LayerRx Mapping ID
205
Slot System
Featured Buckets
Featured Buckets Admin

Rare Cancer Misdiagnosed As Orchitis

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 07/03/2018 - 10:46
Clinicians examine a patient who was once diagnosed with multiple myeloma but who actually had something else.

A 70-year-old man underwent salvage therapy for multiple myeloma (MM). While on maintenance immunotherapy he developed a sternal plasmacytoma. After the fifth cycle of treatment, he developed swelling, erythema, and pain in his right testis.

The main differential diagnoses for those symptoms are infections and tumors; infection is more common, so his clinicians at Indiana University School of Medicine presumed orchitis and started him on IV antibiotics. The pain resolved, but the swelling persisted after the antibiotic course. The clinicians turned to biochemical marker screening for germ cell tumors, but those were negative. Serial ultrasound imaging, which they had begun during his admission, remained unchanged.

Meanwhile, the patient’s chemotherapy was being held back, and he developed another sternal mass, prompting a fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography–computed tomography (PET/CT) scan to evaluate for relapse of myeloma. The scan revealed an enlarged, diffusely hypermetabolic right testicle. Believing the symptoms were related to the myeloma and not orchitis, the clinicians advised a radical orchiectomy.

A biopsy after the surgery showed tumor cells consistent with testicular plasmacytoma.

While rare, testicular plasmacytoma is commonly associated with MM, especially in the later stages, when cancer cells are more aggressive and not relying on bone marrow for survival, the clinicians say. Unlike myeloma, which typically spreads via blood to bone sites, testicular plasmacytoma may spread via lymphatic channels to the regional lymph nodes and subsequently to distant sites, the clinicians add, similarly to lymphoma or germ cell tumor.

It is hard to diagnose, though. The clinicians say the patient’s case illustrates the challenges. Imaging studies such as ultrasound and CT scans are not specific. And although FDG-PET/CT imaging is a standard staging tool for myeloma and helpful in identifying plasmacytoma when evidenced as intramedullary or extramedullary hypermetabolic lesions, hypermetabolic lesions are not always malignant, they note. FDG-PET/CT can’t differentiate between orchitis and testicular plasmacytoma.  Biopsy remains the diagnostic gold standard.

Source:
Schiavo C, Mann SA, Mer J, Suvannasankha A. BMJ Case Rep. 2018;pii:bcr-2017-222046.
doi: 10.1136/bcr-2017-222046.

 

Publications
Topics
Clinicians examine a patient who was once diagnosed with multiple myeloma but who actually had something else.
Clinicians examine a patient who was once diagnosed with multiple myeloma but who actually had something else.

A 70-year-old man underwent salvage therapy for multiple myeloma (MM). While on maintenance immunotherapy he developed a sternal plasmacytoma. After the fifth cycle of treatment, he developed swelling, erythema, and pain in his right testis.

The main differential diagnoses for those symptoms are infections and tumors; infection is more common, so his clinicians at Indiana University School of Medicine presumed orchitis and started him on IV antibiotics. The pain resolved, but the swelling persisted after the antibiotic course. The clinicians turned to biochemical marker screening for germ cell tumors, but those were negative. Serial ultrasound imaging, which they had begun during his admission, remained unchanged.

Meanwhile, the patient’s chemotherapy was being held back, and he developed another sternal mass, prompting a fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography–computed tomography (PET/CT) scan to evaluate for relapse of myeloma. The scan revealed an enlarged, diffusely hypermetabolic right testicle. Believing the symptoms were related to the myeloma and not orchitis, the clinicians advised a radical orchiectomy.

A biopsy after the surgery showed tumor cells consistent with testicular plasmacytoma.

While rare, testicular plasmacytoma is commonly associated with MM, especially in the later stages, when cancer cells are more aggressive and not relying on bone marrow for survival, the clinicians say. Unlike myeloma, which typically spreads via blood to bone sites, testicular plasmacytoma may spread via lymphatic channels to the regional lymph nodes and subsequently to distant sites, the clinicians add, similarly to lymphoma or germ cell tumor.

It is hard to diagnose, though. The clinicians say the patient’s case illustrates the challenges. Imaging studies such as ultrasound and CT scans are not specific. And although FDG-PET/CT imaging is a standard staging tool for myeloma and helpful in identifying plasmacytoma when evidenced as intramedullary or extramedullary hypermetabolic lesions, hypermetabolic lesions are not always malignant, they note. FDG-PET/CT can’t differentiate between orchitis and testicular plasmacytoma.  Biopsy remains the diagnostic gold standard.

Source:
Schiavo C, Mann SA, Mer J, Suvannasankha A. BMJ Case Rep. 2018;pii:bcr-2017-222046.
doi: 10.1136/bcr-2017-222046.

 

A 70-year-old man underwent salvage therapy for multiple myeloma (MM). While on maintenance immunotherapy he developed a sternal plasmacytoma. After the fifth cycle of treatment, he developed swelling, erythema, and pain in his right testis.

The main differential diagnoses for those symptoms are infections and tumors; infection is more common, so his clinicians at Indiana University School of Medicine presumed orchitis and started him on IV antibiotics. The pain resolved, but the swelling persisted after the antibiotic course. The clinicians turned to biochemical marker screening for germ cell tumors, but those were negative. Serial ultrasound imaging, which they had begun during his admission, remained unchanged.

Meanwhile, the patient’s chemotherapy was being held back, and he developed another sternal mass, prompting a fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography–computed tomography (PET/CT) scan to evaluate for relapse of myeloma. The scan revealed an enlarged, diffusely hypermetabolic right testicle. Believing the symptoms were related to the myeloma and not orchitis, the clinicians advised a radical orchiectomy.

A biopsy after the surgery showed tumor cells consistent with testicular plasmacytoma.

While rare, testicular plasmacytoma is commonly associated with MM, especially in the later stages, when cancer cells are more aggressive and not relying on bone marrow for survival, the clinicians say. Unlike myeloma, which typically spreads via blood to bone sites, testicular plasmacytoma may spread via lymphatic channels to the regional lymph nodes and subsequently to distant sites, the clinicians add, similarly to lymphoma or germ cell tumor.

It is hard to diagnose, though. The clinicians say the patient’s case illustrates the challenges. Imaging studies such as ultrasound and CT scans are not specific. And although FDG-PET/CT imaging is a standard staging tool for myeloma and helpful in identifying plasmacytoma when evidenced as intramedullary or extramedullary hypermetabolic lesions, hypermetabolic lesions are not always malignant, they note. FDG-PET/CT can’t differentiate between orchitis and testicular plasmacytoma.  Biopsy remains the diagnostic gold standard.

Source:
Schiavo C, Mann SA, Mer J, Suvannasankha A. BMJ Case Rep. 2018;pii:bcr-2017-222046.
doi: 10.1136/bcr-2017-222046.

 

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Fri, 06/29/2018 - 09:15
Un-Gate On Date
Fri, 06/29/2018 - 09:15
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Fri, 06/29/2018 - 09:15

Hemostatic clipping cuts bleeds after large polyp removal

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 07/21/2020 - 14:18

Using hemostatic clips to close colonic mucosal defects following endoscopic removal of larger polyps cut the rate of delayed, severe bleeding episodes in half in a multicenter, randomized trial with 918 patients.

“The benefit appears limited to proximal polyps,” Heiko Pohl, MD, said at the annual Digestive Disease Week®. In that prespecified subgroup, which included two-thirds of enrolled patients, placement of hemostatic clips on defects left after removing polyps 20 mm in diameter or larger cut the rate of delayed, severe bleeding by two-thirds, compared with patients with large defects not treated with clips. This result represented a number needed to treat with clips of 15 patients with large proximal polyps to prevent one episode of delayed severe bleeding, said Dr. Pohl, a gastroenterologist at the VA Medical Center in White River Junction, Vt.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News
Dr. Heiko Pohl

Although the results that Dr. Pohl reported came from a trial that originally had been designed to generate data for Food and Drug Administration approval for using the clips to close defects following large polyp removal, the clips received approval for this indication from the agency in 2016 while the study was still in progress.

But Dr. Pohl maintained that the new evidence for efficacy that he reported will provide further impetus for gastroenterologists to use clips when they remove larger polyps in proximal locations. “I think this study will help standardize treatment of mucosal resections and change clip use,” he said in an interview.

“This was a terrific study, and one that needed to be done,” commented John R. Saltzman, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of endoscopy at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. But Dr. Saltzman, who spoke from the floor during discussion of Dr. Pohl’s report, added that data on the average number of clips required to close defects were needed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the treatment, data that Dr. Pohl said were available but still being analyzed.

“We have to know how many clips to use and how to close the polyp,” Dr. Saltzman said. Dr. Pohl estimated that roughly four or five clips had been used per defect, but he cautioned that this estimate was preliminary pending his complete analysis of the data.

The CLIP (Clip Closure After Endoscopic Resection of Large Polyps) study enrolled patients with at least one nonpedunculated colonic polyp that was at least 20 mm in diameter at 16 U.S. centers, as well as one center in Montreal and one in Barcelona. The patients averaged 65 years of age, and 6%-7% of patients had more than one large polyp removed during their procedure. Randomization produced one important imbalance in assignment: 25% of the 454 patients in the clipped arm were on an antithrombotic drug (either an anticoagulant or antiplatelet drug) at the time of their endoscopy, compared with 33% of the 464 patients in the control arm.

The study’s primary endpoint was the incidence of “severe” bleeding within 30 days after the procedure. The study defined severe bleeding as an event that required hospitalization, need for repeat endoscopy, need for a blood transfusion, or need for any other major intervention, explained Dr. Pohl, who is also on the staff of Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H.

Such events occurred in 3.5% of the patients who underwent clipping and in 7.3% of control patients who received no clipping, a statistically significant difference (P = .01). Among patients with proximal polyps, the bleeding rates were 3.3% among clipped patients and 9.9% among controls, also a statistically significant difference. Among patients with distal polyps the bleeding rates were 4.0% among clipped patients and 1.4% among controls, a difference that was not statistically significant.

Dr. Pohl and his associates ran three other prespecified, secondary analyses that divided the enrolled patients into subgroups. These analyses showed no significant effect on outcome by polyp size when comparing 20-39 mm polyps with polyps 40 mm or larger, treatment with an antithrombotic drug, or method of cauterization. The median time to severe bleeding was 1 day among the controls and 7 days among the clipped patients.

Aside from the difference in rates of delayed bleeding, the two study arms showed no significant differences in the incidence of any other serious postprocedure events. The rates of these nonbleeding events were 1.3% among clipped patients and 2.4% among the controls.

The researchers ran all these analyses based on the intention-to-treat assignment of patients. However, during the study, 9% of patients assigned to the control arm crossed over ended up receiving clips during their procedure after all, a rate that Dr. Pohl called “surprisingly high,” whereas 14% of patients assigned to the clip arm never received clips. A per-protocol analysis that censored patients who did not receive their assigned treatment showed that, among the remaining patients who underwent their assigned treatment, the rate of delayed, severe bleeds was 2.3% among the 390 patients actually treated with clips and 7.2% among the 419 controls who never received clips, a statistically significant difference, he reported.

Dr. Pohl also noted that it was “somewhat surprising” that clipping appeared to result in complete closure in “only” 68% of patients who underwent clipping and that it produced partial closure in an additional 20% of patients, with the remaining patients having mucosal defects that were not considered closed by clipping.

The study was funded by Boston Scientific, the company that markets the hemostatic clip (Resolution 360) tested in the study. Dr. Pohl had no additional disclosures. Dr. Saltzman had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pohl H et al. Digestive Disease Week, Presentation 886.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

Using hemostatic clips to close colonic mucosal defects following endoscopic removal of larger polyps cut the rate of delayed, severe bleeding episodes in half in a multicenter, randomized trial with 918 patients.

“The benefit appears limited to proximal polyps,” Heiko Pohl, MD, said at the annual Digestive Disease Week®. In that prespecified subgroup, which included two-thirds of enrolled patients, placement of hemostatic clips on defects left after removing polyps 20 mm in diameter or larger cut the rate of delayed, severe bleeding by two-thirds, compared with patients with large defects not treated with clips. This result represented a number needed to treat with clips of 15 patients with large proximal polyps to prevent one episode of delayed severe bleeding, said Dr. Pohl, a gastroenterologist at the VA Medical Center in White River Junction, Vt.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News
Dr. Heiko Pohl

Although the results that Dr. Pohl reported came from a trial that originally had been designed to generate data for Food and Drug Administration approval for using the clips to close defects following large polyp removal, the clips received approval for this indication from the agency in 2016 while the study was still in progress.

But Dr. Pohl maintained that the new evidence for efficacy that he reported will provide further impetus for gastroenterologists to use clips when they remove larger polyps in proximal locations. “I think this study will help standardize treatment of mucosal resections and change clip use,” he said in an interview.

“This was a terrific study, and one that needed to be done,” commented John R. Saltzman, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of endoscopy at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. But Dr. Saltzman, who spoke from the floor during discussion of Dr. Pohl’s report, added that data on the average number of clips required to close defects were needed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the treatment, data that Dr. Pohl said were available but still being analyzed.

“We have to know how many clips to use and how to close the polyp,” Dr. Saltzman said. Dr. Pohl estimated that roughly four or five clips had been used per defect, but he cautioned that this estimate was preliminary pending his complete analysis of the data.

The CLIP (Clip Closure After Endoscopic Resection of Large Polyps) study enrolled patients with at least one nonpedunculated colonic polyp that was at least 20 mm in diameter at 16 U.S. centers, as well as one center in Montreal and one in Barcelona. The patients averaged 65 years of age, and 6%-7% of patients had more than one large polyp removed during their procedure. Randomization produced one important imbalance in assignment: 25% of the 454 patients in the clipped arm were on an antithrombotic drug (either an anticoagulant or antiplatelet drug) at the time of their endoscopy, compared with 33% of the 464 patients in the control arm.

The study’s primary endpoint was the incidence of “severe” bleeding within 30 days after the procedure. The study defined severe bleeding as an event that required hospitalization, need for repeat endoscopy, need for a blood transfusion, or need for any other major intervention, explained Dr. Pohl, who is also on the staff of Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H.

Such events occurred in 3.5% of the patients who underwent clipping and in 7.3% of control patients who received no clipping, a statistically significant difference (P = .01). Among patients with proximal polyps, the bleeding rates were 3.3% among clipped patients and 9.9% among controls, also a statistically significant difference. Among patients with distal polyps the bleeding rates were 4.0% among clipped patients and 1.4% among controls, a difference that was not statistically significant.

Dr. Pohl and his associates ran three other prespecified, secondary analyses that divided the enrolled patients into subgroups. These analyses showed no significant effect on outcome by polyp size when comparing 20-39 mm polyps with polyps 40 mm or larger, treatment with an antithrombotic drug, or method of cauterization. The median time to severe bleeding was 1 day among the controls and 7 days among the clipped patients.

Aside from the difference in rates of delayed bleeding, the two study arms showed no significant differences in the incidence of any other serious postprocedure events. The rates of these nonbleeding events were 1.3% among clipped patients and 2.4% among the controls.

The researchers ran all these analyses based on the intention-to-treat assignment of patients. However, during the study, 9% of patients assigned to the control arm crossed over ended up receiving clips during their procedure after all, a rate that Dr. Pohl called “surprisingly high,” whereas 14% of patients assigned to the clip arm never received clips. A per-protocol analysis that censored patients who did not receive their assigned treatment showed that, among the remaining patients who underwent their assigned treatment, the rate of delayed, severe bleeds was 2.3% among the 390 patients actually treated with clips and 7.2% among the 419 controls who never received clips, a statistically significant difference, he reported.

Dr. Pohl also noted that it was “somewhat surprising” that clipping appeared to result in complete closure in “only” 68% of patients who underwent clipping and that it produced partial closure in an additional 20% of patients, with the remaining patients having mucosal defects that were not considered closed by clipping.

The study was funded by Boston Scientific, the company that markets the hemostatic clip (Resolution 360) tested in the study. Dr. Pohl had no additional disclosures. Dr. Saltzman had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pohl H et al. Digestive Disease Week, Presentation 886.

Using hemostatic clips to close colonic mucosal defects following endoscopic removal of larger polyps cut the rate of delayed, severe bleeding episodes in half in a multicenter, randomized trial with 918 patients.

“The benefit appears limited to proximal polyps,” Heiko Pohl, MD, said at the annual Digestive Disease Week®. In that prespecified subgroup, which included two-thirds of enrolled patients, placement of hemostatic clips on defects left after removing polyps 20 mm in diameter or larger cut the rate of delayed, severe bleeding by two-thirds, compared with patients with large defects not treated with clips. This result represented a number needed to treat with clips of 15 patients with large proximal polyps to prevent one episode of delayed severe bleeding, said Dr. Pohl, a gastroenterologist at the VA Medical Center in White River Junction, Vt.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News
Dr. Heiko Pohl

Although the results that Dr. Pohl reported came from a trial that originally had been designed to generate data for Food and Drug Administration approval for using the clips to close defects following large polyp removal, the clips received approval for this indication from the agency in 2016 while the study was still in progress.

But Dr. Pohl maintained that the new evidence for efficacy that he reported will provide further impetus for gastroenterologists to use clips when they remove larger polyps in proximal locations. “I think this study will help standardize treatment of mucosal resections and change clip use,” he said in an interview.

“This was a terrific study, and one that needed to be done,” commented John R. Saltzman, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of endoscopy at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. But Dr. Saltzman, who spoke from the floor during discussion of Dr. Pohl’s report, added that data on the average number of clips required to close defects were needed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the treatment, data that Dr. Pohl said were available but still being analyzed.

“We have to know how many clips to use and how to close the polyp,” Dr. Saltzman said. Dr. Pohl estimated that roughly four or five clips had been used per defect, but he cautioned that this estimate was preliminary pending his complete analysis of the data.

The CLIP (Clip Closure After Endoscopic Resection of Large Polyps) study enrolled patients with at least one nonpedunculated colonic polyp that was at least 20 mm in diameter at 16 U.S. centers, as well as one center in Montreal and one in Barcelona. The patients averaged 65 years of age, and 6%-7% of patients had more than one large polyp removed during their procedure. Randomization produced one important imbalance in assignment: 25% of the 454 patients in the clipped arm were on an antithrombotic drug (either an anticoagulant or antiplatelet drug) at the time of their endoscopy, compared with 33% of the 464 patients in the control arm.

The study’s primary endpoint was the incidence of “severe” bleeding within 30 days after the procedure. The study defined severe bleeding as an event that required hospitalization, need for repeat endoscopy, need for a blood transfusion, or need for any other major intervention, explained Dr. Pohl, who is also on the staff of Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H.

Such events occurred in 3.5% of the patients who underwent clipping and in 7.3% of control patients who received no clipping, a statistically significant difference (P = .01). Among patients with proximal polyps, the bleeding rates were 3.3% among clipped patients and 9.9% among controls, also a statistically significant difference. Among patients with distal polyps the bleeding rates were 4.0% among clipped patients and 1.4% among controls, a difference that was not statistically significant.

