Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of his study was to report on a cohort of patients managed with nonoperative management (NOM) with a watch-and-wait strategy after achieving complete response (CR) to sequential short-course radiation therapy (SCRT) and consolidation chemotherapy. METHODS:This was a retrospective study of patients treated SCRT and chemotherapy who achieved a CR and were managed with NOM. Bowel function was assessed with European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30, EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Colorectal Cancer 29, and the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) questionnaires. Endpoints included overall survival (OS), freedom from local failure (FFLF), freedom from distant metastasis, and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS:Twenty-six patients met inclusion criteria. Seven (26.9%) patients developed local failure at a median of 6.8 months following CR, of which 5 were successfully salvaged. Median FFLF was not reached, with 6-month, 1-, and 2-year FFLF rates of 100.0%, 82.3%, and 71.3%. Median OS was not reached, with 6-month, 1-, and 2-year OS rates of 100%. Median DFS was not reached, with 6-month, 1-, and 2-year DFS rates of 100%, 95.0%, and 89.4%. Questionnaire response rate was 83.3%. Median LARS score was 27. Major, minor, and no LARS occurred in 3 (20%), 6 (40%), and 6 (40%) patients, respectively. There were no differences in questionnaire scores between patients who had the majority of their anal sphincter complex irradiated and those who did not. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:NOM with a watch-and-wait strategy is safe and feasible in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who achieve CR after sequential SCRT and chemotherapy, with evidence for good anorectal function.

BACKGROUND:Readmission after ileostomy creation in colorectal surgery patients creates a significant burden on healthcare cost and patient quality of care, with a 30-day readmission rate noted to be as high as 40%. OBJECTIVE:This study aims to evaluate the implementation of our perioperative quality improvement Decreasing Readmissions After Ileostomy Creation Program. DESIGN/METHODS:Perioperative interventions were administered to patients who underwent ileostomy creation. SETTING/METHODS:This was a single tertiary care academic center. PATIENTS/METHODS:There were 80 patients participated in this program from February 2020 to January 2021. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:The primary outcomes measured were 30-day readmission rates and causes of readmission, which were compared to a historical national database. Descriptive statistics were utilized to evaluate the effectiveness of this quality improvement program. RESULTS:Eighty patients were enrolled in this prospective quality improvement program. The mean age was 52 (± 15.06) years. The most common indication for patients undergoing creation of an ileostomy was colorectal cancer (40%, n = 32). The overall 30-day readmission rate was 8.75% (n = 7) throughout the study period which was significantly lower than historical cohort data (20.10%, p = 0.01). Among the 7 readmitted patients, three (3.75%) were readmitted due to dehydration. The most significant associated risk factor for all-cause readmission was urgent/emergent operative status, which was associated with an increased risk of readmission (p = 0.01). The three readmitted patients with dehydration had an average Dehydration Readmission after Ileostomy Prediction risk score of 11.71 points, compared to non-dehydrated patients, who did not require readmission (mean, 9.59 points, p = 0.38). LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:This study is limited by its small sample size (n = 80). CONCLUSIONS:The Decreasing Readmissions After Ileostomy Creation Program has been successful in reducing both the all-cause readmission rate and readmission due to dehydration both within an academic tertiary care referral center and in comparison to historical readmission rates. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B894.

BACKGROUND:The worsening opioid epidemic has led to an increased number of surgical patients with chronic preoperative opioid use. However, the impact of opioids on perioperative outcomes has yet to be fully elucidated. The purpose of this study was to assess the association between preoperative opioid dose and surgical outcomes among colectomy patients. METHODS:Adult colectomy patients in the IBM MarketScan database (2010-2017) were stratified based on preoperative opioid dose, calculated as the average opioid dose in morphine milligram equivalents (MME) in the 90 days prior to surgery: 0 MME, 1 to 49 MME, and 50 or more MME. The association between preoperative opioid dose and anastomotic leak, the primary outcome of interest, as well as other postoperative complications, was assessed using multivariable regression. RESULTS:Among 45,515 adult colectomy patients, 71.4% did not use opioids (0 MME), 27.4% had an opioid dose between 1 and 49 MME, and 1.2% had an opioid dose at or above 50 MME. Patients with preoperative opioid use exhibited a higher incidence of anastomotic leak (0 MME: 4.8%, 1-49 MME: 5.5%, ≥50 MME: 8.3%; p trend = 0.001). Multivariable analysis demonstrated a dose-response relationship between preoperative opioids and surgical outcomes, as the odds of anastomotic leak worsened with increasing opioid dose (1-49 MME: OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.08-1.31, p < 0.001; ≥50 MME: OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.20-2.24, p = 0.002). Similar dose-response relationships were seen after risk-adjustment for lung complications, pneumonia, delirium, and 30-day readmission (p < 0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS:Providers should exercise caution when prescribing opioids preoperatively, as increasing doses of preoperative opioids were associated with worse surgical outcomes and higher 30-day readmission among adult colectomy patients.

