Faculty Bibliography

CASE REPORT/METHODS:A 65-year-old Caucasian man presented with a debilitating anogenital lesion. DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS/METHODS:The differential diagnosis of anogenital lesions includes infectious (syphilis, herpes simplex virus), noninfectious (hidradenitis suppuritiva, lymphedema), benign (condyloma acuminata), and malignant pathologies (squamous cell carcinoma, Kaposi sarcoma). DIAGNOSTIC ASSESSMENT, MANAGEMENT, AND OUTCOME/UNASSIGNED:Biopsy of an anogenital lesion will determine any oncologic potential. Further imaging can better characterize the disease. Once in the operating room, oncologic principles should be adhered to and quality of life concerns prioritized. Reconstruction of large defects may require a multidisciplinary team. Genitourinary and gastrointestinal diversions should be considered to improve wound healing, decrease infection risk, and optimize graft take. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:A multidisciplinary approach to medical and surgical reconstruction of anogenital lesions should be considered for extensive malformations.

BACKGROUND:Minimally invasive surgical techniques are routinely promoted as alternatives to open surgery because of improved outcomes. However, the impact of robotic surgery on certain subsets of the population, such as frail patients, is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE:The purpose of our study was to examine the association between frailty and minimally invasive surgical approaches with colon cancer surgery. DESIGN:This is a retrospective study of prospectively collected outcomes data. Thirty-day surgical outcomes were compared by frailty and surgical approach using doubly robust multivariable logistic regression with propensity score weighting, and testing for interaction effects between frailty and surgical approach. SETTING:Patients undergoing an open, laparoscopic, or robotic colectomy for primary colon cancer, 2012 to 2016, were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. PATIENTS:Patients undergoing a colectomy with an operative indication for primary colon cancer were selected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcomes measured were 30-day postoperative complications. RESULTS:After propensity score weighting of patients undergoing colectomy, 33.8% (n = 27,649) underwent an open approach versus 34.3% (n = 28,058) underwent laparoscopic surgery versus 31.9% (n = 26,096) underwent robotic surgery. Robotic (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.42-0.69, p < 0.001) and laparoscopic (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.52-0.66, p < 0.001) surgeries were independently associated with decreased rates of major complications. Frailer patients had increased complication rates (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.07-2.25, p = 0.018). When considering the interaction effects between surgical approach and frailty, frailer patients undergoing robotic surgery were more likely to develop a major complication (combined adjusted OR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.34-7.45, p = 0.009) compared with patients undergoing open surgery. LIMITATIONS:Use of the modified Frailty Index as an associative proxy for frailty was a limitation of this study. CONCLUSIONS:Although minimally invasive surgical approaches have decreased postoperative complications, this effect may be reversed in frail patients. These findings challenge the belief that robotic surgery provides a favorable alternative to open surgery in frail patients. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B163. LOS PACIENTES MÁS FRÁGILES SOMETIDOS A COLECTOMÍA ROBÓTICA POR CÁNCER DE COLON EXPERIMENTAN MAYORES TASAS DE COMPLICACIONES EN COMPARACIÓN CON ABORDAJES LAPAROSCÓPICO O ABIERTO: Las técnicas quirúrgicas mínimamente invasivas estan frecuentement promovidas como alternativas a la cirugía abierta debido a sus mejores resultados. Sin embargo, el impacto de la cirugía robótica en ciertos subgrupos de población, como el caso de los pacientes endebles, es poco conocido.El propósito de nuestro estudio fue examinar la asociación entre la fragilidad de los pacientes y el aborgaje quirúrgico mínimamente invasivo para la cirugía de cáncer de colon.Estudio retrospectivo de datos de resultados recolectados prospectivamente. Los resultados quirúrgicos a 30 días se compararon entre fragilidad y abordaje quirúrgico utilizando la regresión logística multivariable doblemente robusta con ponderación de puntaje de propensión y pruebas de efectos de interacción entre fragilidad y abordaje quirúrgico.Los pacientes identificados en la base de datos del Programa Nacional de Mejora de la Calidad Quirúrgica del Colegio Estadounidense de Cirujanos, que fueron sometidos a una colectomía abierta, laparoscópica o robótica por cáncer de colon primario, de 2012 a 2016.Todos aquellos pacientes seleccionados con indicación quirúrgica de cáncer primario de colon que fueron sometidos a una colectomía.Las complicaciones postoperatorias a 30 días.Luego de ponderar el puntaje de propensión de los pacientes colectomizados, el 33.8% (n = 27,649) fué sometido a laparotomía versus el 34.3% (n = 28,058) operados por laparoscopía versus el 31.9% (n = 26,096) operados con tecnica robótica. Las cirugías robóticas (OR 0.53, IC 95% 0.42-0.69, p < 0.001) y laparoscópicas (OR 0.58, IC 95% 0.52-0.66, p < 0.001) se asociaron de forma independiente con una disminución de las tasas de complicaciones mayores. Los pacientes más delicados tenían mayores tasas de complicaciones (OR 1.56, IC 95% 1.07-2.25, p = 0.018). Al considerar los efectos de interacción entre el abordaje quirúrgico y la fragilidad, los pacientes más débiles sometidos a cirugía robótica tenían más probabilidades de desarrollar una complicación mayor (OR ajustado combinado 3.15, IC 95% 1.34-7.45, p = 0.009) en comparación con los pacientes sometidos a cirugía abierta.El uso del índice de fragilidad modificado como apoderado asociativo de la fragilidad.Si bien los abordajes quirúrgicos mínimamente invasivos han disminuido las complicaciones postoperatorias, este efecto puede revertirse en pacientes lábiles. Estos hallazgos desafían la creencia de que la cirugía robótica proporciona una alternativa favorable a la cirugía abierta en pacientes frágiles. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B163. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo).