Dr. Pohl and his associates ran three other prespecified, secondary analyses that divided the enrolled patients into subgroups. These analyses showed no significant effect on outcome by polyp size when comparing 20-39 mm polyps with polyps 40 mm or larger, treatment with an antithrombotic drug, or method of cauterization. The median time to severe bleeding was 1 day among the controls and 7 days among the clipped patients.

Aside from the difference in rates of delayed bleeding, the two study arms showed no significant differences in the incidence of any other serious postprocedure events. The rates of these nonbleeding events were 1.3% among clipped patients and 2.4% among the controls.

The researchers ran all these analyses based on the intention-to-treat assignment of patients. However, during the study, 9% of patients assigned to the control arm crossed over ended up receiving clips during their procedure after all, a rate that Dr. Pohl called “surprisingly high,” whereas 14% of patients assigned to the clip arm never received clips. A per-protocol analysis that censored patients who did not receive their assigned treatment showed that, among the remaining patients who underwent their assigned treatment, the rate of delayed, severe bleeds was 2.3% among the 390 patients actually treated with clips and 7.2% among the 419 controls who never received clips, a statistically significant difference, he reported.

Dr. Pohl also noted that it was “somewhat surprising” that clipping appeared to result in complete closure in “only” 68% of patients who underwent clipping and that it produced partial closure in an additional 20% of patients, with the remaining patients having mucosal defects that were not considered closed by clipping.

The study was funded by Boston Scientific, the company that markets the hemostatic clip (Resolution 360) tested in the study. Dr. Pohl had no additional disclosures. Dr. Saltzman had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pohl H et al. Digestive Disease Week, Presentation 886.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM DDW 2018

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Hemostatic wound clipping after large polyp removal cuts delayed bleeding, especially for proximal polyps.

Major finding: The incidence of severe, delayed bleeds was 3.5% among clipped patients and 7.3% among controls.

Study details: The CLIP study, a multicenter, randomized trial with 918 patients.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Boston Scientific, the company that markets the hemostatic clip (Resolution 360) tested in the study. Dr. Pohl had no additional disclosures. Dr. Saltzman had no disclosures.

Source: Pohl H et al. Digestive Disease Week, Presentation 886.

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Open Clinical Trials for Patients With Colorectal Cancer (FULL)

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 12/15/2022 - 14:51
Display Headline
Open Clinical Trials for Patients With Colorectal Cancer

Providing access to clinical trials for veteran and active-duty military patients can be a challenge, but a significant number of trials are now recruiting patients from those patient populations. Many trials explicitly recruit patients from the VA, the military, and IHS. The VA Office of Research and Development alone sponsors > 300 research initiatives, and many more are sponsored by Walter Reed National Medical Center and other major defense and VA facilities. The clinical trials listed below are all open as of April 1, 2017; have at least 1 VA, DoD, or IHS location recruiting patients; and are focused on treatment for colorectal cancer. For additional information and full inclusion/exclusion criteria, please consult clinicaltrials.gov.


Impact of Family History and Decision Support on High-Risk Cancer Screening

There is no standardized system for collecting and updating family health history, using this information to determine a patient’s disease risk level, and providing screening recommendations to patients and providers. Patients will enter their family health history into a program that will produce screening recommendations tailored to the patient’s family health history. The investigators will examine whether this process increases physician referrals for, and patient uptake of, guideline-recommended screening for colorectal cancer.
ID: NCT02247336
Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development
Location (contact): Durham VAMC, North Carolina (Jamiyla Bolton, Susan B. Armstrong); William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin (Corrine Voils)

 


Colonoscopy Versus Fecal Immunochemical Test in Reducing Mortality From Colorectal Cancer

The investigators propose to perform a large, simple, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group trial directly comparing screening colonoscopy with annual fecal immunochemical test screening in average risk individuals. The hypothesis is that colonoscopy will be superior to fecal immunochemical testing in the prevention of colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality measured over 10 years. The primary study endpoint will be CRC mortality within 10 years of enrollment.
ID: NCT01239082
Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development
Locations: 48 current locations


S0820, Adenoma and Second Primary Prevention Trial (PACES)

The investigators hypothesize that the combination of eflornithine and sulindac will be effective in reducing a 3-year event rate of adenomas and second primary colorectal cancers in patients previously treated for Stages 0 through III colon cancer.
ID: NCT01349881
Sponsor: Southwest Oncology Group
Location (contact): VA Connecticut Healthcare System-West Haven Campus (Michal Rose); Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois (Abdul Choudhury); Kansas City VAMC, Missouri (Joaquina Baranda); White River Junction VAMC, Vermont (Nancy Kuemmerle); Eisenhower Army Medical Center, Fort Gordon, Georgia (Andrew Delmas); Tripler Army Medical Center, Honolulu, Hawaii (Jeffrey Berenberg); Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas (John Renshaw)


Irinotecan Hydrochloride and Cetuximab With or Without Ramucirumab in Treating Patients With Advanced Colorectal Cancer With Progressive Disease After Treatment With Bevacizumab

This randomized phase II trial is studying the adverse effects and how well giving cetuximab and irinotecan hydrochloride with or without ramucirumab work in treating patients with advanced colorectal cancer with progressive disease after treatment with bevacizumab-containing chemotherapy.
ID: NCT01079780
Sponsor: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group
Location (contact): Atlanta VAMC, Decatur, Georgia (Samuel Chan); VA New Jersey Health Care System East Orange Campus (Basil Kasimis)


Cancer Associated Thrombosis and Isoquercetin

This research study is evaluating a drug called isoquercetin to prevent venous thrombosis (blood clots) in participants who have pancreas, non-small cell lung cancer or colorectal cancer.
ID: NCT02195232
Sponsor: Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
Location (contact): Washington DC VAMC (Anita Aggarwal); Boston VA Healthcare System, Massachusetts (Kenneth Bauer); White River Junction VAMC, Vermont (Nancy Kuemmerle)


Studying Lymph Nodes in Patients With Stage II Colon Cancer

Diagnostic procedures that look for micrometastases in lymph nodes removed during surgery for colon cancer may help doctors learn the extent of disease. This phase I trial is studying lymph nodes in patients with stage II colon cancer.
ID: NCT00949312
Sponsor: John Wayne Cancer Institute
Location: Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC

 

Click here to read the digital edition.

Article PDF
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 34(3)s
Publications
Topics
Sections
Article PDF
Article PDF

Providing access to clinical trials for veteran and active-duty military patients can be a challenge, but a significant number of trials are now recruiting patients from those patient populations. Many trials explicitly recruit patients from the VA, the military, and IHS. The VA Office of Research and Development alone sponsors > 300 research initiatives, and many more are sponsored by Walter Reed National Medical Center and other major defense and VA facilities. The clinical trials listed below are all open as of April 1, 2017; have at least 1 VA, DoD, or IHS location recruiting patients; and are focused on treatment for colorectal cancer. For additional information and full inclusion/exclusion criteria, please consult clinicaltrials.gov.


Impact of Family History and Decision Support on High-Risk Cancer Screening

There is no standardized system for collecting and updating family health history, using this information to determine a patient’s disease risk level, and providing screening recommendations to patients and providers. Patients will enter their family health history into a program that will produce screening recommendations tailored to the patient’s family health history. The investigators will examine whether this process increases physician referrals for, and patient uptake of, guideline-recommended screening for colorectal cancer.
ID: NCT02247336
Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development
Location (contact): Durham VAMC, North Carolina (Jamiyla Bolton, Susan B. Armstrong); William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin (Corrine Voils)

 


Colonoscopy Versus Fecal Immunochemical Test in Reducing Mortality From Colorectal Cancer

The investigators propose to perform a large, simple, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group trial directly comparing screening colonoscopy with annual fecal immunochemical test screening in average risk individuals. The hypothesis is that colonoscopy will be superior to fecal immunochemical testing in the prevention of colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality measured over 10 years. The primary study endpoint will be CRC mortality within 10 years of enrollment.
ID: NCT01239082
Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development
Locations: 48 current locations


S0820, Adenoma and Second Primary Prevention Trial (PACES)

The investigators hypothesize that the combination of eflornithine and sulindac will be effective in reducing a 3-year event rate of adenomas and second primary colorectal cancers in patients previously treated for Stages 0 through III colon cancer.
ID: NCT01349881
Sponsor: Southwest Oncology Group
Location (contact): VA Connecticut Healthcare System-West Haven Campus (Michal Rose); Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois (Abdul Choudhury); Kansas City VAMC, Missouri (Joaquina Baranda); White River Junction VAMC, Vermont (Nancy Kuemmerle); Eisenhower Army Medical Center, Fort Gordon, Georgia (Andrew Delmas); Tripler Army Medical Center, Honolulu, Hawaii (Jeffrey Berenberg); Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas (John Renshaw)


Irinotecan Hydrochloride and Cetuximab With or Without Ramucirumab in Treating Patients With Advanced Colorectal Cancer With Progressive Disease After Treatment With Bevacizumab

This randomized phase II trial is studying the adverse effects and how well giving cetuximab and irinotecan hydrochloride with or without ramucirumab work in treating patients with advanced colorectal cancer with progressive disease after treatment with bevacizumab-containing chemotherapy.
ID: NCT01079780
Sponsor: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group
Location (contact): Atlanta VAMC, Decatur, Georgia (Samuel Chan); VA New Jersey Health Care System East Orange Campus (Basil Kasimis)


Cancer Associated Thrombosis and Isoquercetin

This research study is evaluating a drug called isoquercetin to prevent venous thrombosis (blood clots) in participants who have pancreas, non-small cell lung cancer or colorectal cancer.
ID: NCT02195232
Sponsor: Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
Location (contact): Washington DC VAMC (Anita Aggarwal); Boston VA Healthcare System, Massachusetts (Kenneth Bauer); White River Junction VAMC, Vermont (Nancy Kuemmerle)


Studying Lymph Nodes in Patients With Stage II Colon Cancer

Diagnostic procedures that look for micrometastases in lymph nodes removed during surgery for colon cancer may help doctors learn the extent of disease. This phase I trial is studying lymph nodes in patients with stage II colon cancer.
ID: NCT00949312
Sponsor: John Wayne Cancer Institute
Location: Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC

 

Click here to read the digital edition.

Providing access to clinical trials for veteran and active-duty military patients can be a challenge, but a significant number of trials are now recruiting patients from those patient populations. Many trials explicitly recruit patients from the VA, the military, and IHS. The VA Office of Research and Development alone sponsors > 300 research initiatives, and many more are sponsored by Walter Reed National Medical Center and other major defense and VA facilities. The clinical trials listed below are all open as of April 1, 2017; have at least 1 VA, DoD, or IHS location recruiting patients; and are focused on treatment for colorectal cancer. For additional information and full inclusion/exclusion criteria, please consult clinicaltrials.gov.


Impact of Family History and Decision Support on High-Risk Cancer Screening

There is no standardized system for collecting and updating family health history, using this information to determine a patient’s disease risk level, and providing screening recommendations to patients and providers. Patients will enter their family health history into a program that will produce screening recommendations tailored to the patient’s family health history. The investigators will examine whether this process increases physician referrals for, and patient uptake of, guideline-recommended screening for colorectal cancer.
ID: NCT02247336
Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development
Location (contact): Durham VAMC, North Carolina (Jamiyla Bolton, Susan B. Armstrong); William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin (Corrine Voils)

 


Colonoscopy Versus Fecal Immunochemical Test in Reducing Mortality From Colorectal Cancer

The investigators propose to perform a large, simple, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group trial directly comparing screening colonoscopy with annual fecal immunochemical test screening in average risk individuals. The hypothesis is that colonoscopy will be superior to fecal immunochemical testing in the prevention of colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality measured over 10 years. The primary study endpoint will be CRC mortality within 10 years of enrollment.
ID: NCT01239082
Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development
Locations: 48 current locations


S0820, Adenoma and Second Primary Prevention Trial (PACES)

The investigators hypothesize that the combination of eflornithine and sulindac will be effective in reducing a 3-year event rate of adenomas and second primary colorectal cancers in patients previously treated for Stages 0 through III colon cancer.
ID: NCT01349881
Sponsor: Southwest Oncology Group
Location (contact): VA Connecticut Healthcare System-West Haven Campus (Michal Rose); Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois (Abdul Choudhury); Kansas City VAMC, Missouri (Joaquina Baranda); White River Junction VAMC, Vermont (Nancy Kuemmerle); Eisenhower Army Medical Center, Fort Gordon, Georgia (Andrew Delmas); Tripler Army Medical Center, Honolulu, Hawaii (Jeffrey Berenberg); Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas (John Renshaw)


Irinotecan Hydrochloride and Cetuximab With or Without Ramucirumab in Treating Patients With Advanced Colorectal Cancer With Progressive Disease After Treatment With Bevacizumab

This randomized phase II trial is studying the adverse effects and how well giving cetuximab and irinotecan hydrochloride with or without ramucirumab work in treating patients with advanced colorectal cancer with progressive disease after treatment with bevacizumab-containing chemotherapy.
ID: NCT01079780
Sponsor: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group
Location (contact): Atlanta VAMC, Decatur, Georgia (Samuel Chan); VA New Jersey Health Care System East Orange Campus (Basil Kasimis)


Cancer Associated Thrombosis and Isoquercetin

This research study is evaluating a drug called isoquercetin to prevent venous thrombosis (blood clots) in participants who have pancreas, non-small cell lung cancer or colorectal cancer.
ID: NCT02195232
Sponsor: Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
Location (contact): Washington DC VAMC (Anita Aggarwal); Boston VA Healthcare System, Massachusetts (Kenneth Bauer); White River Junction VAMC, Vermont (Nancy Kuemmerle)


Studying Lymph Nodes in Patients With Stage II Colon Cancer

Diagnostic procedures that look for micrometastases in lymph nodes removed during surgery for colon cancer may help doctors learn the extent of disease. This phase I trial is studying lymph nodes in patients with stage II colon cancer.
ID: NCT00949312
Sponsor: John Wayne Cancer Institute
Location: Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC

 

Click here to read the digital edition.

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 34(3)s
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 34(3)s
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Open Clinical Trials for Patients With Colorectal Cancer
Display Headline
Open Clinical Trials for Patients With Colorectal Cancer
Sections
Citation Override
Fed Pract. 2017 May;34(suppl 3):S30
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media

FDA approves marketing of device to control GI bleeding

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 01/02/2019 - 10:09

 

The Food and Drug Administration announced May 7 that it has permitted marketing of Hemospray, a new device used to help control certain types of bleeding in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract.

Hemospray is an aerosolized spray device that delivers a mineral blend to the bleeding site in the GI tract and is applied during endoscopic procedures and can cover large ulcers or tumors.

The FDA evaluated data from clinical studies consisting of 228 patients with upper and lower GI bleeding, supplemented with evidence from medical literature, including an additional 522 patients. The studies found that Hemospray stopped GI bleeding in 95% of patients within 5 minutes of device usage. Results also found that bleeding recurred, usually within 72 hours, and up to 30 days following device usage, in 20% of patients. Bowel perforation was observed as a serious side effect in approximately 1% of patients.

“The device provides an additional, nonsurgical option for treating upper and lower GI bleeding in certain patients, and may help reduce the risk of death from a GI bleed for many patients,” said Binita Ashar, MD, director, division of surgical devices, in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health in a press release.

Hemospray is not intended for patients who have a gastrointestinal fistula or are at high risk for GI perforation. The device is not intended for use in patients with variceal bleeding. The FDA permitted the marketing of the Hemospray device to Wilson-Cook Medical.*

Read the full press release here.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

The Food and Drug Administration announced May 7 that it has permitted marketing of Hemospray, a new device used to help control certain types of bleeding in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract.

Hemospray is an aerosolized spray device that delivers a mineral blend to the bleeding site in the GI tract and is applied during endoscopic procedures and can cover large ulcers or tumors.

The FDA evaluated data from clinical studies consisting of 228 patients with upper and lower GI bleeding, supplemented with evidence from medical literature, including an additional 522 patients. The studies found that Hemospray stopped GI bleeding in 95% of patients within 5 minutes of device usage. Results also found that bleeding recurred, usually within 72 hours, and up to 30 days following device usage, in 20% of patients. Bowel perforation was observed as a serious side effect in approximately 1% of patients.

“The device provides an additional, nonsurgical option for treating upper and lower GI bleeding in certain patients, and may help reduce the risk of death from a GI bleed for many patients,” said Binita Ashar, MD, director, division of surgical devices, in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health in a press release.

Hemospray is not intended for patients who have a gastrointestinal fistula or are at high risk for GI perforation. The device is not intended for use in patients with variceal bleeding. The FDA permitted the marketing of the Hemospray device to Wilson-Cook Medical.*

Read the full press release here.

 

The Food and Drug Administration announced May 7 that it has permitted marketing of Hemospray, a new device used to help control certain types of bleeding in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract.

Hemospray is an aerosolized spray device that delivers a mineral blend to the bleeding site in the GI tract and is applied during endoscopic procedures and can cover large ulcers or tumors.

The FDA evaluated data from clinical studies consisting of 228 patients with upper and lower GI bleeding, supplemented with evidence from medical literature, including an additional 522 patients. The studies found that Hemospray stopped GI bleeding in 95% of patients within 5 minutes of device usage. Results also found that bleeding recurred, usually within 72 hours, and up to 30 days following device usage, in 20% of patients. Bowel perforation was observed as a serious side effect in approximately 1% of patients.

“The device provides an additional, nonsurgical option for treating upper and lower GI bleeding in certain patients, and may help reduce the risk of death from a GI bleed for many patients,” said Binita Ashar, MD, director, division of surgical devices, in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health in a press release.

Hemospray is not intended for patients who have a gastrointestinal fistula or are at high risk for GI perforation. The device is not intended for use in patients with variceal bleeding. The FDA permitted the marketing of the Hemospray device to Wilson-Cook Medical.*

Read the full press release here.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

The Effect of Immunonutrition on Veterans Undergoing Major Surgery for Gastrointestinal Cancer (FULL)

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 12/15/2022 - 14:51
Display Headline
The Effect of Immunonutrition on Veterans Undergoing Major Surgery for Gastrointestinal Cancer
A randomized controlled trial found that providing immunonutrition supplementation before surgery reduced the rate of postoperative complications and the length of hospital stays.

Immunonutrition involves the use of omega-3 fatty acids, glutamine, arginine, and/or nucleotides individually or in combination at therapeutic levels to specifically modulate the immune system against altering inflammatory and metabolic pathways.1 Current literature supports the routine use of immune-enhancing formulas (containing both arginine and fish oil) in surgical patients.2-4 Although most of the literature favors the use of immunonutrition in surgical patients, some studies reported no benefit over standard oral nutrition supplementation.5

Background

Most studies evaluating the effect of immunonutrition for those undergoing elective surgery have been conducted in surgical oncology patients.6-12 Advanced cancers and older age can lead to cancer cachexia and sarcopenia, respectively. These conditions increase a patient’s surgical morbidity and mortality risk likely because of the negative effects on lean body mass, nutrient intake, and inflammatory and metabolic profile.13 However, early detection of some cancers through routine screening might lead to earlier surgical intervention that minimizes these negative tumor effects on the patient. Immunonutrition provided to well-nourished and malnourished patients has shown benefits, which supports the premise that a combination of immunonutrients included in immune-enhancing diets might have a beneficial pharmacotherapeutic effect beyond that of providing energy, protein, vitamins, and minerals for nutritional support.7,14

There are a lack of data regarding whether there is a window of opportunity for improved outcomes. Is the greatest need for immunonutrients during the peak of the injury, which might be immediately after surgery, or is it before the procedure? Arginine is a conditionally essential amino acid that has been shown to have a beneficial effect on the immune system by enhancing T-lymphocyte response when supplemented in surgical patients. When the arginase 1 (ARG 1) enzyme in myeloid cells is expressed during the inflammatory response to injury, accelerated use of arginine can deplete endogenous arginine, making it conditionally essential.