BACKGROUND:A resection with clear margins (R0 resection) is the most important prognostic factor in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). However, this is achieved in only 60 per cent of patients. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the addition of induction chemotherapy to neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation improves the R0 resection rate in LRRC. METHODS:This multicentre, international, open-label, phase III, parallel-arms study will enrol 364 patients with resectable LRRC after previous partial or total mesorectal resection without synchronous distant metastases or recent chemo- and/or radiotherapy treatment. Patients will be randomized to receive either induction chemotherapy (three 3-week cycles of CAPOX (capecitabine, oxaliplatin), four 2-week cycles of FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin) or FOLFORI (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan)) followed by neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery (experimental arm) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery alone (control arm). Tumours will be restaged using MRI and, in the experimental arm, a further cycle of CAPOX or two cycles of FOLFOX/FOLFIRI will be administered before chemoradiotherapy in case of stable or responsive disease. The radiotherapy dose will be 25 × 2.0 Gy or 28 × 1.8 Gy in radiotherapy-naive patients, and 15 × 2.0 Gy in previously irradiated patients. The concomitant chemotherapy agent will be capecitabine administered twice daily at a dose of 825 mg/m2 on radiotherapy days. The primary endpoint of the study is the R0 resection rate. Secondary endpoints are long-term oncological outcomes, radiological and pathological response, toxicity, postoperative complications, costs, and quality of life. DISCUSSION:This trial protocol describes the PelvEx II study. PelvEx II, designed as a multicentre, open-label, phase III, parallel-arms study, is the first randomized study to compare induction chemotherapy followed by neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation and surgery with neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation and surgery alone in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer, with the aim of improving the number of R0 resections.

BACKGROUND:The multidisciplinary perioperative and anaesthetic management of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration is essential for good surgical outcomes. No clear guidelines have been established, and there is wide variation in clinical practice internationally. This consensus statement consolidates clinical experience and best practice collectively, and systematically addresses key domains in the perioperative and anaesthetic management. METHODS:The modified Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus from the PelvEx Collaborative. The process included one round of online questionnaire involving controlled feedback and structured participant response, two rounds of editing, and one round of web-based voting. It was held from December 2019 to February 2020. Consensus was defined as more than 80 per cent agreement, whereas less than 80 per cent agreement indicated low consensus. RESULTS:The final consensus document contained 47 voted statements, across six key domains of perioperative and anaesthetic management in pelvic exenteration, comprising preoperative assessment and preparation, anaesthetic considerations, perioperative management, anticipating possible massive haemorrhage, stress response and postoperative critical care, and pain management. Consensus recommendations were developed, based on consensus agreement achieved on 34 statements. CONCLUSION:The perioperative and anaesthetic management of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration is best accomplished by a dedicated multidisciplinary team with relevant domain expertise in the setting of a specialized tertiary unit. This consensus statement has addressed key domains within the framework of current perioperative and anaesthetic management among patients undergoing pelvic exenteration, with an international perspective, to guide clinical practice, and has outlined areas for future clinical research.

