Citations

BACKGROUND: Patients with IBD are at increased risk for developing colorectal cancer. However, overall survival and disease-free survival for rectal cancer alone in patients with IBD has not been reported. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine overall survival and disease-free survival for patients with rectal cancer in IBD versus non-IBD cohorts. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. SETTING: This study was conducted at an IBD referral center. PATIENTS: All consecutive adult patients with IBD diagnosed with rectal cancer and at least 1 year of postsurgery follow-up were included and matched in a 1:2 fashion (age, sex, preoperative stage) with patients with rectal cancer who did not have IBD. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Five-year overall survival and disease-free survival, 30-day postoperative complication, readmission, reoperation, and mortality rates were measured. METHODS: Survival rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates. The association of risk factors and long-term outcomes was assessed using Cox proportion hazard models. RESULTS: A total of 107 study patients with IBD who had rectal cancer were matched to 215 control patients; preoperative stages were as follows: 31% with stage I, 19% with stage II, 40% with stage III, and 10% with stage IV. Differences were observed (IBD vs non-IBD) in neoadjuvant chemotherapy (33.6% vs 52.6%, p = 0.001) and preoperative radiotherapy (35.5% vs 53.5%, p = 0.003). Postoperative complication rates were similar. On surgical pathology, patients with IBD had more lymphovascular invasion (12.9% vs 5.6%, p = 0.04) and positive circumferential resection margins (5.4% vs 0.9%, p = 0.03). On multivariable analysis, the diagnosis of IBD did not significantly impact long-term mortality (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.53–1.57; p = 0.73) or disease-free survival (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.84–2.21; p = 0.22). LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective design and the use of single-center data. CONCLUSIONS: Patients have rectal cancer with IBD and without IBD have similar long-term and disease-free survival, despite lower rates of neoadjuvant treatment and higher margin positivity in patients with IBD. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B271. ¿LA ENFERMEDAD INFLAMATORIA INTESTINAL ACARREA PEORES RESULTADOS EN PACIENTES CON CÁNCER RECTAL? UN ANÁLISIS DE CASOS-COINCIDENTES ANTECEDENTES: Los pacientes con enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal (EII) tienen un mayor riesgo de desarrollar cáncer colorrectal. Sin embargo, no se ha informado la supervivencia general y la supervivencia libre de enfermedad para el cáncer rectal solo en pacientes con EII. OBJETIVO: Determinar la supervivencia general y la supervivencia libre de enfermedad para pacientes con cáncer rectal en cohortes con EII versus sin EII. DISEÑO: Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo. MARCO: Centro de referencia para enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal. PACIENTES: todos los pacientes adultos con EII diagnosticados con cáncer rectal, consecutives, y al menos un año de seguimiento postoperatorio se incluyeron y se emparejaron de manera 1: 2 (edad, sexo, etapa preoperatoria) con pacientes con cáncer rectal sin EII. MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO PRINCIPALES: Se midieron la supervivencia general a cinco años y la supervivencia libre de enfermedad, complicaciones postoperatorias a los 30 días, reingreso, reoperación y tasas de mortalidad. MÉTODOS: Las tasas de supervivencia se calcularon utilizando estimaciones de Kaplan-Meier. La asociación de factores de riesgo y resultados a largo plazo se evaluó mediante modelos de riesgo de proporción de Cox. RESULTADOS: Un total de 107 pacientes con EII y cáncer rectal se compararon con 215 pacientes de control; las etapas preoperatorias fueron las siguientes: 31% de Etapa I, 19% de Etapa II, 40% de Etapa III y 10% de Etapa IV. Se observaron diferencias (EII versus no EII) en quimioterapia neoadyuvante (33.6% frente a 52.6%, p = 0.001) y radioterapia preoperatoria (35.5% frente a 53.5%, p = 0.003). Las tasas de complicaciones postoperatorias fueron similares. En la patología quirúrgica, los pacientes con EII tuvieron más invasión linfovascular (12.9% frente a 5.6%, p = 0.04) y márgenes de resección circunferencial positivos (5.4% frente a 0.9%, p = 0.03). En el análisis multivariable, el diagnóstico de EII no tuvo un impacto significativo en la mortalidad a largo plazo (HR 0.91; IC del 95%: 0.53-1.57, p = 0.73) o la supervivencia libre de enfermedad (HR 1.36; IC del 95%: 0.84-2.21, p = 0.22) LIMITACIONES: Diseño retrospectivo, centro único de datos. CONCLUSIONES: Los pacientes con EII y sin EII con cáncer rectal tienen una supervivencia similar a largo plazo y libre de enfermedad, a pesar de las tasas más bajas de tratamiento sneoadyuvante y un mayor margen positivo en pacientes con EII. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B271.