If adequate arginine cannot be synthesized or an exogenous source is not provided, T-cell dysfunction and decreased nitric oxide production leads to immune and vascular dysfunction, respectively.15,16 Providing arginine and omega-3 fatty acids might have a synergistic effect by shifting to an anti-inflammatory prostaglandin profile that has been shown to decrease ARG 1 expression while providing an exogenous source of arginine.17 Postsurgical inflammation might be caused in part by pro-inflammatory mediators and the anti-inflammatory properties of omega-3 fatty acids might offset this if cell membranes are loaded preoperatively.18 Therefore, preoperative immunonutrition might allow tissues to recover from planned surgical trauma. Bouwens and colleagues demonstrated that intake of eicosapentaenoic acid/docosahexaenoic acid over 26 weeks can alter the gene expression profiles of immune cells to a more anti-inflammatory status.19 However, Senkal and colleagues recommended that 3 to 7 days preoperatively is adequate to positively alter the lipid profile of tissues.20

Oncology patients preparing for surgery often are exposed to the physiologic stress of radiation and chemotherapy as neoadjuvant treatment to surgery. Oncology treatment and the adverse nutritional effects of treatment increase risk for arginine deficiency, such as poor nutrition intake, increased requirements, decreased production. Braga and colleagues demonstrated improved gut microprofusion and gut oxygenation intraoperatively, an effect that continued for up to 5 days after surgery.21 Waitzberg conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials evaluating immunonutrition in preoperative, postoperative, and perioperative periods. The results showed that the greatest improvements in postoperative infections and length of stay occurred in patients receiving preoperative 0.5 to 1 L/d of an immune nutrition product containing supplemental omega-3 fatty acids, arginine, and nucleotides for 5 to 7 days.22

It is unclear which population of surgical patients benefit the most from immunonutrition. Some results in the literature favor use in malnourished patients.18,23 However, other studies also have found benefit in well-nourished patients.7,14,21

Veterans who seek medical care at the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) have higher rates of cancer, obesity, and diabetes mellitus, which complicate surgical outcomes.24 In addition to comorbidities, veterans who seek medical care at the VA are more likely to have been deployed overseas and have more physical and mental health disorders compared with that of nonveteran patients or veterans who do not use the VA. Because of higher comorbidities, unique deployment history, and mental health disorders, all of which may impact quality of life concerns, veterans are clinically more complex, which makes comparisons with the private sector difficult. The VA has the advantage of providing comprehensive care to veterans in all settings, including preparation for surgery and postsurgical follow-up with an interdisciplinary team.

The objective of this study was to compare surgical outcomes in veterans who receive preoperative supplementation using an immune-modulating formula with veterans who received a standard oral supplement. Although practice guidelines have been developed from studies in US nonveteran populations, there are no high- quality randomized studies of veterans.

This study design also would allow the VA to gauge cost-effectiveness of immunonutrition before implementing new protocols. There is convincing data supporting significant economic benefit; however, more cost-benefit studies are needed to fully assess.18,25-27 Immunonutrition products are more expensive than are standard nutrition supplements, but overall cost of care when immunonutrition products are used could be lower because of reduction of complications and hospital resources.

 

 

Methods

From November 2011 to January 2016, the authors conducted a single-center, prospective, randomized parallel-group study in veterans undergoing elective gastrointestinal oncologic surgery. Inclusion criteria included planned esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, colorectal, or liver resections in veterans with histologically documented neoplasm of the gastrointestinal tract. Patients were excluded if they were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) before surgery, were receiving steroids or other immunosuppressive medications, had a recent hospital admission for pulmonary, cardiac, or renal disease, or were exhibiting signs or symptoms of infection or sepsis, including elevated white blood cells (WBC) > 10,000/mL or a temperature > 37.7° C.

The study was approved by the research and development committee and the institutional review board at James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital (JAHVH) in Tampa, Florida. The clinicaltrials.gov identifier for the study was NCT01471743.

Nutrition Formula

Subjects were randomized into 2 oral supplement groups: immunonutrition group (ING) patients received immunonutrition, and standard nutrition group (SNG) received a standard formula (Table 1). 

Each participant received the supplement and were instructed to drink 3 servings per day (750 mL/d) for 5 days before their surgery.

Study Procedures

All veterans with planned gastrointestinal surgeries were evaluated in the JAHVH general surgery clinic. Veterans meeting the inclusion criteria were invited to participate in the study, and informed consent was obtained. A research randomizer program assigned subjects to the groups to reach equal 1:1 randomization. Enrolled participants were provided their randomized supplement (unblinded) in the general surgery clinic and instructed on the amount of supplement to consume and date to begin taking the supplement. Participants were instructed to continue with their normal diet in addition to the supplement. No additional nutrition education was provided. Participants were asked to keep track of their daily supplement intake. Patients in both groups also used preoperative bowel preparations when indicated.

At the time of enrollment, presurgical comorbidities, anthropometric data, and nutrition status parameters were obtained. Postoperatively, study personnel interviewed each patient about formula consumption and tolerance. Thirty days postoperatively, patient demographics, surgical characteristics (eg, surgery, operative time, blood loss), nutrition risk screening (NRS 2002) score, diet/enteral orders, days spent NPO, days in the hospital or in the ICU, and complications (eg, wound infection, abscess, sepsis, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, intestinal fistula, ileus, or anastomotic leakage) were collected from the electronic health record.

Statistical Analysis

The primary outcome measure was overall postoperative complication rate and postoperative infection rate. Based on reviews of similar studies available at the time of protocol development, it was assumed that a postoperative infection rate of 38% in the SNG and 15% in the ING would indicate treatment efficacy. A sample size of 54 patients in each group would provide a Type I error level α = .05 and a power of 80%. A total of 108 patients enrolled in the study. Chi-square analysis was used to determine this primary outcome measure.

Secondary outcomes (mean number of complications, hospital days, NPO (nothing by mouth) days, and ICU days) were evaluated with Mann Whitney U test because of violation of assumptions for the t test. All P values were 2-tailed and statistical significance was accepted at P < .05 with clinical significance accepted at P < .10. Analysis for intention to treat (ITT) and per protocol are provided for outcome measures. For the ITT analysis, multiple imputation (last observation carried forward) was used. Sensitivity analysis found that the data were missing at random. SPSS software version 21.0 (Chicago, IL) was used for statistical analysis.

Results

During the study period, 137 patients were assessed for eligibility (Figure). 

An ITT as well as a per-protocol analysis was reviewed by the authors and presented to the hospital nutrition committee before making protocol decisions. A full review of all enrolled study subjects (including those who did not receive actual supplementation) was evaluated for factors that could influence bias from dropped treatment. However, the authors also wanted to evaluate treatment efficacy for only those who received supplementation; therefore, a per protocol analysis was reviewed. Both analyses are included. For the ITT analysis, 54 subjects in each group were analyzed. Six participants in the ING and 7 in the SNG did not receive surgical intervention, respectively. As a result, 47 SNG and 48 ING participants were included in the per-protocol analysis.

The sample was predominately white and male, which is consistent with the veteran population. There were no statistical differences for baseline patient or surgical characteristics between the groups (Table 2). 

The mean (SD) number of comorbidities was slightly higher in the ING compared with those of the SNG, 1.6 (1.2) vs 1.3 (1.1), respectively. In addition, there was a trend (P = .06) of longer operative time in the SNG (mean 294.4 minutes) compared with that of the ING (mean 249.5 minutes). There was no difference in supplemental intake between the groups and an overall adherence rate of 86% in both groups (Table 2). A total of 41 participants in the ING consumed ≥ 10 servings in 5 days vs 35 in the SNG.

There was a significant difference (P = .09) in the surgical procedures completed. There was only 1 pancreatic surgery completed in the ING and 9 pancreatic surgeries completed in the SNG.

 

 

Primary Outcomes

The overall rate of complications differed between the groups (Table 3). 

The percentage of subjects who experienced any type of complication was significantly higher (P = .03) in the SNG (52%) than it was in the ING (31%). The rate of infectious complications also was higher (P = .12) in the SNG (33%) compared with that in the ING (20%). The ITT and per-protocol analysis found higher numbers of complications for incidence of ileus, anastomotic leak, postoperative wound infection, pneumonia, urinary tract infections, sepsis, and death in the SNG vs the ING. There was no difference in incidence of intestinal fistula or abdominal abscess.

Given the large number of colorectal procedures, a separate per-protocol analysis included 37 patients from ING and 36 patients in the SNG (Table 4). 

The results are comparable with the original data analysis and indicated a higher total number of complications: 57.6% in the SNG compared with 36.4% in the ING (P = .08). Infectious complications were similar to the full analysis with 33.3% in the SNG and 21.2% in ING. Although the colorectal analysis was not planned and therefore underpowered, the authors felt it was appropriate to review because of the significant difference in surgical procedures completed.

Secondary Outcomes

The ITT analysis found that overall number of hospital days was slightly higher in the ING compared with that of the SNG, 9.4 vs 9.3 days, respectively. In the per-protocol analysis there were 1.3 fewer hospital days for those who received immunonutrition (P = .059). No significant differences were found between the groups in the number of days spent in the ICU or number of days NPO (Table 3). Death within 30 days postoperative was twice as high for those in the SNG vs ING, with no deaths in the per-protocol analysis for those in the ING.

The colorectal analysis found 8.5 hospital days for ING patients vs 10.0 days for SNG patients, (P = .08). There were no deaths in the ING and 1 death in the SNG for colorectal procedure patients.

Discussion

Surgery is traumatic to healthy patients with or without cancer. Patients with cancer who receive surgical intervention might be at an even higher risk for complications because of altered metabolic pathways, nutritional deficiencies, and depressed immune function.13 Meta-analyses of immunonutrition studies conducted over the past 2 decades have come to different conclusions regarding the benefit of immunonutrition in the elective gastrointestinal cancer surgery population.3,5,18 Although practice guidelines from the American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition and the European Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition recommend routine use of immune-modulating formulas in surgical oncology patients, there is still some debate about the optimal timing, dose, individual formula constituents, and populations that will benefit.2,25 Earlier studies evaluating the economics of immunonutrition have shown significant cost savings related to reduction in length of stay and decrease in infectious complications even after accounting for the extra cost of the formula.26,27 More recent economic analyses confirmed these cost savings showing a savings of about $1,000 to $2,500 per patient with higher savings when immunonutrition was given preoperatively.28,29

For practitioners treating veterans with cancer, good stewardship of federal dollars and optimal outcomes are important considerations before implementing new therapies. Therefore, JAHVH set out to evaluate whether standard oral nutrition supplementation would be as effective as the higher cost immunonutrition supplementation in cancer patients receiving elective surgical procedures.

Rates of Complications

In this study, favorable effects of immunonutrition were found on total postoperative complications and number of hospital days. The total number of patients who experienced complications was 39% lower in the ING than it was in SNG in the ITT analysis and 37% lower in the colorectal per-protocol analysis. These rates are similar to the 48% lower rate Braga and colleagues found in their study in patients with colorectal cancer who received 5 days of preoperative immunonutrition.21 Because more than half of the patients in this study had colorectal cancer, the group is comparable to the Braga and colleagues study population. The overall supplement adherence rate was 86%, which was slightly lower than the 90% adherence rate that Braga and colleagues found. Lower consumption rates might have been a factor in not achieving a greater therapeutic benefit for infectious complications. Some studies suggest a therapeutic goal intake of greater than two-thirds of the prescribed amount.10,30 In the present study, 70.4% of the ING and 83% of the SNG met that recommended therapeutic goal, which is more than Hübner colleagues reported in their study (53% of the ING and 60% in the SNG meeting therapeutic intake goal).

 

 

Okamoto and colleagues also reported a much lower complication rate in gastric cancer patients who received immunonutrition (13.3%) compared with that of those receiving an isoenergetic formula (40%).11 The group receiving immunonutrition in the Okamoto and colleagues study had 4 times fewer infectious complications than did the standard group (P = .039), and a contributing reason might be that they supplemented for 7 days preoperatively. Similar to the current study’s results, Giger-Pabst and colleagues and Hübner and colleagues did not find any significant difference in infectious complications.10,30 Important notes of comparison include a low adherence rate in the study conducted by Hübner and colleagues and the lower dose of immunonutrition used by Giger-Pabst andcolleagues who used 3 days of preoperative supplementation, which may not be long enough to promote the tissue benefits of immunonutrition.

Although, the current study did not find any statistically significant difference in infectious complications, the SNG experienced 1.8 times more infections than did the ING, which indicates that immunonutrition support may be clinically beneficial. Based on previous literature and the results of this study, the authors speculate that at least 5 days of intake of the study immunonutrition formula could positively affect outcomes.

The authors suspect that the added arginine and fish oil in the immunonutrition product act synergistically as therapeutic ingredients to shift toward a preoperative anti-inflammatory prostaglandin environment while providing exogenous arginine to possibly prevent or correct a conditionally essential need for arginine that would promote adequate nitric oxide production. Another crucial factor is that the a priori power analysis was looking at a 38% complication rate in the SNG and only 15% complication rate in the ING, which generated a sample size of 108 participants. The post hoc power analysis indicates that this study is underpowered based on the complication rates, which could be a reason for insignificant infectious complications.

The benefits of immunonutrients are still being studied. Future studies in a controlled surgical setting could determine whether immunonutrition has a clinical outcome effect on operative time and surgical blood loss. A challenge for the investigators was to decide whether the difference in operative time and blood loss was a surgical characteristic or a clinical outcome. The positive impact of immunonutrients on tissue perfusion and cell integrity have been shown in other studies to reduce tissue inflammation and alter gene expression, which could affect how tissues respond to surgical insults.10,11 Because JAHVH is a teaching institution and multiple surgeons are involved with the patients, this question will continue to be unresolved. Future research may want to consider controlling for variability in surgical technique and perioperative protocols to evaluate this as a clinical outcome.

Limitations

Several limitations of this trial need to be addressed. Although the design of the study was a randomized controlled trial, it was an unblinded, single-center study with a small sample size. Surgeons were not aware of which supplement each subject had received; however, researchers took no measures to ensure the surgeons were blinded. To minimize bias, 2 investigators evaluated the records for complication rates to confirm consistency, and any discrepancies were resolved by a third investigator. Although adherence was evaluated, it was patient-reported, and lab testing was not conducted to ensure that tissues were loaded with therapeutic amounts of immunonutrients or to determine baseline levels of nutrient intake, which could show a nutrient response curve.

The use of other nutritional supplements, such as vitamins, probiotics, or additional fatty acids were not monitored, and the study formulas differed in protein and fiber content, which could have impacted the overall nutrient intake and affected the primary outcomes. Another limitation includes the variety of surgeons used over the period of the study. At a teaching institution, it is not feasible to limit the number of surgeons performing surgery.

Additionally, the study period was 5 years, and there have been changes in fasting times, medications, and bowel preparation over the course of that period, which could not be accounted for. Postoperative immunonutrition was not provided in this study based on the limited evidence available when the protocol was initiated. However, since that time, evidence supports and encourages postoperative therapy and might have proven beneficial to the patients. Data were not collected on the need for additional surgery within the study period, which could significantly impact outcomes.

Future studies would benefit from a longer postoperative monitoring period because this study looked only at the 30-day postoperative period. Last, randomization did not account for equal allocation of surgical procedures, and a higher number of pancreatic surgeries in the SNG could account for the higher complication rate found in that group. Although the colorectal analysis is underpowered, the results continue to show beneficial results with the use of immunonutrition.

 

 

Conclusion

The primary purpose of this research was to determine whether the veteran population would benefit from an immunonutrition preoperative protocol as recommended by several practice guidelines. The results of the initial analysis and the colorectal analysis were presented to the hospital interdisciplinary nutrition committee who voted that a preoperative immunonutrition protocol will be implemented at JAHVH because of the high comorbidity rate experienced by veterans.

References

1. Grimble RF. Immunonutrition. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2005;21(2):216-222.

2. McClave SA, Martindale RG, Vanek VW, et al; A.S.P.E.N. Board of Directors; American College of Critical Care Medicine; Society of Critical Care Medicine. Guidelines for the provision and assessment of nutrition support therapy in the adult critically ill patient: Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.). JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2009;33(3):277-316.

3. Marimuthu K, Varadhan KK, Ljungqvist O, Lobo DN. A meta-analysis of the effect of combinations of immune modulating nutrients on outcome in patients undergoing major open gastrointestinal surgery. Ann Surg. 2012;255(6):1060-1068.

4. Bharadwaj S, Trivax B, Tandon P, Alkam B, Hanouneh I, Steiger E. Should perioperative immunonutrition for elective surgery be the current standard of care? Gastroenterol Rep (Oxford). 2016;4(2):87-95.

5. Hegazi RA, Hustead DS, Evans DC. Preoperative standard oral nutrition supplements vs immunonutrition: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;219(5):1078-1087.

6. Xu J, Zhong Y, Jing D, Wu Z. Preoperative enteral immunonutrition improves postoperative outcome in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. World J Surg. 2006;30(7):1284-1289.

7. Horie H, Okada M, Kojima M, Nagai H. Favorable effects of preoperative enteral immunonutrition on a surgical site infection in patients with colorectal cancer without malnutrition. Surg Today. 2006;36(12):1063-1068.

8. Fujitani K, Tsujinaka T, Fujita J, et al; Osaka Gastrointestinal Cancer Chemotherapy Study Group. Prospective randomized trial of preoperative enteral immunonutrition followed by elective total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Br J Surg. 2012;99(5):621-629.

9. Braga M, Gianotti L, Nespoli L, Radaelli G, Di Carlo V. Nutritional approach in malnourished surgical patients: a prospective randomized study. Arch Surg. 2002;137(2):174-180.

10. Giger-Pabst U, Lange J, Maurer C, et al. Short-term preoperative supplementation of an immunoenriched diet does not improve clinical outcome in well-nourished patients undergoing abdominal cancer surgery. Nutrition. 2013;29(5):724-729.

11. Okamoto Y, Okano K, Izuishi K, Usuki H, Wakabayashi H, Suzuki Y. Attenuation of the systemic inflammatory response and infectious complications after gastrectomy with preoperative oral arginine and omega-3 fatty acids supplemented immunonutrition. World J Surg. 2009;33(9):1815-1821.