BACKGROUND:Reports suggest that preoperative optimization of a patient's serious comorbidities is associated with a reduction in postoperative complications. OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to assess the cost and benefits of preoperative optimization, accounting for total costs associated with postoperative morbidity. DESIGN:This study is a decision tree cost-effectiveness analysis with probabilistic sensitivity analysis (10,000 iterations). SETTING:This is a hypothetical scenario of stage II colon cancer surgery. PATIENT:The simulated 65-year-old patient has left-sided, stage II colon cancer. INTERVENTION:Focused preoperative optimization targets high-risk comorbidities. OUTCOMES:Total discounted (3%) economic costs (US $2018), effectiveness (quality-adjusted life-years), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, cost/quality-adjusted life-years gained), and net monetary benefit. RESULTS:We calculated the per individual expected health care sector total cost of preoperative optimization and sequelae to be $12,395 versus $15,638 in those not optimized (net monetary benefit: $1.04 million versus $1.05 million). A nonoptimized patient attained an average 0.02 quality-adjusted life-years less than one optimized. Thus, preoperative optimization was the dominant strategy (lower total costs; higher quality-adjusted life-years). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated 100% of simulations favoring preoperative optimization. The breakeven cost of optimization to remain cost-effective was $6421 per patient. LIMITATIONS:Generalizability must account for the lack of standardization among existing preoperative optimization efforts, and decision analysis methodology provides guidance for the average patient or general population, and is not patient-specific. CONCLUSIONS:Although currently not comprehensively reimbursed, focused preoperative optimization may reduce total costs of care while also reducing complications from colon cancer surgery. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B494. EN TODO CASO ANLISIS DE RENTABILIDAD DE LOS ESFUERZOS LIMITADOS DE OPTIMIZACIN PREOPERATORIA ANTES DE LA CIRUGA DE CNCER DE COLON:ANTECEDENTES:Los informes sugieren que la optimización preoperatoria de las comorbilidades graves de un paciente se asocia con una reducción de las complicaciones postoperatorias.OBJETIVO:El propósito de este estudio fue evaluar el costo y los beneficios de la optimización preoperatoria, teniendo en cuenta los costos totales asociados con la morbilidad postoperatoria.DISEÑO:Análisis de costo-efectividad de árbol de decisión con análisis de sensibilidad probabilístico (10,000 iteraciones).AJUSTE ENTORNO CLINICO:Escenario hipotético Cirugía de cáncer de colon en estadio II.PACIENTE:Paciente simulado de 65 años con cáncer de colon en estadio II del lado izquierdo.INTERVENCIÓN:Optimización preoperatoria enfocada dirigida a comorbilidades de alto riesgo.RESULTADOS:Costos económicos totales descontados (3%) (US $ 2018), efectividad (años de vida ajustados por calidad [AVAC]), relación costo-efectividad incremental (ICER, costo / AVAC ganado) y beneficio monetario neto (NMB).RESULTADOS:Calculamos que el costo total esperado por sector de atención médica individual de la optimización preoperatoria y las secuelas es de $ 12,395 versus $ 15,638 en aquellos no optimizados (NMB: $ 1.04 millones versus $ 1.05 millones, respectivamente). Un paciente no optimizado alcanzó un promedio de 0.02 AVAC menos que uno optimizado. Por lo tanto, la optimización preoperatoria fue la estrategia dominante (menores costos totales; mayores AVAC). El análisis de sensibilidad probabilístico demostró que el 100% de las simulaciones favorecían la optimización preoperatoria. El costo de equilibrio de la optimización para seguir siendo rentable fue de $ 6,421 por paciente.LIMITACIONES:La generalización debe tener en cuenta la falta de estandarización entre los esfuerzos de optimización preoperatorios existentes y esa metodología de análisis de decisiones proporciona una guía para el paciente promedio o la población general, no específica del paciente.CONCLUSIONES:Si bien actualmente no se reembolsa de manera integral, la optimización preoperatoria enfocada puede reducir los costos totales de la atención y al mismo tiempo reducir las complicaciones de la cirugía de cáncer de colon. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B494.