AbstractUtility of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II cancer remains a matter of debate. Clinical guidelines suggest adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II tumors with high‐risk features, in particular T4 tumors. However, limited consensus exists regarding the importance of other high‐risk features (lymphovascular or perineural invasion, microsatellite instability). Our study aimed to investigate the impact of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage IIA (T3N0) colon cancer patients. Patients who underwent colectomy for stage IIA colon adenocarcinoma (2010‐2015) were identified in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) and divided in two groups based on receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy vs observation. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)‐adjusted Kaplan‐Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to compare overall survival between the two groups. Subgroup analysis of patients with specific high‐risk features LVI, PNI and MSI was performed. Among 46 688 surgical patients with stage IIA colon adenocarcinoma 5937 (12.7%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, while 40 751 (87.3%) were observed. Five‐year IPTW‐adjusted survival was higher in the adjuvant chemotherapy group (79.7% [95% CI 79.1, 80.2]) compared to the observation group (70.3% [95% CI 69.7, 70.9]). Patients with high‐risk pathological features showed an estimated 5‐year survival benefit of 11.3% (78.2% [95% CI 77.4, 79.1] vs 66.9% [95% CI 65.9, 67.8]) when treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. This NCDB analysis revealed a survival benefit for patients with stage IIA colon adenocarcinoma and high‐risk features that were treated with adjuvant chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Hospital readmission rate is an important quality metric and has been recognized as a key measure of hospital value-based purchasing programs. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the risk factors for hospital readmission with a focus on potentially preventable early readmissions within 48 hours of discharge. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a tertiary academic facility with a standardized enhanced recovery pathway. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients undergoing elective major colorectal resections between 2011 and 2016 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Univariable and multivariable risk factors for overall and early (<48 hours) readmissions were identified. Specific surgical and medical reasons for readmission were compared between early and late readmissions. RESULTS: In total, 526 of 4204 patients (12.5%) were readmitted within 30 days of discharge. Independent risk factors were ASA score (≥3; OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1–2), excess perioperative weight gain (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.3–2.3), ileostomy (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1–2), and transfusion (OR, 2; 95% CI, 1.4–3), or reoperation (OR, 11.4; 95% CI, 7.4–17.5) during the index stay. No potentially preventable risk factor for early readmission (128 patients, 24.3% of all readmissions, 3% of total cohort) was identified, and index hospital stay of ≤3 days was not associated with increased readmission (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.7–1.2). Although ileus and small-bowel obstruction (early: 43.8% vs late: 15.5%, p < 0.001) were leading causes for early readmissions, deep infections (3.9% vs 16.3%, p < 0.001) and acute kidney injury (0% vs 5%, p = 0.006) were mainly observed during readmissions after 48 hours. LIMITATIONS: Risk of underreporting due to loss of follow-up and the potential co-occurrence of complications were limitations of this study. CONCLUSIONS: Early hospital readmission was mainly due to ileus or bowel obstruction, whereas late readmissions were related to deep infections and acute kidney injury. A suspicious attitude toward potential ileus-related symptoms before discharge and dedicated education for ostomy patients are important. A short index hospital stay was not associated with increased readmission rates. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B237. REINGRESOS DENTRO DE LAS 48 HORAS POSTERIORES AL ALTA: RAZONES, FACTORES DE RIESGO Y POSIBLES MEJORAS ANTECEDENTES: La tasa de reingreso hospitalario es una métrica de calidad importante y ha sido reconocida como una medida clave de los programas hospitalarios de compras basadas en el valor. OBJETIVO: Evaluar los factores de riesgo para el reingreso hospitalario con énfasis en reingresos tempranos potencialmente prevenibles dentro de las 48 horas posteriores al alta. DISEÑO: Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo. ESCENARIO: Institución académica terciaria con programa de recuperación mejorada estandarizado. PACIENTES: Pacientes consecutivos sometidos a resecciones colorrectales mayores electivas entre 2011 y 2016. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Se identificaron factores de riesgo uni y multivariables para reingresos totales y tempranos (<48 horas). Se compararon razones médicas y quirúrgicas específicas para el reingreso entre reingresos tempranos y tardíos. RESULTADOS: En total, 526/4204 pacientes (12,5%) fueron readmitidos dentro de los 30 días posteriores al alta. Los factores de riesgo independientes fueron puntuación ASA (≥3, OR 1.5; IC 95% 1.1–2), aumento de peso perioperatorio excesivo (OR 1.7; IC 95% 1.3–2.3), ileostomía (OR 1.4, IC 95%: 1–2) y transfusión (OR 2, IC 95% 1.4–3) o reoperación (OR 11.4; IC 95% 7.4–17.5) durante la estadía índice. No se identificó ningún factor de riesgo potencialmente prevenible para el reingreso temprano (128 pacientes, 24.3% de todos los reingresos, 3% de la cohorte total), y la estadía hospitalaria índice de ≤ 3 días no se asoció con un aumento en el reingreso (OR 0.9; IC 95% 0.7–1.2) Mientras que el íleo / obstrucción del intestino delgado (temprano: 43.8% vs. tardío: 15.5%, p < 0.001) fueron las principales causas de reingresos tempranos, infecciones profundas (3.9% vs 16.3%, p < 0.001) y lesión renal aguda (0 vs 5%, p = 0.006) se observaron principalmente durante los reingresos después de 48 horas. LIMITACIONES: Riesgo de subregistro debido a la pérdida en el seguimiento, posible co-ocurrencia de complicaciones. CONCLUSIONES: El reingreso hospitalario temprano se debió principalmente a íleo u obstrucción intestinal, mientras que los reingresos tardíos se relacionaron con infecciones profundas y lesión renal aguda. Es importante tener una actitud suspicaz hacia los posibles síntomas relacionados con el íleo antes del alta y una educación específica para los pacientes con ostomía. La estadía hospitalaria índice corta no se asoció con mayores tasas de reingreso. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B237.

AbstractRationaleThe aim of this study was to identify temporal readmission patterns according to baseline disease categories to provide opportunities for targeted interventions.MethodsRetrospective analysis of consecutive adult (≥18 years) patients who underwent elective colorectal resections (2011‐2017) at Mayo Clinic Rochester, MN. A prospective administrative database including patient demographics, procedure characteristics, discharge information and specifics on 30‐day readmissions (to index facility) including timing and reasons was utilized. The ICD‐9 codes were regrouped into the main pathologies Cancer, Crohn's disease (CD)/chronic ulcerative colitis (CUC), and diverticular disease.ResultsIn total, 521 (7.2%) out of 7245 patients undergoing inpatient colorectal surgery were readmitted. In all increments of time from discharge (0‐2 days: 31.3% of all readmissions, 3‐7 days: 32.4% of all readmissions, 8‐14 days: 18% of all readmissions, and 15‐30 days: 18.3% of all readmissions), reasons for readmission differed significantly (all P < 0.001). Across all disease categories, early readmissions (within 2 days of discharge) were most likely due to ileus/obstruction (53.4% of early readmissions), whereas with 42.5%, infection was the most common cause for late readmissions (>7 days). Patients with home discharge were more likely to be readmitted earlier within the 30‐day observation period (P = 0.099), whereas patients with a longer length of index hospital stay (>7 days) were readmitted later (P = 0.080).ConclusionsReasons for readmission appear to be universal across different disease categories. Targeted educational and collaborative measures may help to mitigate the burden of hospital readmissions to index facilities.