12. Yildiz SY, Yazicoiog˘lu MB, Tiryaki Ç, Çiftçi A, Boyaciog˘lu Z. The effect of enteral immunonutrition in upper gastrointestinal surgery for cancer: a prospective study. Turk J Med Sci. 2016;46(2):393-400.

13. Peterson SJ, Mozer M. Differentiating sarcopenia and cachexia among patients with cancer. Nutr Clin Pract. 2017;32(1):30-39.

14. Gianotti L, Braga M, Nespoli L, Radaelli G, Beneduce A, Di Carlo V. A randomized controlled trial of preoperative oral supplementation with a specialized diet in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2002;122(7):1763-1770.

15. Daly JM, Reynolds J, Thom A, et al. Immune and metabolic effects of arginine in the surgical patient. Ann Surg. 1988;208(4):512-523.

16. Aida T, Furukawa K, Suzuki D, et al. Preoperative immunonutrition decreases postoperative complications by modulating prostaglandin E2 production and T-cell differentiation in patients undergoing pancreato-duodenectomy. Surgery. 2014;155(1):124-133.

17. Bansal V, Syres KM, Makarenkova V, et al. Interactions between fatty acids and arginine metabolism: implications for the design of immune-enhancing diets. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2005;29(1 suppl):S75-S80.

18. Osland E, Hossain MB, Khan S, Memon MA. Effect of timing of pharmaconutrition (immunonutrition) administration on outcomes of elective surgery for gastrointestinal malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2014;38(1):53-69.

19. Bouwens M, van de Rest O, Dellschaft N, et al. Fish-oil supplementation induces antiinflammatory gene expression profiles in human blood mononuclear cells. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;90(2):415-424.

20. Senkal M, Haaker R, Linseisen J, Wolfram G, Homann HH, Stehle P. Preoperative oral supplementation with long-chain omega-3 fatty acids beneficially alters phospholipid fatty acid patterns in liver, gut mucosa, and tumor tissue. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2005;29(4):236-240.

21. Braga M, Gianotti L, Vignali A, Carlo VD. Preoperative oral arginine and n-3 fatty acid supplementation improves the immunometabolic host response and outcome after colorectal resection for cancer. Surgery. 2002;132(5):805-814.

22. Waitzberg DL, Saito H, Plank LD, et al. Postsurgical infections are reduced with specialized nutrition support. World J Surg. 2006;30(8):1592-1604.

23. Klek S, Sierzega M, Szybinski P, et al. The immunomodulating enteral nutrition in malnourished surgical patients—a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Clin Nutr. 2011;30(3):282-288.

24. Farmer CM, Hosek SD, Adamson DM. Balancing demand and supply for veteran’s health care: a summary of three RAND assessments conducted under the Veterans Choice Act. Rand Health Q. 2016;6(1):12.

25. Arends J, Bachmann P, Baracos V, et al. ESPEN guidelines on nutrition in cancer patients. Clin Nutr. 2017;36(1):11-48.

26. Mauskopf JA, Candrilli SD, Chevrou-Séverac H, Ochoa JB. Immunonutrition for patients undergoing elective surgery for gastrointestinal cancer: Impact on hospital costs. World J Surg Oncol. 2012;10:136.

27. Senkal M, Mumme A, Eickhoff U, et al. Early postoperative enteral immunonutrition: clinical outcome and cost-comparison analysis in surgical patients. Crit Care Med. 1997;25(9):1489-1496.

28. Chevrou-Séverac H, Pinget C, Cerantola Y, Demartines N, Wasserfallen JB, Schäfer M. Cost-effectiveness analysis of immune-modulating nutritional support for gastrointestinal cancer patients. Clin Nutr. 2014;33(4):649-654.

29. Strickland A, Brogan A, Krauss J, Martindale R, Cresci G. Is the use of specialized nutritional formulations a cost-effective strategy? A national database evaluation. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2005;29(1 suppl):S81-S91.

30. Hübner M, Cerantola Y, Grass F, Bertrand PC, Schäfer M, Demartines N. Preoperative immunonutrition in patients at nutritional risk: results of a double-blinded randomized clinical trial. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2012;66(7):850-855.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Ms. Lewis is a Dietetic Program Internship Director, Ms. Pugsley is a Clinical Dietitian, Mr. Schneider is the Lead Surgical Service Physician Assistant, Dr. Rakita is Chief of Surgical Service, Dr. Moudgill is Chiefof Division of General Surgery, all at James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital in Tampa, Florida. Dr. Moudgill is an Assistant Professor, and Dr. Rakita is an Associate Professorin the Department of Surgery at University of South Florida.
Correspondence: Mr. Schneider([email protected])

Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, o r any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review the complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects—before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 35(4)s
Publications
Topics
Page Number
S49-S56
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Ms. Lewis is a Dietetic Program Internship Director, Ms. Pugsley is a Clinical Dietitian, Mr. Schneider is the Lead Surgical Service Physician Assistant, Dr. Rakita is Chief of Surgical Service, Dr. Moudgill is Chiefof Division of General Surgery, all at James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital in Tampa, Florida. Dr. Moudgill is an Assistant Professor, and Dr. Rakita is an Associate Professorin the Department of Surgery at University of South Florida.
Correspondence: Mr. Schneider([email protected])

Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, o r any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review the complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects—before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.

Author and Disclosure Information

Ms. Lewis is a Dietetic Program Internship Director, Ms. Pugsley is a Clinical Dietitian, Mr. Schneider is the Lead Surgical Service Physician Assistant, Dr. Rakita is Chief of Surgical Service, Dr. Moudgill is Chiefof Division of General Surgery, all at James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital in Tampa, Florida. Dr. Moudgill is an Assistant Professor, and Dr. Rakita is an Associate Professorin the Department of Surgery at University of South Florida.
Correspondence: Mr. Schneider([email protected])

Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, o r any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review the complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects—before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.

Article PDF
Article PDF
A randomized controlled trial found that providing immunonutrition supplementation before surgery reduced the rate of postoperative complications and the length of hospital stays.
A randomized controlled trial found that providing immunonutrition supplementation before surgery reduced the rate of postoperative complications and the length of hospital stays.

Immunonutrition involves the use of omega-3 fatty acids, glutamine, arginine, and/or nucleotides individually or in combination at therapeutic levels to specifically modulate the immune system against altering inflammatory and metabolic pathways.1 Current literature supports the routine use of immune-enhancing formulas (containing both arginine and fish oil) in surgical patients.2-4 Although most of the literature favors the use of immunonutrition in surgical patients, some studies reported no benefit over standard oral nutrition supplementation.5

Background

Most studies evaluating the effect of immunonutrition for those undergoing elective surgery have been conducted in surgical oncology patients.6-12 Advanced cancers and older age can lead to cancer cachexia and sarcopenia, respectively. These conditions increase a patient’s surgical morbidity and mortality risk likely because of the negative effects on lean body mass, nutrient intake, and inflammatory and metabolic profile.13 However, early detection of some cancers through routine screening might lead to earlier surgical intervention that minimizes these negative tumor effects on the patient. Immunonutrition provided to well-nourished and malnourished patients has shown benefits, which supports the premise that a combination of immunonutrients included in immune-enhancing diets might have a beneficial pharmacotherapeutic effect beyond that of providing energy, protein, vitamins, and minerals for nutritional support.7,14

There are a lack of data regarding whether there is a window of opportunity for improved outcomes. Is the greatest need for immunonutrients during the peak of the injury, which might be immediately after surgery, or is it before the procedure? Arginine is a conditionally essential amino acid that has been shown to have a beneficial effect on the immune system by enhancing T-lymphocyte response when supplemented in surgical patients. When the arginase 1 (ARG 1) enzyme in myeloid cells is expressed during the inflammatory response to injury, accelerated use of arginine can deplete endogenous arginine, making it conditionally essential.

If adequate arginine cannot be synthesized or an exogenous source is not provided, T-cell dysfunction and decreased nitric oxide production leads to immune and vascular dysfunction, respectively.15,16 Providing arginine and omega-3 fatty acids might have a synergistic effect by shifting to an anti-inflammatory prostaglandin profile that has been shown to decrease ARG 1 expression while providing an exogenous source of arginine.17 Postsurgical inflammation might be caused in part by pro-inflammatory mediators and the anti-inflammatory properties of omega-3 fatty acids might offset this if cell membranes are loaded preoperatively.18 Therefore, preoperative immunonutrition might allow tissues to recover from planned surgical trauma. Bouwens and colleagues demonstrated that intake of eicosapentaenoic acid/docosahexaenoic acid over 26 weeks can alter the gene expression profiles of immune cells to a more anti-inflammatory status.19 However, Senkal and colleagues recommended that 3 to 7 days preoperatively is adequate to positively alter the lipid profile of tissues.20

Oncology patients preparing for surgery often are exposed to the physiologic stress of radiation and chemotherapy as neoadjuvant treatment to surgery. Oncology treatment and the adverse nutritional effects of treatment increase risk for arginine deficiency, such as poor nutrition intake, increased requirements, decreased production. Braga and colleagues demonstrated improved gut microprofusion and gut oxygenation intraoperatively, an effect that continued for up to 5 days after surgery.21 Waitzberg conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials evaluating immunonutrition in preoperative, postoperative, and perioperative periods. The results showed that the greatest improvements in postoperative infections and length of stay occurred in patients receiving preoperative 0.5 to 1 L/d of an immune nutrition product containing supplemental omega-3 fatty acids, arginine, and nucleotides for 5 to 7 days.22

It is unclear which population of surgical patients benefit the most from immunonutrition. Some results in the literature favor use in malnourished patients.18,23 However, other studies also have found benefit in well-nourished patients.7,14,21

Veterans who seek medical care at the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) have higher rates of cancer, obesity, and diabetes mellitus, which complicate surgical outcomes.24 In addition to comorbidities, veterans who seek medical care at the VA are more likely to have been deployed overseas and have more physical and mental health disorders compared with that of nonveteran patients or veterans who do not use the VA. Because of higher comorbidities, unique deployment history, and mental health disorders, all of which may impact quality of life concerns, veterans are clinically more complex, which makes comparisons with the private sector difficult. The VA has the advantage of providing comprehensive care to veterans in all settings, including preparation for surgery and postsurgical follow-up with an interdisciplinary team.

The objective of this study was to compare surgical outcomes in veterans who receive preoperative supplementation using an immune-modulating formula with veterans who received a standard oral supplement. Although practice guidelines have been developed from studies in US nonveteran populations, there are no high- quality randomized studies of veterans.

This study design also would allow the VA to gauge cost-effectiveness of immunonutrition before implementing new protocols. There is convincing data supporting significant economic benefit; however, more cost-benefit studies are needed to fully assess.18,25-27 Immunonutrition products are more expensive than are standard nutrition supplements, but overall cost of care when immunonutrition products are used could be lower because of reduction of complications and hospital resources.

 

 

Methods

From November 2011 to January 2016, the authors conducted a single-center, prospective, randomized parallel-group study in veterans undergoing elective gastrointestinal oncologic surgery. Inclusion criteria included planned esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, colorectal, or liver resections in veterans with histologically documented neoplasm of the gastrointestinal tract. Patients were excluded if they were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) before surgery, were receiving steroids or other immunosuppressive medications, had a recent hospital admission for pulmonary, cardiac, or renal disease, or were exhibiting signs or symptoms of infection or sepsis, including elevated white blood cells (WBC) > 10,000/mL or a temperature > 37.7° C.

The study was approved by the research and development committee and the institutional review board at James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital (JAHVH) in Tampa, Florida. The clinicaltrials.gov identifier for the study was NCT01471743.

Nutrition Formula

Subjects were randomized into 2 oral supplement groups: immunonutrition group (ING) patients received immunonutrition, and standard nutrition group (SNG) received a standard formula (Table 1). 

Each participant received the supplement and were instructed to drink 3 servings per day (750 mL/d) for 5 days before their surgery.

Study Procedures

All veterans with planned gastrointestinal surgeries were evaluated in the JAHVH general surgery clinic. Veterans meeting the inclusion criteria were invited to participate in the study, and informed consent was obtained. A research randomizer program assigned subjects to the groups to reach equal 1:1 randomization. Enrolled participants were provided their randomized supplement (unblinded) in the general surgery clinic and instructed on the amount of supplement to consume and date to begin taking the supplement. Participants were instructed to continue with their normal diet in addition to the supplement. No additional nutrition education was provided. Participants were asked to keep track of their daily supplement intake. Patients in both groups also used preoperative bowel preparations when indicated.

At the time of enrollment, presurgical comorbidities, anthropometric data, and nutrition status parameters were obtained. Postoperatively, study personnel interviewed each patient about formula consumption and tolerance. Thirty days postoperatively, patient demographics, surgical characteristics (eg, surgery, operative time, blood loss), nutrition risk screening (NRS 2002) score, diet/enteral orders, days spent NPO, days in the hospital or in the ICU, and complications (eg, wound infection, abscess, sepsis, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, intestinal fistula, ileus, or anastomotic leakage) were collected from the electronic health record.

Statistical Analysis

The primary outcome measure was overall postoperative complication rate and postoperative infection rate. Based on reviews of similar studies available at the time of protocol development, it was assumed that a postoperative infection rate of 38% in the SNG and 15% in the ING would indicate treatment efficacy. A sample size of 54 patients in each group would provide a Type I error level α = .05 and a power of 80%. A total of 108 patients enrolled in the study. Chi-square analysis was used to determine this primary outcome measure.

Secondary outcomes (mean number of complications, hospital days, NPO (nothing by mouth) days, and ICU days) were evaluated with Mann Whitney U test because of violation of assumptions for the t test. All P values were 2-tailed and statistical significance was accepted at P < .05 with clinical significance accepted at P < .10. Analysis for intention to treat (ITT) and per protocol are provided for outcome measures. For the ITT analysis, multiple imputation (last observation carried forward) was used. Sensitivity analysis found that the data were missing at random. SPSS software version 21.0 (Chicago, IL) was used for statistical analysis.

Results

During the study period, 137 patients were assessed for eligibility (Figure). 

An ITT as well as a per-protocol analysis was reviewed by the authors and presented to the hospital nutrition committee before making protocol decisions. A full review of all enrolled study subjects (including those who did not receive actual supplementation) was evaluated for factors that could influence bias from dropped treatment. However, the authors also wanted to evaluate treatment efficacy for only those who received supplementation; therefore, a per protocol analysis was reviewed. Both analyses are included. For the ITT analysis, 54 subjects in each group were analyzed. Six participants in the ING and 7 in the SNG did not receive surgical intervention, respectively. As a result, 47 SNG and 48 ING participants were included in the per-protocol analysis.

The sample was predominately white and male, which is consistent with the veteran population. There were no statistical differences for baseline patient or surgical characteristics between the groups (Table 2). 

The mean (SD) number of comorbidities was slightly higher in the ING compared with those of the SNG, 1.6 (1.2) vs 1.3 (1.1), respectively. In addition, there was a trend (P = .06) of longer operative time in the SNG (mean 294.4 minutes) compared with that of the ING (mean 249.5 minutes). There was no difference in supplemental intake between the groups and an overall adherence rate of 86% in both groups (Table 2). A total of 41 participants in the ING consumed ≥ 10 servings in 5 days vs 35 in the SNG.

There was a significant difference (P = .09) in the surgical procedures completed. There was only 1 pancreatic surgery completed in the ING and 9 pancreatic surgeries completed in the SNG.

 

 

Primary Outcomes

The overall rate of complications differed between the groups (Table 3). 

The percentage of subjects who experienced any type of complication was significantly higher (P = .03) in the SNG (52%) than it was in the ING (31%). The rate of infectious complications also was higher (P = .12) in the SNG (33%) compared with that in the ING (20%). The ITT and per-protocol analysis found higher numbers of complications for incidence of ileus, anastomotic leak, postoperative wound infection, pneumonia, urinary tract infections, sepsis, and death in the SNG vs the ING. There was no difference in incidence of intestinal fistula or abdominal abscess.

Given the large number of colorectal procedures, a separate per-protocol analysis included 37 patients from ING and 36 patients in the SNG (Table 4). 

The results are comparable with the original data analysis and indicated a higher total number of complications: 57.6% in the SNG compared with 36.4% in the ING (P = .08). Infectious complications were similar to the full analysis with 33.3% in the SNG and 21.2% in ING. Although the colorectal analysis was not planned and therefore underpowered, the authors felt it was appropriate to review because of the significant difference in surgical procedures completed.

Secondary Outcomes

The ITT analysis found that overall number of hospital days was slightly higher in the ING compared with that of the SNG, 9.4 vs 9.3 days, respectively. In the per-protocol analysis there were 1.3 fewer hospital days for those who received immunonutrition (P = .059). No significant differences were found between the groups in the number of days spent in the ICU or number of days NPO (Table 3). Death within 30 days postoperative was twice as high for those in the SNG vs ING, with no deaths in the per-protocol analysis for those in the ING.

The colorectal analysis found 8.5 hospital days for ING patients vs 10.0 days for SNG patients, (P = .08). There were no deaths in the ING and 1 death in the SNG for colorectal procedure patients.

Discussion

Surgery is traumatic to healthy patients with or without cancer. Patients with cancer who receive surgical intervention might be at an even higher risk for complications because of altered metabolic pathways, nutritional deficiencies, and depressed immune function.13 Meta-analyses of immunonutrition studies conducted over the past 2 decades have come to different conclusions regarding the benefit of immunonutrition in the elective gastrointestinal cancer surgery population.3,5,18 Although practice guidelines from the American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition and the European Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition recommend routine use of immune-modulating formulas in surgical oncology patients, there is still some debate about the optimal timing, dose, individual formula constituents, and populations that will benefit.2,25 Earlier studies evaluating the economics of immunonutrition have shown significant cost savings related to reduction in length of stay and decrease in infectious complications even after accounting for the extra cost of the formula.26,27 More recent economic analyses confirmed these cost savings showing a savings of about $1,000 to $2,500 per patient with higher savings when immunonutrition was given preoperatively.28,29

For practitioners treating veterans with cancer, good stewardship of federal dollars and optimal outcomes are important considerations before implementing new therapies. Therefore, JAHVH set out to evaluate whether standard oral nutrition supplementation would be as effective as the higher cost immunonutrition supplementation in cancer patients receiving elective surgical procedures.

Rates of Complications

In this study, favorable effects of immunonutrition were found on total postoperative complications and number of hospital days. The total number of patients who experienced complications was 39% lower in the ING than it was in SNG in the ITT analysis and 37% lower in the colorectal per-protocol analysis. These rates are similar to the 48% lower rate Braga and colleagues found in their study in patients with colorectal cancer who received 5 days of preoperative immunonutrition.21 Because more than half of the patients in this study had colorectal cancer, the group is comparable to the Braga and colleagues study population. The overall supplement adherence rate was 86%, which was slightly lower than the 90% adherence rate that Braga and colleagues found. Lower consumption rates might have been a factor in not achieving a greater therapeutic benefit for infectious complications. Some studies suggest a therapeutic goal intake of greater than two-thirds of the prescribed amount.10,30 In the present study, 70.4% of the ING and 83% of the SNG met that recommended therapeutic goal, which is more than Hübner colleagues reported in their study (53% of the ING and 60% in the SNG meeting therapeutic intake goal).