BACKGROUND:Indocyanine green fluoroscopy has been shown to improve anastomotic leak rates in early phase trials. OBJECTIVE:We hypothesized that the use of fluoroscopy to ensure anastomotic perfusion may decrease anastomotic leak after low anterior resection. DESIGN:We performed a 1:1 randomized controlled parallel study. Recruitment of 450 to 1000 patients was planned over 2 years. SETTINGS:This was a multicenter trial. PATIENTS:Included patients were those undergoing resection defined as anastomosis within 10 cm of the anal verge. INTERVENTION:Patients underwent standard evaluation of tissue perfusion versus standard in conjunction with perfusion evaluation using indocyanine green fluoroscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Primary outcome was anastomotic leak, with secondary outcomes of perfusion assessment and the rate of postoperative abscess requiring intervention. RESULTS:This study was concluded early because of decreasing accrual rates. A total of 25 centers recruited 347 patients, of whom 178 were randomly assigned to perfusion and 169 to standard. The groups had comparable tumor-specific and patient-specific demographics. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation was performed in 63.5% of perfusion and 65.7% of standard (p > 0.05). Mean level of anastomosis was 5.2 ± 3.1 cm in perfusion compared with 5.2 ± 3.3 cm in standard (p > 0.05). Sufficient visualization of perfusion was reported in 95.4% of patients in the perfusion group. Postoperative abscess requiring surgical management was reported in 5.7% of perfusion and 4.2% of standard (p = 0.75). Anastomotic leak was reported in 9.0% of perfusion compared with 9.6% of standard (p = 0.37). On multivariate regression analysis, there was no difference in anastomotic leak rates between perfusion and standard (OR = 0.845 (95% CI, 0.375-1.905); p = 0.34). LIMITATIONS:The predetermined sample size to adequately reduce the risk of type II error was not achieved. CONCLUSIONS:Successful visualization of perfusion can be achieved with indocyanine green fluoroscopy. However, no difference in anastomotic leak rates was observed between patients who underwent perfusion assessment versus standard surgical technique. In experienced hands, the addition of routine indocyanine green fluoroscopy to standard practice adds no evident clinical benefit. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B560. VALORACIN DE LA IRRIGACIN DE LADO IZQUIERDO/RESECCIN ANTERIOR BAJA PILAR III UN ESTUDIO ALEATORIZADO, CONTROLADO, PARALELO Y MULTICNTRICO QUE EVALA LOS RESULTADOS DE LA IRRIGACIN CON PINPOINT IMGENES DE FLUORESCENCIA CERCANA AL INFRARROJO EN LA RESECCIN ANTERIOR BAJA:ANTECEDENTES:Se ha demostrado que la fluoroscopia con verde de indocianina mejora las tasas de fuga anastomótica en ensayos en fases iniciales.OBJETIVO:Nuestra hipótesis es que la utilización de fluoroscopia para asegurar la irrigación anastomótica puede disminuir la fuga anastomótica luego de una resección anterior baja.DISEÑO:Realizamos un estudio paralelo, controlado, aleatorizado 1:1. Se planificó el reclutamiento de 450-1000 pacientes durante 2 años.AMBITO:Multicéntrico.PACIENTES:Pacientes sometidos a resección definida como una anastomosis dentro de los 10cm del margen anal.INTERVENCIÓN:Pacientes que se sometieron a la evaluación estándar de la irrigación tisular contra la estándar en conjunto con la valoración de la irrigación mediante fluoroscopia con verde indocianina.PRINCIPALES VARIABLES EVALUADAS:El principal resultado fue la fuga anastomótica, y los resultados secundarios fueron la evaluación de la perfusión y la tasa de absceso posoperatorio que requirió intervención.RESULTADOS:Este estudio se cerró anticipadamente debido a la disminución de las tasas de acumulación. Un total de 25 centros reclutaron a 347 pacientes, de los cuales 178 fueron, de manera aleatoria, asignados a perfusión y 169 a estándar. Los grupos tenían datos demográficos específicos del tumor y del paciente similares. Recibieron quimio-radioterapia neoadyuvante el 63,5% de la perfusión y el 65,7% del estándar (p> 0,05). La anastomosis estuvo en un nivel promedio de 5,2 + 3,1 cm en perfusión en comparación con 5,2 + 3,3 cm en estándar (p> 0,05). Se reportó una visualización suficiente de la perfusión en el 95,4% de los pacientes del grupo de perfusión. El absceso posoperatorio que requirió tratamiento quirúrgico fue de 5,7% de los perfusion y en el 4,2% del estándar (p = 0,75). Se informó fuga anastomótica en el 9,0% de la perfusión en comparación con el 9,6% del estándar (p = 0,37). En el análisis de regresión multivariante, no hubo diferencias en las tasas de fuga anastomótica entre la perfusión y el estándar (OR 0,845; IC del 95% (0,375; 1,905); p = 0,34).LIMITACIONES:No se logró el tamaño de muestra predeterminado para reducir satisfactoriamente el riesgo de error tipo II.CONCLUSIÓN:Se puede obtener una visualización adecuada de la perfusión con ICG-F. Sin embargo, no se observaron diferencias en las tasas de fuga anastomótica entre los pacientes que se sometieron a evaluación de la perfusión versus la técnica quirúrgica estándar. En manos expertas, agregar ICG-F a la rutina de la práctica estándar no agrega ningún beneficio clínico evidente. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B560. (Traducción-Dr Juan Antonio Villanueva-Herrero).

BACKGROUND:Robotic surgery is attractive for resection of low rectal cancer due to greater dexterity and visualization, but its benefit is poorly understood. We aimed to determine if operative approach impacts radial margin positivity (RMP) and postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection (APR). METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study of patients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program who underwent APR for low rectal cancer from 2016 to 2019. Patients were stratified by operative approach: robotic, laparoscopic, and open APR (R-APR, L-APR, and O-APR). Emergent cases were excluded. The primary outcome was RMP. 30-day postoperative outcomes were also evaluated, using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS:Among 1,807 patients, 452 (25.0%) underwent R-APR, 474 (26.2%) L-APR, and 881 (48.8%) O-APR. No differences regarding RMP (13.5% R-APR vs. 10.8% L-APR vs. 12.3% O-APR, p = 0.44), distal margin positivity, positive nodes, readmission, or operative time were observed between operative approaches. Adjusted analysis confirmed that operative approach did not predict RMP (p > 0.05 for all). Risk factors for RMP included American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification III (ASA I-II ref; OR 1.46, p = 0.039), pT3-4 stage (T0-2 ref, OR 4.02, p < 0.001), pN2 stage (OR 1.98, p = 0.004), disseminated cancer (OR 1.90, p = 0.002), and lack of preoperative radiation (OR 1.98, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS:No difference in RMP was observed among R-APR, L-APR, and O-APR. Postoperatively, R-APR yielded greater benefit when compared to O-APR, but was comparable to that of L-APR. Minimally invasive surgery may be an appropriate option and worthy consideration for patients with distal rectal cancer requiring APR.

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: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.