BACKGROUND: There is no study to date examining the safety of initiating or restarting biologic therapy after major abdominal surgery for Crohn’s disease. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine differences in the rates of 90-day superficial surgical site infections, intra-abdominal sepsis, and overall postoperative infectious complications among patients who were initiated on or restarted a biologic within 90 days postoperatively compared with those who were not. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at an IBD referral center. PATIENTS: Adult patients with Crohn’s disease who received a biologic therapy within 90 days of a major abdominal operation between May 20, 2014, and December 31, 2018, were included. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Ninety-day superficial surgical site infection, intra-abdominal sepsis, and overall postoperative infectious complications were measured. RESULTS: A total of 680 patients with Crohn’s disease were included: 351 were initiated on biologic therapy within 90 days after surgery and 329 were not. Patients exposed to biologic therapy postoperatively were younger (p < 0.001), had a lower BMI (p = 0.0014), were less often diabetic (p = 0.0011), and were more often exposed preoperatively to biologics (p < 0.0001) and immunomodulators (p < 0.0001) but not corticosteroids (p = 0.8399). Of those exposed postoperatively, nearly all (93.7%) had been on a biologics preoperatively, and most resumed the same biologic (68.0%). The median time to starting biologic therapy postoperatively was 31 days (range, 7–89 d). Postoperative biologic exposure was not associated with an increased risk of superficial surgical site infection (HR = 1.02 (95% CI, 0.95–1.09) per week; p = 0.59), intra-abdominal sepsis (HR = 1.07 (95% CI, 0.99–1.16); p = 0.73), or overall postoperative infectious complications (HR = 1.02 (95% CI, 0.98–1.07); p = 0.338); the overall rates of each at 90 days was 13%, 8%, and 28%. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its retrospective design and single-center data. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative initiation or resumption of biologic therapy did not increase 90-day rates of superficial surgical site infection, intra-abdominal sepsis, or total infectious complications after major abdominal surgery for Crohn’s disease. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B207. ¿SON SEGUROS LOS FÁRMACOS BIOLÓGICOS EN EL POSTOPERATORIO INMEDIATO? UNA EVALUACIÓN DE UN SOLO CENTRO DE PACIENTES QUIRÚRGICOS CONSECUTIVOS CON ENFERMEDAD DE CROHN ANTECEDENTES: No hay ningún estudio hasta la fecha que examine la seguridad de iniciar o reiniciar la terapia biológica después de una cirugía abdominal mayor en enfermedad de Crohn. OBJETIVO: Determinar las diferencias en las tasas a 90 días de infecciones del sitio quirúrgico superficial, sepsis intraabdominal y complicaciones infecciosas postoperatorias generales entre los pacientes en que se inició o reinició un biológico dentro de los 90 días después de la operación en comparación con aquellos que no lo recibieron. DISEÑO: Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo. ESCENARIO: Centro de referencia de enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal. PACIENTES: Pacientes adultos con enfermedad de Crohn que recibieron una terapia biológica dentro de los 90 días de una operación abdominal mayor entre el 20 de mayo de 2014 y el 31 de diciembre de 2018. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Infección superficial del sitio quirúrgico, sepsis intraabdominal y complicaciones infecciosas postoperatorias generales a 90 días. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron un total de 680 pacientes con enfermedad de Crohn: 351 se iniciaron en terapia biológica dentro de los 90 días posteriores a la cirugía y 329 no. Los pacientes expuestos a terapia biológica después de la operación eran más jóvenes (p <0.001), tenían un índice de masa corporal más bajo (p = 0.0014), eran con menos frecuencia diabéticos (p = 0.0011) y estaban expuestos con mayor frecuencia preoperatoriamente a fármacos biológicos (p <0.0001) e inmunomoduladores (p <0.0001) pero no a corticosteroides (p = 0.8399). De los expuestos postoperatoriamente, casi todos (93.7%) habían estado en terapia biológica en el preoperatorio, y la mayoría reanudó la misma terapia biológica (68%). La mediana de tiempo para comenzar la terapia biológica después de la operación fue de 31 días (rango, 7-89 días). La exposición biológica postoperatoria no se asoció con un mayor riesgo de infección superficial del sitio quirúrgico (HR 1.02 (0.95-1.09) por semana, p = 0.59), sepsis intraabdominal. (HR: 1.07 (0.99-1.16), p = 0.73), o complicaciones infecciosas postoperatorias generales (HR: 1.02, intervalo de confianza del 95% 0.98-1.07, p = 0.338); las tasas generales de cada uno a los 90 días fue del 13%, 8% y 28%. LIMITACIONES: Diseño retrospectivo, y datos de un centro único. CONCLUSIONES: El inicio o la reanudación en el postoperatorio de la terapia biológica no aumentaron las tasas a 90 días de infección superficial de sitio quirúrgico, sepsis intraabdominal o complicaciones infecciosas totales después de una cirugía abdominal mayor por enfermedad de Crohn. Consulte el Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B207. (Traducción—Dr Jorge Silva Velazco)

Objective: To compare short term outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic rectal cancer surgery. Background: Significant benefits of robotic rectal cancer surgery over laparoscopy have yet to be demonstrated. Operative time and direct institutional cost seem in favor of the laparoscopic approach. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of consecutive patients operated on for rectal cancer with a mini-invasive approach at Mayo Clinic from 2005 to 2018. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the difference in postoperative morbidity between the laparoscopic and robotic approach. Multivariable models for odds to complications and prolonged (≥6 days) length of stay were built. Results: A total of 600 patients were included in the analysis. The number of patients undergoing robotic surgery was 317 (52.8%). The 2 groups were similar in respect to age, sex, and body mass index. Laparoscopic surgery was correlated to shorter operative time (214 vs 324 minutes; P < 0.001). Patients undergoing robotic surgery had a lower overall complications rate (37.2% vs 51.2%; P < 0.001). Robotic surgery was found to be the most protective factor [odds ratio (OR) 0.485; P = 0.006] for odds to complications. The event of a complication (OR 9.33; P < 0.001) and conversion to open surgery (OR 3.095; P = 0.002) were identified as risk factors for prolonged length of stay whereas robotic surgery (OR 0.62; P = 0.027) was the only independent protective factor. Conclusions: Robotic rectal cancer surgery is strongly associated with better short-term outcomes over laparoscopic surgery.

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to review risk factors for conversion in a cohort of patients with rectal cancer undergoing minimally invasive abdominal surgery. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed of consecutive patients operated on from February 2005 to April 2018. Adult patients undergoing low anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection for primary rectal adenocarcinoma by a minimally invasive approach were included. Exclusion criteria were lack of research authorization, stage IV or recurrent rectal cancer, and emergency surgery. Risk factors for conversion were investigated using logistic regression. A subgroup analysis of obese patients (BMI 30 kg/m2 or more) was performed. Results A total of 600 patients were included in the analysis. The overall conversion rate was 9·2 per cent. Multivariable analysis showed a 72 per cent lower risk of conversion when patients had robotic surgery (odds ratio (OR) 0·28, 95 per cent c.i. 0·15 to 0·52). Obese patients experienced a threefold higher risk of conversion compared with non-obese patients (47 versus 24·4 per cent respectively; P &lt; 0·001). Robotic surgery was associated with a reduced risk of conversion in obese patients (OR 0·22, 0·07 to 0·71). Conclusion Robotic surgery was associated with a lower risk of conversion in patients undergoing minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery, in both obese and non-obese patients.