 

 

Okamoto and colleagues also reported a much lower complication rate in gastric cancer patients who received immunonutrition (13.3%) compared with that of those receiving an isoenergetic formula (40%).11 The group receiving immunonutrition in the Okamoto and colleagues study had 4 times fewer infectious complications than did the standard group (P = .039), and a contributing reason might be that they supplemented for 7 days preoperatively. Similar to the current study’s results, Giger-Pabst and colleagues and Hübner and colleagues did not find any significant difference in infectious complications.10,30 Important notes of comparison include a low adherence rate in the study conducted by Hübner and colleagues and the lower dose of immunonutrition used by Giger-Pabst andcolleagues who used 3 days of preoperative supplementation, which may not be long enough to promote the tissue benefits of immunonutrition.

Although, the current study did not find any statistically significant difference in infectious complications, the SNG experienced 1.8 times more infections than did the ING, which indicates that immunonutrition support may be clinically beneficial. Based on previous literature and the results of this study, the authors speculate that at least 5 days of intake of the study immunonutrition formula could positively affect outcomes.

The authors suspect that the added arginine and fish oil in the immunonutrition product act synergistically as therapeutic ingredients to shift toward a preoperative anti-inflammatory prostaglandin environment while providing exogenous arginine to possibly prevent or correct a conditionally essential need for arginine that would promote adequate nitric oxide production. Another crucial factor is that the a priori power analysis was looking at a 38% complication rate in the SNG and only 15% complication rate in the ING, which generated a sample size of 108 participants. The post hoc power analysis indicates that this study is underpowered based on the complication rates, which could be a reason for insignificant infectious complications.

The benefits of immunonutrients are still being studied. Future studies in a controlled surgical setting could determine whether immunonutrition has a clinical outcome effect on operative time and surgical blood loss. A challenge for the investigators was to decide whether the difference in operative time and blood loss was a surgical characteristic or a clinical outcome. The positive impact of immunonutrients on tissue perfusion and cell integrity have been shown in other studies to reduce tissue inflammation and alter gene expression, which could affect how tissues respond to surgical insults.10,11 Because JAHVH is a teaching institution and multiple surgeons are involved with the patients, this question will continue to be unresolved. Future research may want to consider controlling for variability in surgical technique and perioperative protocols to evaluate this as a clinical outcome.

Limitations

Several limitations of this trial need to be addressed. Although the design of the study was a randomized controlled trial, it was an unblinded, single-center study with a small sample size. Surgeons were not aware of which supplement each subject had received; however, researchers took no measures to ensure the surgeons were blinded. To minimize bias, 2 investigators evaluated the records for complication rates to confirm consistency, and any discrepancies were resolved by a third investigator. Although adherence was evaluated, it was patient-reported, and lab testing was not conducted to ensure that tissues were loaded with therapeutic amounts of immunonutrients or to determine baseline levels of nutrient intake, which could show a nutrient response curve.

The use of other nutritional supplements, such as vitamins, probiotics, or additional fatty acids were not monitored, and the study formulas differed in protein and fiber content, which could have impacted the overall nutrient intake and affected the primary outcomes. Another limitation includes the variety of surgeons used over the period of the study. At a teaching institution, it is not feasible to limit the number of surgeons performing surgery.

Additionally, the study period was 5 years, and there have been changes in fasting times, medications, and bowel preparation over the course of that period, which could not be accounted for. Postoperative immunonutrition was not provided in this study based on the limited evidence available when the protocol was initiated. However, since that time, evidence supports and encourages postoperative therapy and might have proven beneficial to the patients. Data were not collected on the need for additional surgery within the study period, which could significantly impact outcomes.

Future studies would benefit from a longer postoperative monitoring period because this study looked only at the 30-day postoperative period. Last, randomization did not account for equal allocation of surgical procedures, and a higher number of pancreatic surgeries in the SNG could account for the higher complication rate found in that group. Although the colorectal analysis is underpowered, the results continue to show beneficial results with the use of immunonutrition.

 

 

Conclusion

The primary purpose of this research was to determine whether the veteran population would benefit from an immunonutrition preoperative protocol as recommended by several practice guidelines. The results of the initial analysis and the colorectal analysis were presented to the hospital interdisciplinary nutrition committee who voted that a preoperative immunonutrition protocol will be implemented at JAHVH because of the high comorbidity rate experienced by veterans.

Immunonutrition involves the use of omega-3 fatty acids, glutamine, arginine, and/or nucleotides individually or in combination at therapeutic levels to specifically modulate the immune system against altering inflammatory and metabolic pathways.1 Current literature supports the routine use of immune-enhancing formulas (containing both arginine and fish oil) in surgical patients.2-4 Although most of the literature favors the use of immunonutrition in surgical patients, some studies reported no benefit over standard oral nutrition supplementation.5

Background

Most studies evaluating the effect of immunonutrition for those undergoing elective surgery have been conducted in surgical oncology patients.6-12 Advanced cancers and older age can lead to cancer cachexia and sarcopenia, respectively. These conditions increase a patient’s surgical morbidity and mortality risk likely because of the negative effects on lean body mass, nutrient intake, and inflammatory and metabolic profile.13 However, early detection of some cancers through routine screening might lead to earlier surgical intervention that minimizes these negative tumor effects on the patient. Immunonutrition provided to well-nourished and malnourished patients has shown benefits, which supports the premise that a combination of immunonutrients included in immune-enhancing diets might have a beneficial pharmacotherapeutic effect beyond that of providing energy, protein, vitamins, and minerals for nutritional support.7,14

There are a lack of data regarding whether there is a window of opportunity for improved outcomes. Is the greatest need for immunonutrients during the peak of the injury, which might be immediately after surgery, or is it before the procedure? Arginine is a conditionally essential amino acid that has been shown to have a beneficial effect on the immune system by enhancing T-lymphocyte response when supplemented in surgical patients. When the arginase 1 (ARG 1) enzyme in myeloid cells is expressed during the inflammatory response to injury, accelerated use of arginine can deplete endogenous arginine, making it conditionally essential.

If adequate arginine cannot be synthesized or an exogenous source is not provided, T-cell dysfunction and decreased nitric oxide production leads to immune and vascular dysfunction, respectively.15,16 Providing arginine and omega-3 fatty acids might have a synergistic effect by shifting to an anti-inflammatory prostaglandin profile that has been shown to decrease ARG 1 expression while providing an exogenous source of arginine.17 Postsurgical inflammation might be caused in part by pro-inflammatory mediators and the anti-inflammatory properties of omega-3 fatty acids might offset this if cell membranes are loaded preoperatively.18 Therefore, preoperative immunonutrition might allow tissues to recover from planned surgical trauma. Bouwens and colleagues demonstrated that intake of eicosapentaenoic acid/docosahexaenoic acid over 26 weeks can alter the gene expression profiles of immune cells to a more anti-inflammatory status.19 However, Senkal and colleagues recommended that 3 to 7 days preoperatively is adequate to positively alter the lipid profile of tissues.20

Oncology patients preparing for surgery often are exposed to the physiologic stress of radiation and chemotherapy as neoadjuvant treatment to surgery. Oncology treatment and the adverse nutritional effects of treatment increase risk for arginine deficiency, such as poor nutrition intake, increased requirements, decreased production. Braga and colleagues demonstrated improved gut microprofusion and gut oxygenation intraoperatively, an effect that continued for up to 5 days after surgery.21 Waitzberg conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials evaluating immunonutrition in preoperative, postoperative, and perioperative periods. The results showed that the greatest improvements in postoperative infections and length of stay occurred in patients receiving preoperative 0.5 to 1 L/d of an immune nutrition product containing supplemental omega-3 fatty acids, arginine, and nucleotides for 5 to 7 days.22

It is unclear which population of surgical patients benefit the most from immunonutrition. Some results in the literature favor use in malnourished patients.18,23 However, other studies also have found benefit in well-nourished patients.7,14,21

Veterans who seek medical care at the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) have higher rates of cancer, obesity, and diabetes mellitus, which complicate surgical outcomes.24 In addition to comorbidities, veterans who seek medical care at the VA are more likely to have been deployed overseas and have more physical and mental health disorders compared with that of nonveteran patients or veterans who do not use the VA. Because of higher comorbidities, unique deployment history, and mental health disorders, all of which may impact quality of life concerns, veterans are clinically more complex, which makes comparisons with the private sector difficult. The VA has the advantage of providing comprehensive care to veterans in all settings, including preparation for surgery and postsurgical follow-up with an interdisciplinary team.

The objective of this study was to compare surgical outcomes in veterans who receive preoperative supplementation using an immune-modulating formula with veterans who received a standard oral supplement. Although practice guidelines have been developed from studies in US nonveteran populations, there are no high- quality randomized studies of veterans.

This study design also would allow the VA to gauge cost-effectiveness of immunonutrition before implementing new protocols. There is convincing data supporting significant economic benefit; however, more cost-benefit studies are needed to fully assess.18,25-27 Immunonutrition products are more expensive than are standard nutrition supplements, but overall cost of care when immunonutrition products are used could be lower because of reduction of complications and hospital resources.

 

 

Methods

From November 2011 to January 2016, the authors conducted a single-center, prospective, randomized parallel-group study in veterans undergoing elective gastrointestinal oncologic surgery. Inclusion criteria included planned esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, colorectal, or liver resections in veterans with histologically documented neoplasm of the gastrointestinal tract. Patients were excluded if they were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) before surgery, were receiving steroids or other immunosuppressive medications, had a recent hospital admission for pulmonary, cardiac, or renal disease, or were exhibiting signs or symptoms of infection or sepsis, including elevated white blood cells (WBC) > 10,000/mL or a temperature > 37.7° C.

The study was approved by the research and development committee and the institutional review board at James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital (JAHVH) in Tampa, Florida. The clinicaltrials.gov identifier for the study was NCT01471743.

Nutrition Formula

Subjects were randomized into 2 oral supplement groups: immunonutrition group (ING) patients received immunonutrition, and standard nutrition group (SNG) received a standard formula (Table 1). 

Each participant received the supplement and were instructed to drink 3 servings per day (750 mL/d) for 5 days before their surgery.

Study Procedures

All veterans with planned gastrointestinal surgeries were evaluated in the JAHVH general surgery clinic. Veterans meeting the inclusion criteria were invited to participate in the study, and informed consent was obtained. A research randomizer program assigned subjects to the groups to reach equal 1:1 randomization. Enrolled participants were provided their randomized supplement (unblinded) in the general surgery clinic and instructed on the amount of supplement to consume and date to begin taking the supplement. Participants were instructed to continue with their normal diet in addition to the supplement. No additional nutrition education was provided. Participants were asked to keep track of their daily supplement intake. Patients in both groups also used preoperative bowel preparations when indicated.

At the time of enrollment, presurgical comorbidities, anthropometric data, and nutrition status parameters were obtained. Postoperatively, study personnel interviewed each patient about formula consumption and tolerance. Thirty days postoperatively, patient demographics, surgical characteristics (eg, surgery, operative time, blood loss), nutrition risk screening (NRS 2002) score, diet/enteral orders, days spent NPO, days in the hospital or in the ICU, and complications (eg, wound infection, abscess, sepsis, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, intestinal fistula, ileus, or anastomotic leakage) were collected from the electronic health record.

Statistical Analysis

The primary outcome measure was overall postoperative complication rate and postoperative infection rate. Based on reviews of similar studies available at the time of protocol development, it was assumed that a postoperative infection rate of 38% in the SNG and 15% in the ING would indicate treatment efficacy. A sample size of 54 patients in each group would provide a Type I error level α = .05 and a power of 80%. A total of 108 patients enrolled in the study. Chi-square analysis was used to determine this primary outcome measure.

Secondary outcomes (mean number of complications, hospital days, NPO (nothing by mouth) days, and ICU days) were evaluated with Mann Whitney U test because of violation of assumptions for the t test. All P values were 2-tailed and statistical significance was accepted at P < .05 with clinical significance accepted at P < .10. Analysis for intention to treat (ITT) and per protocol are provided for outcome measures. For the ITT analysis, multiple imputation (last observation carried forward) was used. Sensitivity analysis found that the data were missing at random. SPSS software version 21.0 (Chicago, IL) was used for statistical analysis.

Results

During the study period, 137 patients were assessed for eligibility (Figure). 

An ITT as well as a per-protocol analysis was reviewed by the authors and presented to the hospital nutrition committee before making protocol decisions. A full review of all enrolled study subjects (including those who did not receive actual supplementation) was evaluated for factors that could influence bias from dropped treatment. However, the authors also wanted to evaluate treatment efficacy for only those who received supplementation; therefore, a per protocol analysis was reviewed. Both analyses are included. For the ITT analysis, 54 subjects in each group were analyzed. Six participants in the ING and 7 in the SNG did not receive surgical intervention, respectively. As a result, 47 SNG and 48 ING participants were included in the per-protocol analysis.

The sample was predominately white and male, which is consistent with the veteran population. There were no statistical differences for baseline patient or surgical characteristics between the groups (Table 2). 

The mean (SD) number of comorbidities was slightly higher in the ING compared with those of the SNG, 1.6 (1.2) vs 1.3 (1.1), respectively. In addition, there was a trend (P = .06) of longer operative time in the SNG (mean 294.4 minutes) compared with that of the ING (mean 249.5 minutes). There was no difference in supplemental intake between the groups and an overall adherence rate of 86% in both groups (Table 2). A total of 41 participants in the ING consumed ≥ 10 servings in 5 days vs 35 in the SNG.

There was a significant difference (P = .09) in the surgical procedures completed. There was only 1 pancreatic surgery completed in the ING and 9 pancreatic surgeries completed in the SNG.

 

 

Primary Outcomes

The overall rate of complications differed between the groups (Table 3). 

The percentage of subjects who experienced any type of complication was significantly higher (P = .03) in the SNG (52%) than it was in the ING (31%). The rate of infectious complications also was higher (P = .12) in the SNG (33%) compared with that in the ING (20%). The ITT and per-protocol analysis found higher numbers of complications for incidence of ileus, anastomotic leak, postoperative wound infection, pneumonia, urinary tract infections, sepsis, and death in the SNG vs the ING. There was no difference in incidence of intestinal fistula or abdominal abscess.

Given the large number of colorectal procedures, a separate per-protocol analysis included 37 patients from ING and 36 patients in the SNG (Table 4). 

The results are comparable with the original data analysis and indicated a higher total number of complications: 57.6% in the SNG compared with 36.4% in the ING (P = .08). Infectious complications were similar to the full analysis with 33.3% in the SNG and 21.2% in ING. Although the colorectal analysis was not planned and therefore underpowered, the authors felt it was appropriate to review because of the significant difference in surgical procedures completed.

Secondary Outcomes

The ITT analysis found that overall number of hospital days was slightly higher in the ING compared with that of the SNG, 9.4 vs 9.3 days, respectively. In the per-protocol analysis there were 1.3 fewer hospital days for those who received immunonutrition (P = .059). No significant differences were found between the groups in the number of days spent in the ICU or number of days NPO (Table 3). Death within 30 days postoperative was twice as high for those in the SNG vs ING, with no deaths in the per-protocol analysis for those in the ING.

The colorectal analysis found 8.5 hospital days for ING patients vs 10.0 days for SNG patients, (P = .08). There were no deaths in the ING and 1 death in the SNG for colorectal procedure patients.

Discussion

Surgery is traumatic to healthy patients with or without cancer. Patients with cancer who receive surgical intervention might be at an even higher risk for complications because of altered metabolic pathways, nutritional deficiencies, and depressed immune function.13 Meta-analyses of immunonutrition studies conducted over the past 2 decades have come to different conclusions regarding the benefit of immunonutrition in the elective gastrointestinal cancer surgery population.3,5,18 Although practice guidelines from the American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition and the European Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition recommend routine use of immune-modulating formulas in surgical oncology patients, there is still some debate about the optimal timing, dose, individual formula constituents, and populations that will benefit.2,25 Earlier studies evaluating the economics of immunonutrition have shown significant cost savings related to reduction in length of stay and decrease in infectious complications even after accounting for the extra cost of the formula.26,27 More recent economic analyses confirmed these cost savings showing a savings of about $1,000 to $2,500 per patient with higher savings when immunonutrition was given preoperatively.28,29

For practitioners treating veterans with cancer, good stewardship of federal dollars and optimal outcomes are important considerations before implementing new therapies. Therefore, JAHVH set out to evaluate whether standard oral nutrition supplementation would be as effective as the higher cost immunonutrition supplementation in cancer patients receiving elective surgical procedures.

Rates of Complications

In this study, favorable effects of immunonutrition were found on total postoperative complications and number of hospital days. The total number of patients who experienced complications was 39% lower in the ING than it was in SNG in the ITT analysis and 37% lower in the colorectal per-protocol analysis. These rates are similar to the 48% lower rate Braga and colleagues found in their study in patients with colorectal cancer who received 5 days of preoperative immunonutrition.21 Because more than half of the patients in this study had colorectal cancer, the group is comparable to the Braga and colleagues study population. The overall supplement adherence rate was 86%, which was slightly lower than the 90% adherence rate that Braga and colleagues found. Lower consumption rates might have been a factor in not achieving a greater therapeutic benefit for infectious complications. Some studies suggest a therapeutic goal intake of greater than two-thirds of the prescribed amount.10,30 In the present study, 70.4% of the ING and 83% of the SNG met that recommended therapeutic goal, which is more than Hübner colleagues reported in their study (53% of the ING and 60% in the SNG meeting therapeutic intake goal).

 

 

Okamoto and colleagues also reported a much lower complication rate in gastric cancer patients who received immunonutrition (13.3%) compared with that of those receiving an isoenergetic formula (40%).11 The group receiving immunonutrition in the Okamoto and colleagues study had 4 times fewer infectious complications than did the standard group (P = .039), and a contributing reason might be that they supplemented for 7 days preoperatively. Similar to the current study’s results, Giger-Pabst and colleagues and Hübner and colleagues did not find any significant difference in infectious complications.10,30 Important notes of comparison include a low adherence rate in the study conducted by Hübner and colleagues and the lower dose of immunonutrition used by Giger-Pabst andcolleagues who used 3 days of preoperative supplementation, which may not be long enough to promote the tissue benefits of immunonutrition.

Although, the current study did not find any statistically significant difference in infectious complications, the SNG experienced 1.8 times more infections than did the ING, which indicates that immunonutrition support may be clinically beneficial. Based on previous literature and the results of this study, the authors speculate that at least 5 days of intake of the study immunonutrition formula could positively affect outcomes.

The authors suspect that the added arginine and fish oil in the immunonutrition product act synergistically as therapeutic ingredients to shift toward a preoperative anti-inflammatory prostaglandin environment while providing exogenous arginine to possibly prevent or correct a conditionally essential need for arginine that would promote adequate nitric oxide production. Another crucial factor is that the a priori power analysis was looking at a 38% complication rate in the SNG and only 15% complication rate in the ING, which generated a sample size of 108 participants. The post hoc power analysis indicates that this study is underpowered based on the complication rates, which could be a reason for insignificant infectious complications.