BACKGROUND:We aimed to assess patient and demographic factors, treatment trends, and survival outcomes of patients with colorectal cancer with metastasis to the liver, lung, or both sites. Differences remain among national guidelines about the optimal management strategy. METHODS:Adults from the National Cancer Database (2010 to 2015) with a primary diagnosis of colorectal liver, lung, or liver and lung metastases were included and stratified by metastasis site. The primary end point was 5-year overall survival, analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves, log-rank test, and the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS:Among 82,609 included patients, 70.42% had liver, 8.74% had lung, and 20.85% had simultaneous liver and lung metastases. Treatment with chemotherapy alone was used the most (21.11%), followed by chemotherapy with colorectal radical resection (CRRR) (19.4%), no treatment (14.35%), CRRR alone (9.03%), and chemotherapy with CRRR and liver/lung resection (8.22%). Patients with lung metastasis had significantly better 5-year overall survival rates than the other 2 metastatic groups (15.99%, 16.70%, and 5.51%; p < 0.001), even after stratifying by treatment type and adjusting for other factors. Chemotherapy with CRRR and liver/lung resection was associated with the greatest reduction in mortality risk for all sites in both unadjusted (35.15%, 44.52%, and 20.10%; p < 0.001) and adjusted analyses (hazard ratio 0.42; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.47; p < 0.001; hazard ratio 0.31; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.53; p < 0.001; and hazard ratio 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.01; p = 0.064 for trend), and forgoing treatment or CRRR alone offered the worst overall survival. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with metastasis to lung had increased overall survival compared with other sites of metastases, regardless of treatment modality. Combined resection of primary tumor, metastasectomy, and chemotherapy appears to offer the greatest chance of survival.

BACKGROUND:The aim of this study is to assess treatment trends and overall survival (OS) in small bowel (SB) and colorectal (CR) gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) with respect to the introduction of imatinib in 2008. METHODS:Patients diagnosed with SB and CR GIST were identified from the National Cancer Database (2004-2015). The primary outcome was 5- and 10-year OS. Patients were stratified by tumor site, time period (before and after imatinib), and treatment type. OS was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS:A total of 8441 cases were included (SB 81.66%; CR 18.34%). Radical resection was the most common treatment (SB 42.33%; CR 38.69%). The addition of chemotherapy to radical resection for SB GIST increased between the two time periods (31.76 to 40.43%; p < 0.001), and was associated with improved unadjusted and adjusted OS (2009-2015: adjusted HR [AHR] 0.73, 95% CI 0.59-0.89, p = 0.002). Patients with SB GIST had better 5- and 10-year OS compared with CR (SB 69.83% and 47.68%; CR 61.33% and 45.39%; p < 0.001), even after stratifying by treatment type and tumor size and adjusting for other factors (SB 5-year AHR 1.35, 95% CI 1.19-1.53; 10-year AHR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09-1.38; each p < 0.001). CONCLUSION:CR GIST are associated with lower OS than SB GIST. Radical resection is the most common treatment type for both sites. Chemotherapy with radical resection offers better OS in SB GIST, but not in CR GIST. Further studies are needed to assess the biology of CR GIST to explain the worse OS.