehensive community cancer program (hazard ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.86-0.94; 0.87, 0.85-0.90; each P < .001; respectively). Similar results were seen after stratifying by metastatic site and treatment type. CONCLUSION:The prognosis and overall survival of patients with metastatic disease is better in an academic/research program compared with a community cancer program or a comprehensive community cancer program, with this difference persisting across sites of metastatic disease and treatment types. Further studies are required to validate these results and investigate disparities in the management of metastatic colorectal cancer.

AIM:The objective was to assess the effect of three different surgical treatments for T1 rectal tumours, radical resection (RR), open local excision (open LE) and laparoscopic local excision (laparoscopic LE), on overall survival (OS). METHODS:Adults from the National Cancer Database (2008-2016) with a diagnosis of T1 rectal cancer were stratified by treatment type (LE vs RR). We assumed that laparoscopic LE equates to transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) or transanal endoscopic microsurgery. The primary outcome was 5-year OS. Subgroup analyses of the LE group stratified by time period [2008-2010 (before TAMIS) vs 2011-2016 (after TAMIS)] and approach (laparoscopic vs open) were performed. RESULTS:Among 10 053 patients, 6623 (65.88%) underwent LE (74.33% laparoscopic LE vs 25.67% open LE) and 3430 (34.12%) RR. The use of LE increased from 52.69% in 2008 to 69.47% in 2016, whereas RR decreased (P < 0.001). In unadjusted analysis, there was no significant difference in 5-year OS between the LE and RR groups (P = 0.639) and between the two LE time periods (P = 0.509), which was consistent with the adjusted analysis (LE vs RR, hazard ratio 1.05, 95% CI 0.92-1.20, P = 0.468; 2008-2010 LE vs 2011-2016 LE, hazard ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.92-1.29, P = 0.321). Laparoscopic LE was associated with improved OS in the unadjusted analysis only (P = 0.006), compared to the open LE group (hazard ratio 0.94, 95% CI 0.78-1.12, P = 0.495). CONCLUSIONS:This study supports the use of a LE approach for T1 rectal tumours as a strategy to reduce surgical morbidity without compromising survival.