The benefits of immunonutrients are still being studied. Future studies in a controlled surgical setting could determine whether immunonutrition has a clinical outcome effect on operative time and surgical blood loss. A challenge for the investigators was to decide whether the difference in operative time and blood loss was a surgical characteristic or a clinical outcome. The positive impact of immunonutrients on tissue perfusion and cell integrity have been shown in other studies to reduce tissue inflammation and alter gene expression, which could affect how tissues respond to surgical insults.10,11 Because JAHVH is a teaching institution and multiple surgeons are involved with the patients, this question will continue to be unresolved. Future research may want to consider controlling for variability in surgical technique and perioperative protocols to evaluate this as a clinical outcome.

Limitations

Several limitations of this trial need to be addressed. Although the design of the study was a randomized controlled trial, it was an unblinded, single-center study with a small sample size. Surgeons were not aware of which supplement each subject had received; however, researchers took no measures to ensure the surgeons were blinded. To minimize bias, 2 investigators evaluated the records for complication rates to confirm consistency, and any discrepancies were resolved by a third investigator. Although adherence was evaluated, it was patient-reported, and lab testing was not conducted to ensure that tissues were loaded with therapeutic amounts of immunonutrients or to determine baseline levels of nutrient intake, which could show a nutrient response curve.

The use of other nutritional supplements, such as vitamins, probiotics, or additional fatty acids were not monitored, and the study formulas differed in protein and fiber content, which could have impacted the overall nutrient intake and affected the primary outcomes. Another limitation includes the variety of surgeons used over the period of the study. At a teaching institution, it is not feasible to limit the number of surgeons performing surgery.

Additionally, the study period was 5 years, and there have been changes in fasting times, medications, and bowel preparation over the course of that period, which could not be accounted for. Postoperative immunonutrition was not provided in this study based on the limited evidence available when the protocol was initiated. However, since that time, evidence supports and encourages postoperative therapy and might have proven beneficial to the patients. Data were not collected on the need for additional surgery within the study period, which could significantly impact outcomes.

Future studies would benefit from a longer postoperative monitoring period because this study looked only at the 30-day postoperative period. Last, randomization did not account for equal allocation of surgical procedures, and a higher number of pancreatic surgeries in the SNG could account for the higher complication rate found in that group. Although the colorectal analysis is underpowered, the results continue to show beneficial results with the use of immunonutrition.

 

 

Conclusion

The primary purpose of this research was to determine whether the veteran population would benefit from an immunonutrition preoperative protocol as recommended by several practice guidelines. The results of the initial analysis and the colorectal analysis were presented to the hospital interdisciplinary nutrition committee who voted that a preoperative immunonutrition protocol will be implemented at JAHVH because of the high comorbidity rate experienced by veterans.

References

1. Grimble RF. Immunonutrition. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2005;21(2):216-222.

2. McClave SA, Martindale RG, Vanek VW, et al; A.S.P.E.N. Board of Directors; American College of Critical Care Medicine; Society of Critical Care Medicine. Guidelines for the provision and assessment of nutrition support therapy in the adult critically ill patient: Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.). JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2009;33(3):277-316.

3. Marimuthu K, Varadhan KK, Ljungqvist O, Lobo DN. A meta-analysis of the effect of combinations of immune modulating nutrients on outcome in patients undergoing major open gastrointestinal surgery. Ann Surg. 2012;255(6):1060-1068.

4. Bharadwaj S, Trivax B, Tandon P, Alkam B, Hanouneh I, Steiger E. Should perioperative immunonutrition for elective surgery be the current standard of care? Gastroenterol Rep (Oxford). 2016;4(2):87-95.

5. Hegazi RA, Hustead DS, Evans DC. Preoperative standard oral nutrition supplements vs immunonutrition: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;219(5):1078-1087.

6. Xu J, Zhong Y, Jing D, Wu Z. Preoperative enteral immunonutrition improves postoperative outcome in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. World J Surg. 2006;30(7):1284-1289.

7. Horie H, Okada M, Kojima M, Nagai H. Favorable effects of preoperative enteral immunonutrition on a surgical site infection in patients with colorectal cancer without malnutrition. Surg Today. 2006;36(12):1063-1068.

8. Fujitani K, Tsujinaka T, Fujita J, et al; Osaka Gastrointestinal Cancer Chemotherapy Study Group. Prospective randomized trial of preoperative enteral immunonutrition followed by elective total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Br J Surg. 2012;99(5):621-629.

9. Braga M, Gianotti L, Nespoli L, Radaelli G, Di Carlo V. Nutritional approach in malnourished surgical patients: a prospective randomized study. Arch Surg. 2002;137(2):174-180.

10. Giger-Pabst U, Lange J, Maurer C, et al. Short-term preoperative supplementation of an immunoenriched diet does not improve clinical outcome in well-nourished patients undergoing abdominal cancer surgery. Nutrition. 2013;29(5):724-729.

11. Okamoto Y, Okano K, Izuishi K, Usuki H, Wakabayashi H, Suzuki Y. Attenuation of the systemic inflammatory response and infectious complications after gastrectomy with preoperative oral arginine and omega-3 fatty acids supplemented immunonutrition. World J Surg. 2009;33(9):1815-1821.

12. Yildiz SY, Yazicoiog˘lu MB, Tiryaki Ç, Çiftçi A, Boyaciog˘lu Z. The effect of enteral immunonutrition in upper gastrointestinal surgery for cancer: a prospective study. Turk J Med Sci. 2016;46(2):393-400.

13. Peterson SJ, Mozer M. Differentiating sarcopenia and cachexia among patients with cancer. Nutr Clin Pract. 2017;32(1):30-39.

14. Gianotti L, Braga M, Nespoli L, Radaelli G, Beneduce A, Di Carlo V. A randomized controlled trial of preoperative oral supplementation with a specialized diet in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2002;122(7):1763-1770.

15. Daly JM, Reynolds J, Thom A, et al. Immune and metabolic effects of arginine in the surgical patient. Ann Surg. 1988;208(4):512-523.

16. Aida T, Furukawa K, Suzuki D, et al. Preoperative immunonutrition decreases postoperative complications by modulating prostaglandin E2 production and T-cell differentiation in patients undergoing pancreato-duodenectomy. Surgery. 2014;155(1):124-133.

17. Bansal V, Syres KM, Makarenkova V, et al. Interactions between fatty acids and arginine metabolism: implications for the design of immune-enhancing diets. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2005;29(1 suppl):S75-S80.

18. Osland E, Hossain MB, Khan S, Memon MA. Effect of timing of pharmaconutrition (immunonutrition) administration on outcomes of elective surgery for gastrointestinal malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2014;38(1):53-69.

19. Bouwens M, van de Rest O, Dellschaft N, et al. Fish-oil supplementation induces antiinflammatory gene expression profiles in human blood mononuclear cells. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;90(2):415-424.

20. Senkal M, Haaker R, Linseisen J, Wolfram G, Homann HH, Stehle P. Preoperative oral supplementation with long-chain omega-3 fatty acids beneficially alters phospholipid fatty acid patterns in liver, gut mucosa, and tumor tissue. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2005;29(4):236-240.

21. Braga M, Gianotti L, Vignali A, Carlo VD. Preoperative oral arginine and n-3 fatty acid supplementation improves the immunometabolic host response and outcome after colorectal resection for cancer. Surgery. 2002;132(5):805-814.

22. Waitzberg DL, Saito H, Plank LD, et al. Postsurgical infections are reduced with specialized nutrition support. World J Surg. 2006;30(8):1592-1604.

23. Klek S, Sierzega M, Szybinski P, et al. The immunomodulating enteral nutrition in malnourished surgical patients—a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Clin Nutr. 2011;30(3):282-288.

24. Farmer CM, Hosek SD, Adamson DM. Balancing demand and supply for veteran’s health care: a summary of three RAND assessments conducted under the Veterans Choice Act. Rand Health Q. 2016;6(1):12.

25. Arends J, Bachmann P, Baracos V, et al. ESPEN guidelines on nutrition in cancer patients. Clin Nutr. 2017;36(1):11-48.

26. Mauskopf JA, Candrilli SD, Chevrou-Séverac H, Ochoa JB. Immunonutrition for patients undergoing elective surgery for gastrointestinal cancer: Impact on hospital costs. World J Surg Oncol. 2012;10:136.

27. Senkal M, Mumme A, Eickhoff U, et al. Early postoperative enteral immunonutrition: clinical outcome and cost-comparison analysis in surgical patients. Crit Care Med. 1997;25(9):1489-1496.

28. Chevrou-Séverac H, Pinget C, Cerantola Y, Demartines N, Wasserfallen JB, Schäfer M. Cost-effectiveness analysis of immune-modulating nutritional support for gastrointestinal cancer patients. Clin Nutr. 2014;33(4):649-654.

29. Strickland A, Brogan A, Krauss J, Martindale R, Cresci G. Is the use of specialized nutritional formulations a cost-effective strategy? A national database evaluation. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2005;29(1 suppl):S81-S91.

30. Hübner M, Cerantola Y, Grass F, Bertrand PC, Schäfer M, Demartines N. Preoperative immunonutrition in patients at nutritional risk: results of a double-blinded randomized clinical trial. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2012;66(7):850-855.

References

1. Grimble RF. Immunonutrition. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2005;21(2):216-222.

2. McClave SA, Martindale RG, Vanek VW, et al; A.S.P.E.N. Board of Directors; American College of Critical Care Medicine; Society of Critical Care Medicine. Guidelines for the provision and assessment of nutrition support therapy in the adult critically ill patient: Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.). JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2009;33(3):277-316.

3. Marimuthu K, Varadhan KK, Ljungqvist O, Lobo DN. A meta-analysis of the effect of combinations of immune modulating nutrients on outcome in patients undergoing major open gastrointestinal surgery. Ann Surg. 2012;255(6):1060-1068.

4. Bharadwaj S, Trivax B, Tandon P, Alkam B, Hanouneh I, Steiger E. Should perioperative immunonutrition for elective surgery be the current standard of care? Gastroenterol Rep (Oxford). 2016;4(2):87-95.

5. Hegazi RA, Hustead DS, Evans DC. Preoperative standard oral nutrition supplements vs immunonutrition: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;219(5):1078-1087.

6. Xu J, Zhong Y, Jing D, Wu Z. Preoperative enteral immunonutrition improves postoperative outcome in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. World J Surg. 2006;30(7):1284-1289.

7. Horie H, Okada M, Kojima M, Nagai H. Favorable effects of preoperative enteral immunonutrition on a surgical site infection in patients with colorectal cancer without malnutrition. Surg Today. 2006;36(12):1063-1068.

8. Fujitani K, Tsujinaka T, Fujita J, et al; Osaka Gastrointestinal Cancer Chemotherapy Study Group. Prospective randomized trial of preoperative enteral immunonutrition followed by elective total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Br J Surg. 2012;99(5):621-629.

9. Braga M, Gianotti L, Nespoli L, Radaelli G, Di Carlo V. Nutritional approach in malnourished surgical patients: a prospective randomized study. Arch Surg. 2002;137(2):174-180.

10. Giger-Pabst U, Lange J, Maurer C, et al. Short-term preoperative supplementation of an immunoenriched diet does not improve clinical outcome in well-nourished patients undergoing abdominal cancer surgery. Nutrition. 2013;29(5):724-729.

11. Okamoto Y, Okano K, Izuishi K, Usuki H, Wakabayashi H, Suzuki Y. Attenuation of the systemic inflammatory response and infectious complications after gastrectomy with preoperative oral arginine and omega-3 fatty acids supplemented immunonutrition. World J Surg. 2009;33(9):1815-1821.

12. Yildiz SY, Yazicoiog˘lu MB, Tiryaki Ç, Çiftçi A, Boyaciog˘lu Z. The effect of enteral immunonutrition in upper gastrointestinal surgery for cancer: a prospective study. Turk J Med Sci. 2016;46(2):393-400.

13. Peterson SJ, Mozer M. Differentiating sarcopenia and cachexia among patients with cancer. Nutr Clin Pract. 2017;32(1):30-39.

14. Gianotti L, Braga M, Nespoli L, Radaelli G, Beneduce A, Di Carlo V. A randomized controlled trial of preoperative oral supplementation with a specialized diet in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2002;122(7):1763-1770.

15. Daly JM, Reynolds J, Thom A, et al. Immune and metabolic effects of arginine in the surgical patient. Ann Surg. 1988;208(4):512-523.

16. Aida T, Furukawa K, Suzuki D, et al. Preoperative immunonutrition decreases postoperative complications by modulating prostaglandin E2 production and T-cell differentiation in patients undergoing pancreato-duodenectomy. Surgery. 2014;155(1):124-133.

17. Bansal V, Syres KM, Makarenkova V, et al. Interactions between fatty acids and arginine metabolism: implications for the design of immune-enhancing diets. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2005;29(1 suppl):S75-S80.

18. Osland E, Hossain MB, Khan S, Memon MA. Effect of timing of pharmaconutrition (immunonutrition) administration on outcomes of elective surgery for gastrointestinal malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2014;38(1):53-69.

19. Bouwens M, van de Rest O, Dellschaft N, et al. Fish-oil supplementation induces antiinflammatory gene expression profiles in human blood mononuclear cells. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;90(2):415-424.

20. Senkal M, Haaker R, Linseisen J, Wolfram G, Homann HH, Stehle P. Preoperative oral supplementation with long-chain omega-3 fatty acids beneficially alters phospholipid fatty acid patterns in liver, gut mucosa, and tumor tissue. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2005;29(4):236-240.

21. Braga M, Gianotti L, Vignali A, Carlo VD. Preoperative oral arginine and n-3 fatty acid supplementation improves the immunometabolic host response and outcome after colorectal resection for cancer. Surgery. 2002;132(5):805-814.

22. Waitzberg DL, Saito H, Plank LD, et al. Postsurgical infections are reduced with specialized nutrition support. World J Surg. 2006;30(8):1592-1604.

23. Klek S, Sierzega M, Szybinski P, et al. The immunomodulating enteral nutrition in malnourished surgical patients—a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Clin Nutr. 2011;30(3):282-288.

24. Farmer CM, Hosek SD, Adamson DM. Balancing demand and supply for veteran’s health care: a summary of three RAND assessments conducted under the Veterans Choice Act. Rand Health Q. 2016;6(1):12.

25. Arends J, Bachmann P, Baracos V, et al. ESPEN guidelines on nutrition in cancer patients. Clin Nutr. 2017;36(1):11-48.

26. Mauskopf JA, Candrilli SD, Chevrou-Séverac H, Ochoa JB. Immunonutrition for patients undergoing elective surgery for gastrointestinal cancer: Impact on hospital costs. World J Surg Oncol. 2012;10:136.

27. Senkal M, Mumme A, Eickhoff U, et al. Early postoperative enteral immunonutrition: clinical outcome and cost-comparison analysis in surgical patients. Crit Care Med. 1997;25(9):1489-1496.

28. Chevrou-Séverac H, Pinget C, Cerantola Y, Demartines N, Wasserfallen JB, Schäfer M. Cost-effectiveness analysis of immune-modulating nutritional support for gastrointestinal cancer patients. Clin Nutr. 2014;33(4):649-654.

29. Strickland A, Brogan A, Krauss J, Martindale R, Cresci G. Is the use of specialized nutritional formulations a cost-effective strategy? A national database evaluation. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2005;29(1 suppl):S81-S91.

30. Hübner M, Cerantola Y, Grass F, Bertrand PC, Schäfer M, Demartines N. Preoperative immunonutrition in patients at nutritional risk: results of a double-blinded randomized clinical trial. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2012;66(7):850-855.

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 35(4)s
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 35(4)s
Page Number
S49-S56
Page Number
S49-S56
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
The Effect of Immunonutrition on Veterans Undergoing Major Surgery for Gastrointestinal Cancer
Display Headline
The Effect of Immunonutrition on Veterans Undergoing Major Surgery for Gastrointestinal Cancer
Sections
Citation Override
Fed Pract. 2018 May;35(suppl 4):S49-S56
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Article PDF Media

Study finds gaps in bundled colectomy payments

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 01/02/2019 - 10:08

 

– As Medicare transitions to a value-based model that uses bundled payments, oncologic surgeons and medical institutions may want to take a close look at enhanced recovery pathways and more minimally invasive surgery for colectomy in both benign and malignant disease to close potential gaps in reimbursement and outcomes, according to a retrospective study of 4-year Medicare data presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium here.

Dr. Byron D. Hughes
“In the index admission portion of the episode costs, when comparing benign versus malignant disease, the benign disease costs more,” said Byron D. Hughes, MD, of the University of Texas, Galveston. “Postdischarge costs for cancer patients were not readily captured; however, there are opportunities to reduce the cost for both disease processes by using enhanced recovery pathways and minimally invasive surgery [MIS]. We report that prior to broad implementation of value-based bundled payment systems, a better understanding is required.”

The study evaluated reimbursement rates of three Medicare Severity–Diagnosis Related Groups (MS-DRG) assigned to the study cohort of 10,928 cases in the Medicare database from 2011-2015: 331 (benign disease), 330 (colon cancer/no metastases), and 329 (metastatic colon cancer). “There is little data comparing the relative impact of MS-DRG on cost and reimbursement for oncologic versus benign colon resection as it relates to the index admission, post-acute care costs, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services total costs,” Dr. Hughes said.

With descriptive statistics, the study showed that benign resection resulted in higher average total charges than malignant disease ($66,033 vs. $60,581, respectively; P less than .001) and longer hospital stays (7.25 days vs. 6.92; P less than .002), Dr. Hughes said. However, Medicare reimbursements were similar for both pathology groups: $10,358 for benign disease versus $10,483 for oncologic pathology (P = .434). Cancer patients were about 25% more likely to be discharged to a rehabilitation facility than were those in the benign group (16.6% vs. 12.4%, respectively; P less than .001).

“What we know from other data is that, compared to fee-for-service for surgical colectomies, a value-based payment model resulted in lower payments for the index admission,” Dr. Hughes said. “A greater proportion of these patients also contributed to a negative margin for hospitals when compared to the fee-for-service model, as well as a higher risk across acute care services.”

Of patients in the study cohort, 67% had surgery for malignant disease. Both benign and malignant groups had more open colectomies than minimally invasive colectomies: 60% and 36.8%, respectively, of procedures in the benign group and 63% and 40% in the cancer group (P less than .001).

 

 


The goal of the study was to identify potential gaps in adopting MS-DRG for the bundled payment model in benign versus malignant colectomy, Dr. Hughes said. The study identified three gaps:
  • DRG poorly differentiates between benign and malignant disease. This problem is evidenced by the higher cost for the index admission in benign disease. “Whereas in malignant disease, there is a greater unrecognized cost-shifting to post-acute care services which are not addressed by the DRG system,” he said.
  • The dominance of open colectomy where MIS could reduce episode costs. The study cited research that reported the advantages of MIS include lower episode costs in both younger and older patients, by $1,466 and $632, respectively; shorter hospital stays by 1.46 days; 20% lower 30-day readmissions rates; and lower rates of post-acute care services (J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017 Dec 13. doi: 10.1089/lap.2017.0521)
  • Potential for DRG migration from code 331 (benign disease) to 330 (colon cancer but not with metastasis). Dr. Hughes and his coauthors published a study that reported a 14.2% rate of DRG migration in this same Medicare cohort, that is, classified as 331 on admission but migrated to 330. So, compared with other patients, this group ended up with longer LOS (7.6 vs. 4.8 days); higher total charges ($63,149 vs. $46,339); and higher CMS payment ($11,159 vs. $7,210) (Am J Surg. 2018;215:493-6). “We also identified a potential role for enhanced-recovery pathways to mitigate these factors,” he said.

He noted that the different stakeholders – hospitals, surgeons, anesthesiologists, hospitalists, other physicians, nurses, and extenders – will have to resolve how to divide bundled payments. “The biggest thing is communication between these groups, because moving forward CMS is trying to step away from the role of determining who gets paid what,” Dr. Hughes said. He noted this finding is consistent with his own previously published findings, along with those from senior study coauthor Anthony J. Senagore, MD, FACS, on resource consumption in value-based care.

Dr. Hughes and coauthors reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Hughes is supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

SOURCE: Huges BD. SSO 2018.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

– As Medicare transitions to a value-based model that uses bundled payments, oncologic surgeons and medical institutions may want to take a close look at enhanced recovery pathways and more minimally invasive surgery for colectomy in both benign and malignant disease to close potential gaps in reimbursement and outcomes, according to a retrospective study of 4-year Medicare data presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium here.

Dr. Byron D. Hughes
“In the index admission portion of the episode costs, when comparing benign versus malignant disease, the benign disease costs more,” said Byron D. Hughes, MD, of the University of Texas, Galveston. “Postdischarge costs for cancer patients were not readily captured; however, there are opportunities to reduce the cost for both disease processes by using enhanced recovery pathways and minimally invasive surgery [MIS]. We report that prior to broad implementation of value-based bundled payment systems, a better understanding is required.”

The study evaluated reimbursement rates of three Medicare Severity–Diagnosis Related Groups (MS-DRG) assigned to the study cohort of 10,928 cases in the Medicare database from 2011-2015: 331 (benign disease), 330 (colon cancer/no metastases), and 329 (metastatic colon cancer). “There is little data comparing the relative impact of MS-DRG on cost and reimbursement for oncologic versus benign colon resection as it relates to the index admission, post-acute care costs, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services total costs,” Dr. Hughes said.

With descriptive statistics, the study showed that benign resection resulted in higher average total charges than malignant disease ($66,033 vs. $60,581, respectively; P less than .001) and longer hospital stays (7.25 days vs. 6.92; P less than .002), Dr. Hughes said. However, Medicare reimbursements were similar for both pathology groups: $10,358 for benign disease versus $10,483 for oncologic pathology (P = .434). Cancer patients were about 25% more likely to be discharged to a rehabilitation facility than were those in the benign group (16.6% vs. 12.4%, respectively; P less than .001).

“What we know from other data is that, compared to fee-for-service for surgical colectomies, a value-based payment model resulted in lower payments for the index admission,” Dr. Hughes said. “A greater proportion of these patients also contributed to a negative margin for hospitals when compared to the fee-for-service model, as well as a higher risk across acute care services.”

Of patients in the study cohort, 67% had surgery for malignant disease. Both benign and malignant groups had more open colectomies than minimally invasive colectomies: 60% and 36.8%, respectively, of procedures in the benign group and 63% and 40% in the cancer group (P less than .001).

 

 


The goal of the study was to identify potential gaps in adopting MS-DRG for the bundled payment model in benign versus malignant colectomy, Dr. Hughes said. The study identified three gaps:
  • DRG poorly differentiates between benign and malignant disease. This problem is evidenced by the higher cost for the index admission in benign disease. “Whereas in malignant disease, there is a greater unrecognized cost-shifting to post-acute care services which are not addressed by the DRG system,” he said.
  • The dominance of open colectomy where MIS could reduce episode costs. The study cited research that reported the advantages of MIS include lower episode costs in both younger and older patients, by $1,466 and $632, respectively; shorter hospital stays by 1.46 days; 20% lower 30-day readmissions rates; and lower rates of post-acute care services (J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017 Dec 13. doi: 10.1089/lap.2017.0521)
  • Potential for DRG migration from code 331 (benign disease) to 330 (colon cancer but not with metastasis). Dr. Hughes and his coauthors published a study that reported a 14.2% rate of DRG migration in this same Medicare cohort, that is, classified as 331 on admission but migrated to 330. So, compared with other patients, this group ended up with longer LOS (7.6 vs. 4.8 days); higher total charges ($63,149 vs. $46,339); and higher CMS payment ($11,159 vs. $7,210) (Am J Surg. 2018;215:493-6). “We also identified a potential role for enhanced-recovery pathways to mitigate these factors,” he said.

He noted that the different stakeholders – hospitals, surgeons, anesthesiologists, hospitalists, other physicians, nurses, and extenders – will have to resolve how to divide bundled payments. “The biggest thing is communication between these groups, because moving forward CMS is trying to step away from the role of determining who gets paid what,” Dr. Hughes said. He noted this finding is consistent with his own previously published findings, along with those from senior study coauthor Anthony J. Senagore, MD, FACS, on resource consumption in value-based care.

Dr. Hughes and coauthors reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Hughes is supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

SOURCE: Huges BD. SSO 2018.

 

– As Medicare transitions to a value-based model that uses bundled payments, oncologic surgeons and medical institutions may want to take a close look at enhanced recovery pathways and more minimally invasive surgery for colectomy in both benign and malignant disease to close potential gaps in reimbursement and outcomes, according to a retrospective study of 4-year Medicare data presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium here.

Dr. Byron D. Hughes
“In the index admission portion of the episode costs, when comparing benign versus malignant disease, the benign disease costs more,” said Byron D. Hughes, MD, of the University of Texas, Galveston. “Postdischarge costs for cancer patients were not readily captured; however, there are opportunities to reduce the cost for both disease processes by using enhanced recovery pathways and minimally invasive surgery [MIS]. We report that prior to broad implementation of value-based bundled payment systems, a better understanding is required.”

The study evaluated reimbursement rates of three Medicare Severity–Diagnosis Related Groups (MS-DRG) assigned to the study cohort of 10,928 cases in the Medicare database from 2011-2015: 331 (benign disease), 330 (colon cancer/no metastases), and 329 (metastatic colon cancer). “There is little data comparing the relative impact of MS-DRG on cost and reimbursement for oncologic versus benign colon resection as it relates to the index admission, post-acute care costs, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services total costs,” Dr. Hughes said.

With descriptive statistics, the study showed that benign resection resulted in higher average total charges than malignant disease ($66,033 vs. $60,581, respectively; P less than .001) and longer hospital stays (7.25 days vs. 6.92; P less than .002), Dr. Hughes said. However, Medicare reimbursements were similar for both pathology groups: $10,358 for benign disease versus $10,483 for oncologic pathology (P = .434). Cancer patients were about 25% more likely to be discharged to a rehabilitation facility than were those in the benign group (16.6% vs. 12.4%, respectively; P less than .001).

“What we know from other data is that, compared to fee-for-service for surgical colectomies, a value-based payment model resulted in lower payments for the index admission,” Dr. Hughes said. “A greater proportion of these patients also contributed to a negative margin for hospitals when compared to the fee-for-service model, as well as a higher risk across acute care services.”

Of patients in the study cohort, 67% had surgery for malignant disease. Both benign and malignant groups had more open colectomies than minimally invasive colectomies: 60% and 36.8%, respectively, of procedures in the benign group and 63% and 40% in the cancer group (P less than .001).

 

 


The goal of the study was to identify potential gaps in adopting MS-DRG for the bundled payment model in benign versus malignant colectomy, Dr. Hughes said. The study identified three gaps:
  • DRG poorly differentiates between benign and malignant disease. This problem is evidenced by the higher cost for the index admission in benign disease. “Whereas in malignant disease, there is a greater unrecognized cost-shifting to post-acute care services which are not addressed by the DRG system,” he said.
  • The dominance of open colectomy where MIS could reduce episode costs. The study cited research that reported the advantages of MIS include lower episode costs in both younger and older patients, by $1,466 and $632, respectively; shorter hospital stays by 1.46 days; 20% lower 30-day readmissions rates; and lower rates of post-acute care services (J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017 Dec 13. doi: 10.1089/lap.2017.0521)
  • Potential for DRG migration from code 331 (benign disease) to 330 (colon cancer but not with metastasis). Dr. Hughes and his coauthors published a study that reported a 14.2% rate of DRG migration in this same Medicare cohort, that is, classified as 331 on admission but migrated to 330. So, compared with other patients, this group ended up with longer LOS (7.6 vs. 4.8 days); higher total charges ($63,149 vs. $46,339); and higher CMS payment ($11,159 vs. $7,210) (Am J Surg. 2018;215:493-6). “We also identified a potential role for enhanced-recovery pathways to mitigate these factors,” he said.

He noted that the different stakeholders – hospitals, surgeons, anesthesiologists, hospitalists, other physicians, nurses, and extenders – will have to resolve how to divide bundled payments. “The biggest thing is communication between these groups, because moving forward CMS is trying to step away from the role of determining who gets paid what,” Dr. Hughes said. He noted this finding is consistent with his own previously published findings, along with those from senior study coauthor Anthony J. Senagore, MD, FACS, on resource consumption in value-based care.

Dr. Hughes and coauthors reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Hughes is supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

SOURCE: Huges BD. SSO 2018.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM SSO 2018

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Medicare payment methodology does not truly reflect episode costs for colectomy.

Major finding: Colectomy charges were higher for benign disease than for cancer.

Study details: Retrospective cohort study of 10,928 patients in a national Medicare database who had colon surgery during 2011-2014.

Disclosures: The investigators had no financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Hughes is supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

Source: Huges BD. SSO 2018.

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

No increased complication risk with delaying resection for LARC

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 05/26/2021 - 13:50

– Delaying surgery after neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer for up to 12 weeks does not seem to impact complication rates compared to surgery at 8 weeks or earlier, findings that run counter to results from a major European clinical trial reported in 2016, investigators reported at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

“There’s an increasing trend toward delayed surgery beyond eight to 12 weeks after neoadjuvant therapy (NT) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC),” said Campbell Roxburgh, FRCS, PhD, of the University of Glasgow in Scotland. “Although we saw an increase in all complications in patients who had surgery beyond 12 weeks, there were no increases in surgical site complications, grade 3-5 complications, or anastomotic leaks. Before 12 weeks we did not observe increases in any type of complication where surgery was performed prior to or after 8 weeks.”

The study involved 798 patients who had received NT for LARC from June 2009 to March 2014 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. The vast majority – 76% (607) – had rectal resection within 16 weeks of completing NT. Among them, 52% (317) had surgery 5-8 weeks after NT, 38% (229) had surgery at 8-12 weeks post-NT, and 10% (61) had surgery 12-16 weeks after completing NT. Those who had surgery beyond 16 weeks mostly had it deferred because they were undergoing nonoperative management in the case of complete clinical response to treatment or had a comorbidity that prevented earlier surgery, Dr. Roxburgh said.

The complication rate was 42.3% among the patients who had surgery up to 16 weeks after NT, Dr. Roxburgh said. The most common complication was surgical site infection (SSI) in 16.6% (101), followed by a grade 3-5 complication in 10.5% (64) and anastomotic leak in 6.4% (39). Overall complication rates among the two groups that had surgery within 12 weeks were not statistically different from the overall complication rate, Dr. Roxburgh said: 42.5% (138) in the 5- to 8-week group; and 36.7% (84) in the 8- to 12-week group. The 12- to16-week group had a complication rate of 56% (34, P = .022).

Dr. Roxburgh noted that the idea of delaying surgery beyond 8 weeks after NT has been a subject of debate, and that these findings run counter to those reported in the GRECCAR-6 trial (J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:3773-80). That study compared groups that had surgery for rectal cancer at 7 and 11 weeks after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and found that those in the 11-week group had higher rates of complications.

Dr. Roxburgh also reported on an analysis of the 12- to 16-week subgroup that found the highest complication rates were among those who had low anterior resection (53% vs. 41% in the 5- to 8-week group and 31% in the 8- to 12-week population), and patients who had a poor treatment response (no T-downstaging, 66% vs. 44% and 33%, respectively). Age, pretreatment and posttreatment TNM stages, surgical approach (open or minimally invasive), and year of treatment did not factor in complication rates in the subgroup analysis, Dr. Roxburgh noted.

The univariate regression analysis determined a trend toward increased rates of all complications in the 12- to 16-week group (P = .081). But the multivariate analysis did not find timing of surgery to be an independent risk factor for all complications, Dr. Roxburgh said. “We believe other factors, including tumor location, the type of NT, operative approach, and treatment response, however, were more important on multivariate analysis,” he said. For example, open surgery had an odds ratio of 1.7 (P = .004).

During the discussion, Dr. Roxburgh was asked what would be the optimal timing for resection after NT in LARC. “I would recommend posttreatment assessment with MRI and proctoscopy between 8 to 12 weeks and in the case of residual tumor or incomplete response to treatment, scheduling surgery at that time,” he said.

Dr. Roxburgh and coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Roxburgh C, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium Abstract No. 3.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

– Delaying surgery after neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer for up to 12 weeks does not seem to impact complication rates compared to surgery at 8 weeks or earlier, findings that run counter to results from a major European clinical trial reported in 2016, investigators reported at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

“There’s an increasing trend toward delayed surgery beyond eight to 12 weeks after neoadjuvant therapy (NT) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC),” said Campbell Roxburgh, FRCS, PhD, of the University of Glasgow in Scotland. “Although we saw an increase in all complications in patients who had surgery beyond 12 weeks, there were no increases in surgical site complications, grade 3-5 complications, or anastomotic leaks. Before 12 weeks we did not observe increases in any type of complication where surgery was performed prior to or after 8 weeks.”

The study involved 798 patients who had received NT for LARC from June 2009 to March 2014 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. The vast majority – 76% (607) – had rectal resection within 16 weeks of completing NT. Among them, 52% (317) had surgery 5-8 weeks after NT, 38% (229) had surgery at 8-12 weeks post-NT, and 10% (61) had surgery 12-16 weeks after completing NT. Those who had surgery beyond 16 weeks mostly had it deferred because they were undergoing nonoperative management in the case of complete clinical response to treatment or had a comorbidity that prevented earlier surgery, Dr. Roxburgh said.

The complication rate was 42.3% among the patients who had surgery up to 16 weeks after NT, Dr. Roxburgh said. The most common complication was surgical site infection (SSI) in 16.6% (101), followed by a grade 3-5 complication in 10.5% (64) and anastomotic leak in 6.4% (39). Overall complication rates among the two groups that had surgery within 12 weeks were not statistically different from the overall complication rate, Dr. Roxburgh said: 42.5% (138) in the 5- to 8-week group; and 36.7% (84) in the 8- to 12-week group. The 12- to16-week group had a complication rate of 56% (34, P = .022).

Dr. Roxburgh noted that the idea of delaying surgery beyond 8 weeks after NT has been a subject of debate, and that these findings run counter to those reported in the GRECCAR-6 trial (J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:3773-80). That study compared groups that had surgery for rectal cancer at 7 and 11 weeks after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and found that those in the 11-week group had higher rates of complications.

Dr. Roxburgh also reported on an analysis of the 12- to 16-week subgroup that found the highest complication rates were among those who had low anterior resection (53% vs. 41% in the 5- to 8-week group and 31% in the 8- to 12-week population), and patients who had a poor treatment response (no T-downstaging, 66% vs. 44% and 33%, respectively). Age, pretreatment and posttreatment TNM stages, surgical approach (open or minimally invasive), and year of treatment did not factor in complication rates in the subgroup analysis, Dr. Roxburgh noted.

The univariate regression analysis determined a trend toward increased rates of all complications in the 12- to 16-week group (P = .081). But the multivariate analysis did not find timing of surgery to be an independent risk factor for all complications, Dr. Roxburgh said. “We believe other factors, including tumor location, the type of NT, operative approach, and treatment response, however, were more important on multivariate analysis,” he said. For example, open surgery had an odds ratio of 1.7 (P = .004).

During the discussion, Dr. Roxburgh was asked what would be the optimal timing for resection after NT in LARC. “I would recommend posttreatment assessment with MRI and proctoscopy between 8 to 12 weeks and in the case of residual tumor or incomplete response to treatment, scheduling surgery at that time,” he said.

Dr. Roxburgh and coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Roxburgh C, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium Abstract No. 3.

– Delaying surgery after neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer for up to 12 weeks does not seem to impact complication rates compared to surgery at 8 weeks or earlier, findings that run counter to results from a major European clinical trial reported in 2016, investigators reported at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

“There’s an increasing trend toward delayed surgery beyond eight to 12 weeks after neoadjuvant therapy (NT) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC),” said Campbell Roxburgh, FRCS, PhD, of the University of Glasgow in Scotland. “Although we saw an increase in all complications in patients who had surgery beyond 12 weeks, there were no increases in surgical site complications, grade 3-5 complications, or anastomotic leaks. Before 12 weeks we did not observe increases in any type of complication where surgery was performed prior to or after 8 weeks.”

The study involved 798 patients who had received NT for LARC from June 2009 to March 2014 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. The vast majority – 76% (607) – had rectal resection within 16 weeks of completing NT. Among them, 52% (317) had surgery 5-8 weeks after NT, 38% (229) had surgery at 8-12 weeks post-NT, and 10% (61) had surgery 12-16 weeks after completing NT. Those who had surgery beyond 16 weeks mostly had it deferred because they were undergoing nonoperative management in the case of complete clinical response to treatment or had a comorbidity that prevented earlier surgery, Dr. Roxburgh said.

The complication rate was 42.3% among the patients who had surgery up to 16 weeks after NT, Dr. Roxburgh said. The most common complication was surgical site infection (SSI) in 16.6% (101), followed by a grade 3-5 complication in 10.5% (64) and anastomotic leak in 6.4% (39). Overall complication rates among the two groups that had surgery within 12 weeks were not statistically different from the overall complication rate, Dr. Roxburgh said: 42.5% (138) in the 5- to 8-week group; and 36.7% (84) in the 8- to 12-week group. The 12- to16-week group had a complication rate of 56% (34, P = .022).

Dr. Roxburgh noted that the idea of delaying surgery beyond 8 weeks after NT has been a subject of debate, and that these findings run counter to those reported in the GRECCAR-6 trial (J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:3773-80). That study compared groups that had surgery for rectal cancer at 7 and 11 weeks after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and found that those in the 11-week group had higher rates of complications.

Dr. Roxburgh also reported on an analysis of the 12- to 16-week subgroup that found the highest complication rates were among those who had low anterior resection (53% vs. 41% in the 5- to 8-week group and 31% in the 8- to 12-week population), and patients who had a poor treatment response (no T-downstaging, 66% vs. 44% and 33%, respectively). Age, pretreatment and posttreatment TNM stages, surgical approach (open or minimally invasive), and year of treatment did not factor in complication rates in the subgroup analysis, Dr. Roxburgh noted.

The univariate regression analysis determined a trend toward increased rates of all complications in the 12- to 16-week group (P = .081). But the multivariate analysis did not find timing of surgery to be an independent risk factor for all complications, Dr. Roxburgh said. “We believe other factors, including tumor location, the type of NT, operative approach, and treatment response, however, were more important on multivariate analysis,” he said. For example, open surgery had an odds ratio of 1.7 (P = .004).

During the discussion, Dr. Roxburgh was asked what would be the optimal timing for resection after NT in LARC. “I would recommend posttreatment assessment with MRI and proctoscopy between 8 to 12 weeks and in the case of residual tumor or incomplete response to treatment, scheduling surgery at that time,” he said.

Dr. Roxburgh and coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Roxburgh C, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium Abstract No. 3.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM SSO 2018

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Timing of surgery for rectal cancer within 12 weeks of neoadjuvant therapy does not influence complications.

Major finding: Complication rates in early and later surgery groups were 44% and 38%.

Study details: Institutional cohort of 607 patients who had rectal resection within 16 weeks of completing NT between June 2009 and March 2015.

Disclosure: Dr. Roxburgh and coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.

Source: Roxburgh C, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium Abstract No. 3.

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Tumor Lysis Syndrome in Colon Cancer

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 12/15/2022 - 14:51
A patient with stage IV colon cancer and massive hepatic involvement presented a “rare oncological emergency.”

Clinicians at Centro Hospitalar do Porto in Portugal reported on the case to highlight risk factors for tumor lysis syndrome (TLS).  After 3 cycles of folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX), the patient developed nausea, mild asthenia, tremors, and hyperkalemia that did not respond to standard measures. The differential diagnosis included dehydration, hypotension, exposure to nephrotoxic drugs, and obstructive uropathy, as well as TLS. The patient was diagnosed with acute kidney injury and TLS.

Tumor lysis syndrome is common after the beginning of antineoplastic treatments. As massive amounts of tumor cells are killed, intracellular electrolytes and metabolites flood into the bloodstream. If the metabolites exceed the renal clearance threshold, serious complications ensue, including cardiac arrhythmias or seizures and death. Mortality rates related to TLS in solid tumors can be as high as 35%, the clinicians say. Acute kidney injury during chemotherapy should raise warning flags about TLS, they add, particularly because prompt diagnosis is crucial for short-term outcomes.

The patient was admitted immediately to the intensive care unit with the main aim of preventing severe cardiac events and reversing crystal nephropathy. Adding targeted therapy might have worsened the TLS, so the clinicians opted for high-risk prophylaxis. They advise having rasburicase readily available for treating TLS to degrade urate crystals and reverse nephropathy, reducing the need for renal replacement therapy. However, the clinicians caution that rasburicase and allopurinol (another option) are not free of toxicity.

After a reevaluation computer tomography scan showed that the hepatomegaly was reduced with smaller liver metastases, the clinicians switched the patient to low-risk prophylaxis. The TLS did not recur.

Chemosensitivity, which raises the risk of TLS, is low in colon cancer, the clinicians say. High tumor burden and high proliferation rates seem to be better predictors for TLS.

 

Source:
Gouveia HS, Lopes SO, Faria AL. BMJ Case Rep. 2018;2018. pii: bcr-2017-223474.
doi: 10.1136/bcr-2017-223474.

Publications
Topics
Sections
A patient with stage IV colon cancer and massive hepatic involvement presented a “rare oncological emergency.”
A patient with stage IV colon cancer and massive hepatic involvement presented a “rare oncological emergency.”

Clinicians at Centro Hospitalar do Porto in Portugal reported on the case to highlight risk factors for tumor lysis syndrome (TLS).  After 3 cycles of folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX), the patient developed nausea, mild asthenia, tremors, and hyperkalemia that did not respond to standard measures. The differential diagnosis included dehydration, hypotension, exposure to nephrotoxic drugs, and obstructive uropathy, as well as TLS. The patient was diagnosed with acute kidney injury and TLS.

Tumor lysis syndrome is common after the beginning of antineoplastic treatments. As massive amounts of tumor cells are killed, intracellular electrolytes and metabolites flood into the bloodstream. If the metabolites exceed the renal clearance threshold, serious complications ensue, including cardiac arrhythmias or seizures and death. Mortality rates related to TLS in solid tumors can be as high as 35%, the clinicians say. Acute kidney injury during chemotherapy should raise warning flags about TLS, they add, particularly because prompt diagnosis is crucial for short-term outcomes.

The patient was admitted immediately to the intensive care unit with the main aim of preventing severe cardiac events and reversing crystal nephropathy. Adding targeted therapy might have worsened the TLS, so the clinicians opted for high-risk prophylaxis. They advise having rasburicase readily available for treating TLS to degrade urate crystals and reverse nephropathy, reducing the need for renal replacement therapy. However, the clinicians caution that rasburicase and allopurinol (another option) are not free of toxicity.

After a reevaluation computer tomography scan showed that the hepatomegaly was reduced with smaller liver metastases, the clinicians switched the patient to low-risk prophylaxis. The TLS did not recur.

Chemosensitivity, which raises the risk of TLS, is low in colon cancer, the clinicians say. High tumor burden and high proliferation rates seem to be better predictors for TLS.

 

Source:
Gouveia HS, Lopes SO, Faria AL. BMJ Case Rep. 2018;2018. pii: bcr-2017-223474.
doi: 10.1136/bcr-2017-223474.

Clinicians at Centro Hospitalar do Porto in Portugal reported on the case to highlight risk factors for tumor lysis syndrome (TLS).  After 3 cycles of folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX), the patient developed nausea, mild asthenia, tremors, and hyperkalemia that did not respond to standard measures. The differential diagnosis included dehydration, hypotension, exposure to nephrotoxic drugs, and obstructive uropathy, as well as TLS. The patient was diagnosed with acute kidney injury and TLS.

Tumor lysis syndrome is common after the beginning of antineoplastic treatments. As massive amounts of tumor cells are killed, intracellular electrolytes and metabolites flood into the bloodstream. If the metabolites exceed the renal clearance threshold, serious complications ensue, including cardiac arrhythmias or seizures and death. Mortality rates related to TLS in solid tumors can be as high as 35%, the clinicians say. Acute kidney injury during chemotherapy should raise warning flags about TLS, they add, particularly because prompt diagnosis is crucial for short-term outcomes.

The patient was admitted immediately to the intensive care unit with the main aim of preventing severe cardiac events and reversing crystal nephropathy. Adding targeted therapy might have worsened the TLS, so the clinicians opted for high-risk prophylaxis. They advise having rasburicase readily available for treating TLS to degrade urate crystals and reverse nephropathy, reducing the need for renal replacement therapy. However, the clinicians caution that rasburicase and allopurinol (another option) are not free of toxicity.

After a reevaluation computer tomography scan showed that the hepatomegaly was reduced with smaller liver metastases, the clinicians switched the patient to low-risk prophylaxis. The TLS did not recur.

Chemosensitivity, which raises the risk of TLS, is low in colon cancer, the clinicians say. High tumor burden and high proliferation rates seem to be better predictors for TLS.

 

Source:
Gouveia HS, Lopes SO, Faria AL. BMJ Case Rep. 2018;2018. pii: bcr-2017-223474.
doi: 10.1136/bcr-2017-223474.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Wed, 04/04/2018 - 10:15
Un-Gate On Date
Wed, 04/04/2018 - 10:15

Accuracy of colon cancer lymph node sampling influenced by location

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 05/26/2021 - 13:50

 

– Clinical guidelines recommend 12 lymph nodes or more are needed to achieve adequate sampling in colon cancer, but those guidelines may need to be revised to take into account which side the cancer is on to accurately stage a subset of patients with colon cancer, according to results of a prospective, multicenter clinical trial presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

Ahmed Dehal, MD, of John Wayne Canter Institute in Santa Monica, Calif., presented results of the trial that compared nodal staging in right-sided vs. left-sided colon cancer in two cohorts with T3N0 colon cancer who had at least one lymph node examined: a group of 370 patients from the randomized, multicenter prospective trial; and a sampling of 153,945 patients in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). The latter was used to validate findings in the trial group.

Dr. Ahmed Dehal
“Tumor sidedness has been recently shown to impact survival and response to treatment, but, the relationship between tumor sidedness and nodal evaluation has not been examined,” Dr. Dehal said. “We studied a group of patients where the number of nodes needed to ensure a truly negative nodal status matters the most – in T3N0 disease, as guidelines currently recommend to administer chemotherapy in this subgroup of patients when less than 12 nodes were removed at time of surgery.” he said.

The probability of achieving true nodal negativity when 12 lymph nodes were examined was 64% for left and 68% for right colon cancer in the trial group and 72% and 77% in the NCDB cohort, Dr. Dehal said.

The analysis also examined how many nodes would need to be sampled to achieve probabilities of 85%, 90% and 95% true nodal negativity. This analysis found the numbers were consistently lower for right- vs. left-sided disease, Dr. Dehal said. For example, in the trial cohort, 27 lymph nodes would need be sampled in right-sided disease to achieve 85% probability vs. 31 in left-sided. In the NCDB cohort, those numbers were 21 and 25, respectively.

“The current threshold for adequate nodal sampling does not reliably predict the true nodal negativity in this subgroup of patients,” Dr. Dehal said. “In both cohorts – the trial and NCDB – more lymph nodes are needed to predict the true nodal negativity in patients with left compared to right colon cancer.”

These findings may help to inform revisions to existing clinical guidelines, Dr. Dehal said.

 

 


“Current guidelines regarding the minimum number of nodes needed to accurately stage patients with node-negative T3 colon cancer may need to be reevaluated given that the decision to give those patients chemotherapy is largely based on the nodal status,” he said. “More studies are needed to improve our understanding of the impact of sidedness on nodal staging in the colon cancer.”

Dr. Dehal and his coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Dehal A et al. Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium. Abstract #23: Accuracy of nodal staging is influenced by sidedness in colon cancer: Results of a multicenter prospective trial.

*CORRECTION, 4/4/2018; a previous version of this story misidentified the cancer type

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

– Clinical guidelines recommend 12 lymph nodes or more are needed to achieve adequate sampling in colon cancer, but those guidelines may need to be revised to take into account which side the cancer is on to accurately stage a subset of patients with colon cancer, according to results of a prospective, multicenter clinical trial presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

Ahmed Dehal, MD, of John Wayne Canter Institute in Santa Monica, Calif., presented results of the trial that compared nodal staging in right-sided vs. left-sided colon cancer in two cohorts with T3N0 colon cancer who had at least one lymph node examined: a group of 370 patients from the randomized, multicenter prospective trial; and a sampling of 153,945 patients in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). The latter was used to validate findings in the trial group.

Dr. Ahmed Dehal
“Tumor sidedness has been recently shown to impact survival and response to treatment, but, the relationship between tumor sidedness and nodal evaluation has not been examined,” Dr. Dehal said. “We studied a group of patients where the number of nodes needed to ensure a truly negative nodal status matters the most – in T3N0 disease, as guidelines currently recommend to administer chemotherapy in this subgroup of patients when less than 12 nodes were removed at time of surgery.” he said.

The probability of achieving true nodal negativity when 12 lymph nodes were examined was 64% for left and 68% for right colon cancer in the trial group and 72% and 77% in the NCDB cohort, Dr. Dehal said.

The analysis also examined how many nodes would need to be sampled to achieve probabilities of 85%, 90% and 95% true nodal negativity. This analysis found the numbers were consistently lower for right- vs. left-sided disease, Dr. Dehal said. For example, in the trial cohort, 27 lymph nodes would need be sampled in right-sided disease to achieve 85% probability vs. 31 in left-sided. In the NCDB cohort, those numbers were 21 and 25, respectively.

“The current threshold for adequate nodal sampling does not reliably predict the true nodal negativity in this subgroup of patients,” Dr. Dehal said. “In both cohorts – the trial and NCDB – more lymph nodes are needed to predict the true nodal negativity in patients with left compared to right colon cancer.”

These findings may help to inform revisions to existing clinical guidelines, Dr. Dehal said.

 

 


“Current guidelines regarding the minimum number of nodes needed to accurately stage patients with node-negative T3 colon cancer may need to be reevaluated given that the decision to give those patients chemotherapy is largely based on the nodal status,” he said. “More studies are needed to improve our understanding of the impact of sidedness on nodal staging in the colon cancer.”

Dr. Dehal and his coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Dehal A et al. Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium. Abstract #23: Accuracy of nodal staging is influenced by sidedness in colon cancer: Results of a multicenter prospective trial.

*CORRECTION, 4/4/2018; a previous version of this story misidentified the cancer type

 

– Clinical guidelines recommend 12 lymph nodes or more are needed to achieve adequate sampling in colon cancer, but those guidelines may need to be revised to take into account which side the cancer is on to accurately stage a subset of patients with colon cancer, according to results of a prospective, multicenter clinical trial presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

Ahmed Dehal, MD, of John Wayne Canter Institute in Santa Monica, Calif., presented results of the trial that compared nodal staging in right-sided vs. left-sided colon cancer in two cohorts with T3N0 colon cancer who had at least one lymph node examined: a group of 370 patients from the randomized, multicenter prospective trial; and a sampling of 153,945 patients in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). The latter was used to validate findings in the trial group.

Dr. Ahmed Dehal
“Tumor sidedness has been recently shown to impact survival and response to treatment, but, the relationship between tumor sidedness and nodal evaluation has not been examined,” Dr. Dehal said. “We studied a group of patients where the number of nodes needed to ensure a truly negative nodal status matters the most – in T3N0 disease, as guidelines currently recommend to administer chemotherapy in this subgroup of patients when less than 12 nodes were removed at time of surgery.” he said.

The probability of achieving true nodal negativity when 12 lymph nodes were examined was 64% for left and 68% for right colon cancer in the trial group and 72% and 77% in the NCDB cohort, Dr. Dehal said.

The analysis also examined how many nodes would need to be sampled to achieve probabilities of 85%, 90% and 95% true nodal negativity. This analysis found the numbers were consistently lower for right- vs. left-sided disease, Dr. Dehal said. For example, in the trial cohort, 27 lymph nodes would need be sampled in right-sided disease to achieve 85% probability vs. 31 in left-sided. In the NCDB cohort, those numbers were 21 and 25, respectively.

“The current threshold for adequate nodal sampling does not reliably predict the true nodal negativity in this subgroup of patients,” Dr. Dehal said. “In both cohorts – the trial and NCDB – more lymph nodes are needed to predict the true nodal negativity in patients with left compared to right colon cancer.”

These findings may help to inform revisions to existing clinical guidelines, Dr. Dehal said.

 

 


“Current guidelines regarding the minimum number of nodes needed to accurately stage patients with node-negative T3 colon cancer may need to be reevaluated given that the decision to give those patients chemotherapy is largely based on the nodal status,” he said. “More studies are needed to improve our understanding of the impact of sidedness on nodal staging in the colon cancer.”

Dr. Dehal and his coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Dehal A et al. Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium. Abstract #23: Accuracy of nodal staging is influenced by sidedness in colon cancer: Results of a multicenter prospective trial.

*CORRECTION, 4/4/2018; a previous version of this story misidentified the cancer type

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM SSO 2018

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Sidedness influences the number of lymph nodes needed to predict true nodal negativity in colon cancer.

Major finding: Probability of true nodal negativity when 12 lymph nodes were examined was 64% for left and 68% for right colon cancer.

Study details: Randomized, multicenter trial of ultrastaging in colon cancer in 370 patients and National Cancer Database sampling of 153,945 patients.

Disclosures: Dr. Dehal and his coauthors report having no financial disclosures.

Source: Dehal A et al. Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium, Abstract 23: Accuracy of nodal staging is influenced by sidedness in colon cancer: Results of a multicenter prospective trial.

Disqus Comments
Default

VIDEO: Organ-sparing resection techniques should be way of the future

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 01/22/2019 - 14:23

BOSTON – Organ-sparing resection techniques that remove lesions from the esophagus, stomach, and colon are being developed, Amrita Sethi, MD, said in a video interview at the 2018 AGA Tech Summit, sponsored by the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology.

Dr. Sethi, an assistant professor of medicine at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, said these techniques improve patient outcomes by maintaining organ integrity, whereas older techniques often led to removal of large amounts of tissue around lesions. And while organ-sparing techniques reduce recovery time and hospital stays, training and reimbursement for these procedures remain problematic. As much as new endoscopic package devices are needed from industry to make these procedures easier, automated or artificial intelligence is needed to help make the decisions on when these techniques are applicable. Reimbursement structures are needed so that these procedures make financial sense, she noted.

We live in a health care system now, Dr. Sethi said, in which benign polyps of the colon are being sent for surgical resection when what is really needed is referral for more advanced endoscopic treatment. This is a matter of training, and perhaps showing through comparative trials that organ-sparing techniques cost less and improve patient outcomes.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

BOSTON – Organ-sparing resection techniques that remove lesions from the esophagus, stomach, and colon are being developed, Amrita Sethi, MD, said in a video interview at the 2018 AGA Tech Summit, sponsored by the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology.

Dr. Sethi, an assistant professor of medicine at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, said these techniques improve patient outcomes by maintaining organ integrity, whereas older techniques often led to removal of large amounts of tissue around lesions. And while organ-sparing techniques reduce recovery time and hospital stays, training and reimbursement for these procedures remain problematic. As much as new endoscopic package devices are needed from industry to make these procedures easier, automated or artificial intelligence is needed to help make the decisions on when these techniques are applicable. Reimbursement structures are needed so that these procedures make financial sense, she noted.

We live in a health care system now, Dr. Sethi said, in which benign polyps of the colon are being sent for surgical resection when what is really needed is referral for more advanced endoscopic treatment. This is a matter of training, and perhaps showing through comparative trials that organ-sparing techniques cost less and improve patient outcomes.

BOSTON – Organ-sparing resection techniques that remove lesions from the esophagus, stomach, and colon are being developed, Amrita Sethi, MD, said in a video interview at the 2018 AGA Tech Summit, sponsored by the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology.

Dr. Sethi, an assistant professor of medicine at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, said these techniques improve patient outcomes by maintaining organ integrity, whereas older techniques often led to removal of large amounts of tissue around lesions. And while organ-sparing techniques reduce recovery time and hospital stays, training and reimbursement for these procedures remain problematic. As much as new endoscopic package devices are needed from industry to make these procedures easier, automated or artificial intelligence is needed to help make the decisions on when these techniques are applicable. Reimbursement structures are needed so that these procedures make financial sense, she noted.

We live in a health care system now, Dr. Sethi said, in which benign polyps of the colon are being sent for surgical resection when what is really needed is referral for more advanced endoscopic treatment. This is a matter of training, and perhaps showing through comparative trials that organ-sparing techniques cost less and improve patient outcomes.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM 2018 AGA TECH SUMMIT

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica