Colon and Rectal

The American Society of Clinical Oncology has issued a new guideline on the early detection and management of colorectal cancer in people at average risk for colorectal cancer, which was written by Gilberto Lopes, MD, of the University of Miami and his associates on an ASCO expert panel.

The panel assembled by ASCO to write the guideline consisted of medical oncology, surgical oncology, surgery, gastroenterology, health technology assessment, cancer epidemiology, pathology, radiology, radiation oncology, and patient advocacy experts. Guidelines from eight different developers were examined, and recommendations from those guidelines were adapted to form the new ASCO guideline. The guideline was published in the Journal of Global Oncology.

In people who are asymptomatic, are aged 50-75 years, have no family history of colorectal cancer, are at average risk, and are in settings with high incidences of colorectal cancer, the expert panel recommends guaiac fecal occult blood test or fecal immunochemical testing every 1-2 years, flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, a combination of flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years and annual stool-based testing, or colonoscopy every 10 years, depending on available resources. The testing strategy for those with positive stool-based testing or flexible sigmoidoscopy is colonoscopy or a double-contrast barium enema if colonoscopy is unavailable.

For patients who have polyps, polypectomy at the time of colonoscopy is recommended, with the option of referral for surgical resection if not suitable for endoscopic resection. When symptoms (iron-deficiency anemia, bleeding, abdominal pain, and/or change in bowel habits) are present, a colonoscopy should be performed if available. If colonoscopy is contraindicated, a double-contrast barium enema can be performed; if endoscopy is contraindicated, CT colonography can be performed.

More information, including a data supplement with additional evidence tables, a methodology supplement with information about evidence quality and strength of recommendations, slide sets, and clinical tools and resources is available at www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines, the guideline noted.

Several members of the expert panel reported conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lopes G et al. J Glob Oncol. 2019 Feb 25. doi: 10.1200/JGO.18.00213.

This story was updated on March 4, 2019.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology has issued a new guideline on the early detection and management of colorectal cancer in people at average risk for colorectal cancer, which was written by Gilberto Lopes, MD, of the University of Miami and his associates on an ASCO expert panel.

The panel assembled by ASCO to write the guideline consisted of medical oncology, surgical oncology, surgery, gastroenterology, health technology assessment, cancer epidemiology, pathology, radiology, radiation oncology, and patient advocacy experts. Guidelines from eight different developers were examined, and recommendations from those guidelines were adapted to form the new ASCO guideline. The guideline was published in the Journal of Global Oncology.

In people who are asymptomatic, are aged 50-75 years, have no family history of colorectal cancer, are at average risk, and are in settings with high incidences of colorectal cancer, the expert panel recommends guaiac fecal occult blood test or fecal immunochemical testing every 1-2 years, flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, a combination of flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years and annual stool-based testing, or colonoscopy every 10 years, depending on available resources. The testing strategy for those with positive stool-based testing or flexible sigmoidoscopy is colonoscopy or a double-contrast barium enema if colonoscopy is unavailable.

For patients who have polyps, polypectomy at the time of colonoscopy is recommended, with the option of referral for surgical resection if not suitable for endoscopic resection. When symptoms (iron-deficiency anemia, bleeding, abdominal pain, and/or change in bowel habits) are present, a colonoscopy should be performed if available. If colonoscopy is contraindicated, a double-contrast barium enema can be performed; if endoscopy is contraindicated, CT colonography can be performed.

More information, including a data supplement with additional evidence tables, a methodology supplement with information about evidence quality and strength of recommendations, slide sets, and clinical tools and resources is available at www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines, the guideline noted.

Several members of the expert panel reported conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lopes G et al. J Glob Oncol. 2019 Feb 25. doi: 10.1200/JGO.18.00213.

This story was updated on March 4, 2019.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology has issued a new guideline on the early detection and management of colorectal cancer in people at average risk for colorectal cancer, which was written by Gilberto Lopes, MD, of the University of Miami and his associates on an ASCO expert panel.

The panel assembled by ASCO to write the guideline consisted of medical oncology, surgical oncology, surgery, gastroenterology, health technology assessment, cancer epidemiology, pathology, radiology, radiation oncology, and patient advocacy experts. Guidelines from eight different developers were examined, and recommendations from those guidelines were adapted to form the new ASCO guideline. The guideline was published in the Journal of Global Oncology.

In people who are asymptomatic, are aged 50-75 years, have no family history of colorectal cancer, are at average risk, and are in settings with high incidences of colorectal cancer, the expert panel recommends guaiac fecal occult blood test or fecal immunochemical testing every 1-2 years, flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, a combination of flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years and annual stool-based testing, or colonoscopy every 10 years, depending on available resources. The testing strategy for those with positive stool-based testing or flexible sigmoidoscopy is colonoscopy or a double-contrast barium enema if colonoscopy is unavailable.

For patients who have polyps, polypectomy at the time of colonoscopy is recommended, with the option of referral for surgical resection if not suitable for endoscopic resection. When symptoms (iron-deficiency anemia, bleeding, abdominal pain, and/or change in bowel habits) are present, a colonoscopy should be performed if available. If colonoscopy is contraindicated, a double-contrast barium enema can be performed; if endoscopy is contraindicated, CT colonography can be performed.

More information, including a data supplement with additional evidence tables, a methodology supplement with information about evidence quality and strength of recommendations, slide sets, and clinical tools and resources is available at www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines, the guideline noted.

Several members of the expert panel reported conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lopes G et al. J Glob Oncol. 2019 Feb 25. doi: 10.1200/JGO.18.00213.

This story was updated on March 4, 2019.

In cases of lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB), albumin and hemoglobin levels are the best independent predictors of severe bleeding, according to investigators.

These findings came from a sobering look at LGIB risk-prediction models. While some models could predict specific outcomes with reasonable accuracy, none of the models demonstrated broad predictive power, reported Natalie Tapaskar, MD, of the department of medicine at the University of Chicago, and her colleagues.

LGIB requires intensive resource utilization and proves fatal in 5%-15% of patients, which means timely and appropriate interventions are essential, especially for those with severe bleeding.

“There are limited data on accurately predicting the risk of adverse outcomes for hospitalized patients with LGIB,” the investigators wrote in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, “especially in comparison to patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), where tools such as the Glasgow-Blatchford Bleeding Score have been validated to accurately predict important clinical outcomes.”

To assess existing risk models for LGIB, the investigators performed a prospective observational study involving 170 patients with LGIB who underwent colonoscopy during April 2016–September 2017 at the University of Chicago Medical Center. Data were collected through comprehensive medical record review.

The primary outcome was severe bleeding. This was defined by acute bleeding during the first 24 hours of admission that required a transfusion of 2 or more units of packed red blood cells, and/or caused a 20% or greater decrease in hematocrit; and/or recurrent bleeding 24 hours after clinical stability, involving rectal bleeding with an additional drop in hematocrit of 20% or more, and/or readmission for LGIB within 1 week of discharge. Secondary outcomes included blood transfusion requirements, in-hospital recurrent bleeding, length of stay, ICU admission, intervention (surgery, interventional radiology, endoscopy), and the comparative predictive ability of seven clinical risk stratification models: AIMS65, Charlson Comorbidity Index, Glasgow-Blatchford, NOBLADS, Oakland, Sengupta, and Strate. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to compare model predictive power. Risk of adverse outcomes was calculated by univariable and multivariable logistic regression.

Results showed that median patient age was 70 years. Most of the patients (80%) were African American and slightly more than half were female (58%). These demographic factors were not predictive of severe bleeding, which occurred in about half of the cases (52%). Upon admission, patients with severe bleeding were more likely to have chronic renal failure (30% vs. 17%; P = .05), lower albumin (3.6 g/dL vs. 3.95 g/dL; P less than .0001), lower hemoglobin (8.6 g/dL vs. 11.1 g/dL; P = .0001), lower systolic blood pressure (118 mm Hg vs. 132 mm Hg; P = .01), and higher creatinine (1.3 mg/dL vs. 1 mg/dL; P = .04). After adjustment for confounding variables, the strongest independent predictors of severe bleeding were low albumin (odds ratio, 2.56 per 1-g/dL decrease; P = .02) and low hemoglobin (OR, 1.28 per 1-g/dL decrease; P = .0015).

*This story was updated on Jan. 31, 2019.
 

SOURCE: Tapaskar N et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Dec 18. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.12.011.

In cases of lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB), albumin and hemoglobin levels are the best independent predictors of severe bleeding, according to investigators.

These findings came from a sobering look at LGIB risk-prediction models. While some models could predict specific outcomes with reasonable accuracy, none of the models demonstrated broad predictive power, reported Natalie Tapaskar, MD, of the department of medicine at the University of Chicago, and her colleagues.

LGIB requires intensive resource utilization and proves fatal in 5%-15% of patients, which means timely and appropriate interventions are essential, especially for those with severe bleeding.

“There are limited data on accurately predicting the risk of adverse outcomes for hospitalized patients with LGIB,” the investigators wrote in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, “especially in comparison to patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), where tools such as the Glasgow-Blatchford Bleeding Score have been validated to accurately predict important clinical outcomes.”

To assess existing risk models for LGIB, the investigators performed a prospective observational study involving 170 patients with LGIB who underwent colonoscopy during April 2016–September 2017 at the University of Chicago Medical Center. Data were collected through comprehensive medical record review.

The primary outcome was severe bleeding. This was defined by acute bleeding during the first 24 hours of admission that required a transfusion of 2 or more units of packed red blood cells, and/or caused a 20% or greater decrease in hematocrit; and/or recurrent bleeding 24 hours after clinical stability, involving rectal bleeding with an additional drop in hematocrit of 20% or more, and/or readmission for LGIB within 1 week of discharge. Secondary outcomes included blood transfusion requirements, in-hospital recurrent bleeding, length of stay, ICU admission, intervention (surgery, interventional radiology, endoscopy), and the comparative predictive ability of seven clinical risk stratification models: AIMS65, Charlson Comorbidity Index, Glasgow-Blatchford, NOBLADS, Oakland, Sengupta, and Strate. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to compare model predictive power. Risk of adverse outcomes was calculated by univariable and multivariable logistic regression.

Results showed that median patient age was 70 years. Most of the patients (80%) were African American and slightly more than half were female (58%). These demographic factors were not predictive of severe bleeding, which occurred in about half of the cases (52%). Upon admission, patients with severe bleeding were more likely to have chronic renal failure (30% vs. 17%; P = .05), lower albumin (3.6 g/dL vs. 3.95 g/dL; P less than .0001), lower hemoglobin (8.6 g/dL vs. 11.1 g/dL; P = .0001), lower systolic blood pressure (118 mm Hg vs. 132 mm Hg; P = .01), and higher creatinine (1.3 mg/dL vs. 1 mg/dL; P = .04). After adjustment for confounding variables, the strongest independent predictors of severe bleeding were low albumin (odds ratio, 2.56 per 1-g/dL decrease; P = .02) and low hemoglobin (OR, 1.28 per 1-g/dL decrease; P = .0015).

*This story was updated on Jan. 31, 2019.
 

SOURCE: Tapaskar N et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Dec 18. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.12.011.

In cases of lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB), albumin and hemoglobin levels are the best independent predictors of severe bleeding, according to investigators.

These findings came from a sobering look at LGIB risk-prediction models. While some models could predict specific outcomes with reasonable accuracy, none of the models demonstrated broad predictive power, reported Natalie Tapaskar, MD, of the department of medicine at the University of Chicago, and her colleagues.

LGIB requires intensive resource utilization and proves fatal in 5%-15% of patients, which means timely and appropriate interventions are essential, especially for those with severe bleeding.

“There are limited data on accurately predicting the risk of adverse outcomes for hospitalized patients with LGIB,” the investigators wrote in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, “especially in comparison to patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), where tools such as the Glasgow-Blatchford Bleeding Score have been validated to accurately predict important clinical outcomes.”

To assess existing risk models for LGIB, the investigators performed a prospective observational study involving 170 patients with LGIB who underwent colonoscopy during April 2016–September 2017 at the University of Chicago Medical Center. Data were collected through comprehensive medical record review.

The primary outcome was severe bleeding. This was defined by acute bleeding during the first 24 hours of admission that required a transfusion of 2 or more units of packed red blood cells, and/or caused a 20% or greater decrease in hematocrit; and/or recurrent bleeding 24 hours after clinical stability, involving rectal bleeding with an additional drop in hematocrit of 20% or more, and/or readmission for LGIB within 1 week of discharge. Secondary outcomes included blood transfusion requirements, in-hospital recurrent bleeding, length of stay, ICU admission, intervention (surgery, interventional radiology, endoscopy), and the comparative predictive ability of seven clinical risk stratification models: AIMS65, Charlson Comorbidity Index, Glasgow-Blatchford, NOBLADS, Oakland, Sengupta, and Strate. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to compare model predictive power. Risk of adverse outcomes was calculated by univariable and multivariable logistic regression.

Results showed that median patient age was 70 years. Most of the patients (80%) were African American and slightly more than half were female (58%). These demographic factors were not predictive of severe bleeding, which occurred in about half of the cases (52%). Upon admission, patients with severe bleeding were more likely to have chronic renal failure (30% vs. 17%; P = .05), lower albumin (3.6 g/dL vs. 3.95 g/dL; P less than .0001), lower hemoglobin (8.6 g/dL vs. 11.1 g/dL; P = .0001), lower systolic blood pressure (118 mm Hg vs. 132 mm Hg; P = .01), and higher creatinine (1.3 mg/dL vs. 1 mg/dL; P = .04). After adjustment for confounding variables, the strongest independent predictors of severe bleeding were low albumin (odds ratio, 2.56 per 1-g/dL decrease; P = .02) and low hemoglobin (OR, 1.28 per 1-g/dL decrease; P = .0015).

*This story was updated on Jan. 31, 2019.
 

SOURCE: Tapaskar N et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Dec 18. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.12.011.

A group of expert robotic colorectal surgeons have published what they claim is the first European consensus on standards for total mesorectal excision (TME) and anterior resection in robotic rectal surgery in an effort to establish uniform training and education and improve outcomes for the robotic operations.

gorodenkoff/iStock/Getty Images

“The aim of this consensus study was to establish a detailed description of technical steps for robotic anterior resection and TME of the rectum as recommended by a representative group of established European expert surgeons,” wrote Danilo Miskovic, PhD, FRCS, of St. Mark’s Hospital in London, and his coauthors. The study, published in Colorectal Disease, provides a baseline for technical standards and structured training in robotic rectal surgery.

The consensus authors acted at the behest of the European Academy for Robotic Colorectal Surgery (EARCS), a nonprofit organization that provides training for robotic colorectal surgery. They cited evidence suggesting that the robotic approach to TME confers significant benefits in selected patients, compared with laparoscopic surgery (Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57:570-7), but that the ROLARR trial found no benefit with robotic surgery (Int J Colorectal Dis. 2012;27:233-41).

“Notwithstanding the absence of evidence, robotic surgery continues to increase in popularity in many countries,” Dr. Miskovic and his coauthors wrote.

The consensus statement covers recommendations for the da Vinci Si and Xi robotic platforms in the following areas.

• Surgical setup, including patient positioning and port placement and docking.
• Colonic mobilization, including vascular pedicle dissection and splenic flexure mobilization.
• Pelvic dissection, including establishing operative planes and specimen extraction.

Dr. Miskovic and his coauthors arrived at the consensus statement by asking 24 EARCS faculty members to complete a 72-item questionnaire. The initial responses yielded an 87% agreement among the responses, but after suggested modifications, the average level of agreement for all items was 97%.

One of the limitations of the study that the investigators acknowledged is that it covers only two da Vinci robotic platforms; the recommendations may not apply to new robotic systems. Secondly, a selected group of experts provided input. “There may be other experienced surgeons who might disagree with some aspects of our recommendations,” the authors wrote. “This document should therefore be seen as a foundation for debate and modification in light of future technical developments.”

Future research should evaluate how training of technical standards within a group like EARCS impacts clinical outcomes, Dr. Miskovic and his coauthors noted.

The investigators had no financial relationships to report. Participating surgeons are members of the EARCS faculty and/or its scientific committee

SOURCE: Miskovic D et al. Colorectal Dis. 2018 Nov 29. doi: 10.1111/codi.14502.

A group of expert robotic colorectal surgeons have published what they claim is the first European consensus on standards for total mesorectal excision (TME) and anterior resection in robotic rectal surgery in an effort to establish uniform training and education and improve outcomes for the robotic operations.

gorodenkoff/iStock/Getty Images

“The aim of this consensus study was to establish a detailed description of technical steps for robotic anterior resection and TME of the rectum as recommended by a representative group of established European expert surgeons,” wrote Danilo Miskovic, PhD, FRCS, of St. Mark’s Hospital in London, and his coauthors. The study, published in Colorectal Disease, provides a baseline for technical standards and structured training in robotic rectal surgery.

The consensus authors acted at the behest of the European Academy for Robotic Colorectal Surgery (EARCS), a nonprofit organization that provides training for robotic colorectal surgery. They cited evidence suggesting that the robotic approach to TME confers significant benefits in selected patients, compared with laparoscopic surgery (Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57:570-7), but that the ROLARR trial found no benefit with robotic surgery (Int J Colorectal Dis. 2012;27:233-41).

“Notwithstanding the absence of evidence, robotic surgery continues to increase in popularity in many countries,” Dr. Miskovic and his coauthors wrote.

The consensus statement covers recommendations for the da Vinci Si and Xi robotic platforms in the following areas.

• Surgical setup, including patient positioning and port placement and docking.
• Colonic mobilization, including vascular pedicle dissection and splenic flexure mobilization.
• Pelvic dissection, including establishing operative planes and specimen extraction.

Dr. Miskovic and his coauthors arrived at the consensus statement by asking 24 EARCS faculty members to complete a 72-item questionnaire. The initial responses yielded an 87% agreement among the responses, but after suggested modifications, the average level of agreement for all items was 97%.

One of the limitations of the study that the investigators acknowledged is that it covers only two da Vinci robotic platforms; the recommendations may not apply to new robotic systems. Secondly, a selected group of experts provided input. “There may be other experienced surgeons who might disagree with some aspects of our recommendations,” the authors wrote. “This document should therefore be seen as a foundation for debate and modification in light of future technical developments.”

Future research should evaluate how training of technical standards within a group like EARCS impacts clinical outcomes, Dr. Miskovic and his coauthors noted.

The investigators had no financial relationships to report. Participating surgeons are members of the EARCS faculty and/or its scientific committee

SOURCE: Miskovic D et al. Colorectal Dis. 2018 Nov 29. doi: 10.1111/codi.14502.

A group of expert robotic colorectal surgeons have published what they claim is the first European consensus on standards for total mesorectal excision (TME) and anterior resection in robotic rectal surgery in an effort to establish uniform training and education and improve outcomes for the robotic operations.

gorodenkoff/iStock/Getty Images

“The aim of this consensus study was to establish a detailed description of technical steps for robotic anterior resection and TME of the rectum as recommended by a representative group of established European expert surgeons,” wrote Danilo Miskovic, PhD, FRCS, of St. Mark’s Hospital in London, and his coauthors. The study, published in Colorectal Disease, provides a baseline for technical standards and structured training in robotic rectal surgery.

The consensus authors acted at the behest of the European Academy for Robotic Colorectal Surgery (EARCS), a nonprofit organization that provides training for robotic colorectal surgery. They cited evidence suggesting that the robotic approach to TME confers significant benefits in selected patients, compared with laparoscopic surgery (Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57:570-7), but that the ROLARR trial found no benefit with robotic surgery (Int J Colorectal Dis. 2012;27:233-41).

“Notwithstanding the absence of evidence, robotic surgery continues to increase in popularity in many countries,” Dr. Miskovic and his coauthors wrote.

The consensus statement covers recommendations for the da Vinci Si and Xi robotic platforms in the following areas.

• Surgical setup, including patient positioning and port placement and docking.
• Colonic mobilization, including vascular pedicle dissection and splenic flexure mobilization.
• Pelvic dissection, including establishing operative planes and specimen extraction.

Dr. Miskovic and his coauthors arrived at the consensus statement by asking 24 EARCS faculty members to complete a 72-item questionnaire. The initial responses yielded an 87% agreement among the responses, but after suggested modifications, the average level of agreement for all items was 97%.

One of the limitations of the study that the investigators acknowledged is that it covers only two da Vinci robotic platforms; the recommendations may not apply to new robotic systems. Secondly, a selected group of experts provided input. “There may be other experienced surgeons who might disagree with some aspects of our recommendations,” the authors wrote. “This document should therefore be seen as a foundation for debate and modification in light of future technical developments.”

Future research should evaluate how training of technical standards within a group like EARCS impacts clinical outcomes, Dr. Miskovic and his coauthors noted.

The investigators had no financial relationships to report. Participating surgeons are members of the EARCS faculty and/or its scientific committee

SOURCE: Miskovic D et al. Colorectal Dis. 2018 Nov 29. doi: 10.1111/codi.14502.

Robot-assisted rectal surgery is gaining acceptance but, with some exceptions, outcomes are not significantly improved over the conventional laparoscopic approach, a meta-analysis has found.

Nimur/Wikimedia Commons

Conducted by Katie Jones, MD, and her colleagues at Brighton and Sussex (England) University Hospital NHS Trust, the meta-analysis was designed as a follow-up to ROLARR (isrctn.org ID: ISRCTN80500123), a randomized clinical trial in which robot-assisted and. conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer were studied for risk of conversion to open surgery. That trial findings showed that robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery did not significantly reduce the risk of conversion. For other outcomes (pathology, complications, bladder, and sexual function), the differences between the two approaches were insignificant. But the two surgical approaches did differ on cost: The robot-assisted operation was significantly more expensive than the conventional laparoscopic procedure.

Dr. Jones and her colleagues analyzed data from ROLARR in the context of 27 other qualifying studies and confirmed many of the ROLARR findings. The 27 case control studies comprised 5,547 patients and had comparable outcomes data.

The outcomes of interest were duration of operation, conversion risk, blood loss, length of stay, oncological outcomes, time to first flatus, reoperation rate, postoperative morbidity, and postoperative mortality.

The investigators found that duration of the operation was longer for the robot-assisted procedure, compared with the conventional laparoscopic approach, though this difference was not statistically significant (z = 1.28, P = .20), and blood loss, morbidity, and mortality were similar between the two groups. Oncological outcomes (risk of positive circumferential resection margins, lymph node yield, and length of distal resection margins) were similar for these two surgical approaches.

In contrast to the ROLARR findings, this meta-analysis found that the risk of conversion favored the robot-assisted procedure (z = 5.51, P = .00001). Hospital stay (z = 2.46, P = 01) and time to first flatus outcomes (z = 3.09, P = .002) favored the robot-assisted procedure. Postop morbidity and mortality and reoperation rate were similar in the two groups.

“Based upon the findings of this largest-ever series on the role of robotic surgery in rectal cancer resection, the [robot-assisted procedure] is certainly a feasible technique and oncologically safe surgical intervention but failed to demonstrate any superiority over [the conventional laparoscopic approach] for many surgical outcomes,” the investigators wrote. “Mere advantage of robotic surgery was noted in only three postoperative outcomes, that is early passage of flatus, lower risk of conversion, and shorter hospitalization.”

Dr. Jones and her colleagues declared they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Jones K et al. World J Gastroentrol. 2018 Nov 15. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v10.i11.449.

Robot-assisted rectal surgery is gaining acceptance but, with some exceptions, outcomes are not significantly improved over the conventional laparoscopic approach, a meta-analysis has found.

Nimur/Wikimedia Commons

Conducted by Katie Jones, MD, and her colleagues at Brighton and Sussex (England) University Hospital NHS Trust, the meta-analysis was designed as a follow-up to ROLARR (isrctn.org ID: ISRCTN80500123), a randomized clinical trial in which robot-assisted and. conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer were studied for risk of conversion to open surgery. That trial findings showed that robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery did not significantly reduce the risk of conversion. For other outcomes (pathology, complications, bladder, and sexual function), the differences between the two approaches were insignificant. But the two surgical approaches did differ on cost: The robot-assisted operation was significantly more expensive than the conventional laparoscopic procedure.

Dr. Jones and her colleagues analyzed data from ROLARR in the context of 27 other qualifying studies and confirmed many of the ROLARR findings. The 27 case control studies comprised 5,547 patients and had comparable outcomes data.

The outcomes of interest were duration of operation, conversion risk, blood loss, length of stay, oncological outcomes, time to first flatus, reoperation rate, postoperative morbidity, and postoperative mortality.

The investigators found that duration of the operation was longer for the robot-assisted procedure, compared with the conventional laparoscopic approach, though this difference was not statistically significant (z = 1.28, P = .20), and blood loss, morbidity, and mortality were similar between the two groups. Oncological outcomes (risk of positive circumferential resection margins, lymph node yield, and length of distal resection margins) were similar for these two surgical approaches.

In contrast to the ROLARR findings, this meta-analysis found that the risk of conversion favored the robot-assisted procedure (z = 5.51, P = .00001). Hospital stay (z = 2.46, P = 01) and time to first flatus outcomes (z = 3.09, P = .002) favored the robot-assisted procedure. Postop morbidity and mortality and reoperation rate were similar in the two groups.

“Based upon the findings of this largest-ever series on the role of robotic surgery in rectal cancer resection, the [robot-assisted procedure] is certainly a feasible technique and oncologically safe surgical intervention but failed to demonstrate any superiority over [the conventional laparoscopic approach] for many surgical outcomes,” the investigators wrote. “Mere advantage of robotic surgery was noted in only three postoperative outcomes, that is early passage of flatus, lower risk of conversion, and shorter hospitalization.”

Dr. Jones and her colleagues declared they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Jones K et al. World J Gastroentrol. 2018 Nov 15. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v10.i11.449.

Robot-assisted rectal surgery is gaining acceptance but, with some exceptions, outcomes are not significantly improved over the conventional laparoscopic approach, a meta-analysis has found.

Nimur/Wikimedia Commons

Conducted by Katie Jones, MD, and her colleagues at Brighton and Sussex (England) University Hospital NHS Trust, the meta-analysis was designed as a follow-up to ROLARR (isrctn.org ID: ISRCTN80500123), a randomized clinical trial in which robot-assisted and. conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer were studied for risk of conversion to open surgery. That trial findings showed that robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery did not significantly reduce the risk of conversion. For other outcomes (pathology, complications, bladder, and sexual function), the differences between the two approaches were insignificant. But the two surgical approaches did differ on cost: The robot-assisted operation was significantly more expensive than the conventional laparoscopic procedure.

Dr. Jones and her colleagues analyzed data from ROLARR in the context of 27 other qualifying studies and confirmed many of the ROLARR findings. The 27 case control studies comprised 5,547 patients and had comparable outcomes data.

The outcomes of interest were duration of operation, conversion risk, blood loss, length of stay, oncological outcomes, time to first flatus, reoperation rate, postoperative morbidity, and postoperative mortality.

The investigators found that duration of the operation was longer for the robot-assisted procedure, compared with the conventional laparoscopic approach, though this difference was not statistically significant (z = 1.28, P = .20), and blood loss, morbidity, and mortality were similar between the two groups. Oncological outcomes (risk of positive circumferential resection margins, lymph node yield, and length of distal resection margins) were similar for these two surgical approaches.

In contrast to the ROLARR findings, this meta-analysis found that the risk of conversion favored the robot-assisted procedure (z = 5.51, P = .00001). Hospital stay (z = 2.46, P = 01) and time to first flatus outcomes (z = 3.09, P = .002) favored the robot-assisted procedure. Postop morbidity and mortality and reoperation rate were similar in the two groups.

“Based upon the findings of this largest-ever series on the role of robotic surgery in rectal cancer resection, the [robot-assisted procedure] is certainly a feasible technique and oncologically safe surgical intervention but failed to demonstrate any superiority over [the conventional laparoscopic approach] for many surgical outcomes,” the investigators wrote. “Mere advantage of robotic surgery was noted in only three postoperative outcomes, that is early passage of flatus, lower risk of conversion, and shorter hospitalization.”

Dr. Jones and her colleagues declared they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Jones K et al. World J Gastroentrol. 2018 Nov 15. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v10.i11.449.

BOSTON– Imagine being able to biopsy a tumor and grow it in a lab.
 

The implications are nearly endless. To start, chemotherapy and radiation options could be screened in vitro, much like culture and sensitivity testing of bacteria, to find a patient’s best option. Tumor cultures could be banked for mass screening of new cytotoxic candidates.

It’s already beginning to happen in a few research labs around the world, and it might foretell a breakthrough in cancer treatment.

After decades of failure, the trick to growing tumor cells in culture has finally been figured out. When stem cells are fished out of healthy tissue – from the crypts of the gastrointestinal lining, for instance – and put into a three-dimensional matrix culture with growth factors, they grow into little replications of the organs they came from, called “organoids;” when stem cells are pulled from cancers, they replicate the primary tumor, growing into “tumoroids” ready to be tested against cytotoxic drugs and radiation.

Philip B. Paty, MD, FACS, a colorectal surgeon and organoid researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said he is certain that the person who led the team that figured out the right culture condition – Hans Clevers, MD, PhD, a molecular genetics professor at the University of Utrecht (the Netherlands) – is destined for a Nobel Prize.

Dr. Paty took a few minutes at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons to explain in an interview why, and what ‘organoid technology’ will likely mean for cancer treatment in a few years.

“The ability to grow and sustain cancer means that we now can start doing real science on human tissues. We could never do this before. We’ve been treating cancer without being able to grow tumors and study them.” The breakthrough opens the door to “clinical trials in a dish,” and will likely take personalized cancer treatment to a new level, he said.

“It remains to be proven that “organoid technology “can change outcomes for patients, but those studies are likely coming,” said Dr. Paty, who investigates tumoroid response to radiation in his own lab work.

[email protected]

BOSTON– Imagine being able to biopsy a tumor and grow it in a lab.
 

The implications are nearly endless. To start, chemotherapy and radiation options could be screened in vitro, much like culture and sensitivity testing of bacteria, to find a patient’s best option. Tumor cultures could be banked for mass screening of new cytotoxic candidates.

It’s already beginning to happen in a few research labs around the world, and it might foretell a breakthrough in cancer treatment.

After decades of failure, the trick to growing tumor cells in culture has finally been figured out. When stem cells are fished out of healthy tissue – from the crypts of the gastrointestinal lining, for instance – and put into a three-dimensional matrix culture with growth factors, they grow into little replications of the organs they came from, called “organoids;” when stem cells are pulled from cancers, they replicate the primary tumor, growing into “tumoroids” ready to be tested against cytotoxic drugs and radiation.

Philip B. Paty, MD, FACS, a colorectal surgeon and organoid researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said he is certain that the person who led the team that figured out the right culture condition – Hans Clevers, MD, PhD, a molecular genetics professor at the University of Utrecht (the Netherlands) – is destined for a Nobel Prize.

Dr. Paty took a few minutes at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons to explain in an interview why, and what ‘organoid technology’ will likely mean for cancer treatment in a few years.

“The ability to grow and sustain cancer means that we now can start doing real science on human tissues. We could never do this before. We’ve been treating cancer without being able to grow tumors and study them.” The breakthrough opens the door to “clinical trials in a dish,” and will likely take personalized cancer treatment to a new level, he said.

“It remains to be proven that “organoid technology “can change outcomes for patients, but those studies are likely coming,” said Dr. Paty, who investigates tumoroid response to radiation in his own lab work.

[email protected]

BOSTON– Imagine being able to biopsy a tumor and grow it in a lab.
 

The implications are nearly endless. To start, chemotherapy and radiation options could be screened in vitro, much like culture and sensitivity testing of bacteria, to find a patient’s best option. Tumor cultures could be banked for mass screening of new cytotoxic candidates.

It’s already beginning to happen in a few research labs around the world, and it might foretell a breakthrough in cancer treatment.

After decades of failure, the trick to growing tumor cells in culture has finally been figured out. When stem cells are fished out of healthy tissue – from the crypts of the gastrointestinal lining, for instance – and put into a three-dimensional matrix culture with growth factors, they grow into little replications of the organs they came from, called “organoids;” when stem cells are pulled from cancers, they replicate the primary tumor, growing into “tumoroids” ready to be tested against cytotoxic drugs and radiation.

Philip B. Paty, MD, FACS, a colorectal surgeon and organoid researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said he is certain that the person who led the team that figured out the right culture condition – Hans Clevers, MD, PhD, a molecular genetics professor at the University of Utrecht (the Netherlands) – is destined for a Nobel Prize.

Dr. Paty took a few minutes at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons to explain in an interview why, and what ‘organoid technology’ will likely mean for cancer treatment in a few years.

“The ability to grow and sustain cancer means that we now can start doing real science on human tissues. We could never do this before. We’ve been treating cancer without being able to grow tumors and study them.” The breakthrough opens the door to “clinical trials in a dish,” and will likely take personalized cancer treatment to a new level, he said.

“It remains to be proven that “organoid technology “can change outcomes for patients, but those studies are likely coming,” said Dr. Paty, who investigates tumoroid response to radiation in his own lab work.

[email protected]

BOSTON – Chemotherapy and radiation cure 70%-80% of patients with low rectal cancer.

It’s for them that the watch-and-wait paradigm was established over a decade ago, and widely adopted since then. The idea is to hold off on surgery after a complete response to chemotherapy and radiation, to see if the patient really needs it.

While most do not, tumors regrow in 20%-30%, and when they come back, they tend to be aggressive, with poor outcomes. Patients in those situations would have been better off with upfront surgery.

The problem right now is that there’s no way to predict who will be cured by neoadjuvant therapy and whose tumor will come back, said Philip Paty, MD. FACS, a colorectal surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

“There are some who are probably harmed by the watch-and-wait paradigm. The risk of local regrowth is hardbaked into [the model]; we haven’t been able to eliminate it,” he said at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons..

Dr. Paty is one of many investigators working to identify those at risk. In the meantime, watch-and-wait patients need to be followed closely, particularly in the first 2 years. Surgery is the best option at the first sign of regrowth. Dr. Paty explained his follow-up protocol, as well as the current state of watch and wait for low rectal cancer, in an interview at the meeting.

He also talked about overcoming hurdles. The risk of surgery, including permanent bowel and sexual dysfunction, is so great “that many patients latch onto watch and wait and won’t let go. They don’t come back for follow-up, or resist the idea of surgery even if it’s needed,” he said.

[email protected]

BOSTON – Chemotherapy and radiation cure 70%-80% of patients with low rectal cancer.

It’s for them that the watch-and-wait paradigm was established over a decade ago, and widely adopted since then. The idea is to hold off on surgery after a complete response to chemotherapy and radiation, to see if the patient really needs it.

While most do not, tumors regrow in 20%-30%, and when they come back, they tend to be aggressive, with poor outcomes. Patients in those situations would have been better off with upfront surgery.

The problem right now is that there’s no way to predict who will be cured by neoadjuvant therapy and whose tumor will come back, said Philip Paty, MD. FACS, a colorectal surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

“There are some who are probably harmed by the watch-and-wait paradigm. The risk of local regrowth is hardbaked into [the model]; we haven’t been able to eliminate it,” he said at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons..

Dr. Paty is one of many investigators working to identify those at risk. In the meantime, watch-and-wait patients need to be followed closely, particularly in the first 2 years. Surgery is the best option at the first sign of regrowth. Dr. Paty explained his follow-up protocol, as well as the current state of watch and wait for low rectal cancer, in an interview at the meeting.

He also talked about overcoming hurdles. The risk of surgery, including permanent bowel and sexual dysfunction, is so great “that many patients latch onto watch and wait and won’t let go. They don’t come back for follow-up, or resist the idea of surgery even if it’s needed,” he said.

[email protected]

BOSTON – Chemotherapy and radiation cure 70%-80% of patients with low rectal cancer.

It’s for them that the watch-and-wait paradigm was established over a decade ago, and widely adopted since then. The idea is to hold off on surgery after a complete response to chemotherapy and radiation, to see if the patient really needs it.

While most do not, tumors regrow in 20%-30%, and when they come back, they tend to be aggressive, with poor outcomes. Patients in those situations would have been better off with upfront surgery.

The problem right now is that there’s no way to predict who will be cured by neoadjuvant therapy and whose tumor will come back, said Philip Paty, MD. FACS, a colorectal surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

“There are some who are probably harmed by the watch-and-wait paradigm. The risk of local regrowth is hardbaked into [the model]; we haven’t been able to eliminate it,” he said at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons..

Dr. Paty is one of many investigators working to identify those at risk. In the meantime, watch-and-wait patients need to be followed closely, particularly in the first 2 years. Surgery is the best option at the first sign of regrowth. Dr. Paty explained his follow-up protocol, as well as the current state of watch and wait for low rectal cancer, in an interview at the meeting.

He also talked about overcoming hurdles. The risk of surgery, including permanent bowel and sexual dysfunction, is so great “that many patients latch onto watch and wait and won’t let go. They don’t come back for follow-up, or resist the idea of surgery even if it’s needed,” he said.

[email protected]

BOSTON – A quality improvement project conducted at the Cleveland Clinic dropped the 30-day colorectal surgery infection rate from 11.8% to 6.6%, driven mostly by a reduction in deep organ space infections from 5.5% to 1.7%.

It was a remarkable finding that got the attention of attendees at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons. The Cleveland Clinic had been an outlier, in the wrong direction, compared with other centers, and administrators wanted a solution.

I. Emre Gorgun, MD, FACS, a colorectal surgeon and quality improvement officer at Cleveland Clinic, led the search for evidence-based interventions. Eventually, big changes were made to perioperative antibiotics, mechanical bowel prep, preop shower routines, and intraoperative procedures. The efforts paid off (Dis Colon Rectum. 2018 Jan;61[1]:89-98).

To help surgeons lower their own infection rates, Dr. Gorgun agreed to an interview at the meeting to explain exactly what was done.

There was resistance at first from surgeons who wanted to stick with their routines, but they came around once they were shown the data backing the changes. Eventually, “everyone was on board. We believe in this,” Dr. Gorgun said.

[email protected]

BOSTON – A quality improvement project conducted at the Cleveland Clinic dropped the 30-day colorectal surgery infection rate from 11.8% to 6.6%, driven mostly by a reduction in deep organ space infections from 5.5% to 1.7%.

It was a remarkable finding that got the attention of attendees at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons. The Cleveland Clinic had been an outlier, in the wrong direction, compared with other centers, and administrators wanted a solution.

I. Emre Gorgun, MD, FACS, a colorectal surgeon and quality improvement officer at Cleveland Clinic, led the search for evidence-based interventions. Eventually, big changes were made to perioperative antibiotics, mechanical bowel prep, preop shower routines, and intraoperative procedures. The efforts paid off (Dis Colon Rectum. 2018 Jan;61[1]:89-98).

To help surgeons lower their own infection rates, Dr. Gorgun agreed to an interview at the meeting to explain exactly what was done.

There was resistance at first from surgeons who wanted to stick with their routines, but they came around once they were shown the data backing the changes. Eventually, “everyone was on board. We believe in this,” Dr. Gorgun said.

[email protected]

BOSTON – A quality improvement project conducted at the Cleveland Clinic dropped the 30-day colorectal surgery infection rate from 11.8% to 6.6%, driven mostly by a reduction in deep organ space infections from 5.5% to 1.7%.

It was a remarkable finding that got the attention of attendees at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons. The Cleveland Clinic had been an outlier, in the wrong direction, compared with other centers, and administrators wanted a solution.

I. Emre Gorgun, MD, FACS, a colorectal surgeon and quality improvement officer at Cleveland Clinic, led the search for evidence-based interventions. Eventually, big changes were made to perioperative antibiotics, mechanical bowel prep, preop shower routines, and intraoperative procedures. The efforts paid off (Dis Colon Rectum. 2018 Jan;61[1]:89-98).

To help surgeons lower their own infection rates, Dr. Gorgun agreed to an interview at the meeting to explain exactly what was done.

There was resistance at first from surgeons who wanted to stick with their routines, but they came around once they were shown the data backing the changes. Eventually, “everyone was on board. We believe in this,” Dr. Gorgun said.

[email protected]

BOSTON – Rates of colorectal procedure complications have steadily decreased over time in the 10 years since the introduction of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP), a recent analysis shows.

Andrew Boswer/MDedge News

Reoperation rates have also decreased, while early-discharge rates have steadily increased, according to results of the analysis, presented at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

The findings underline the value of such ACS-led initiatives in improving patient care and surgical quality, said Ahmed M. Al-Mazrou, MD, a general surgery resident at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York.

“Over its first decade of introduction, ACS NSQIP was associated with improved outcomes after colorectal surgery, and also introduction of colectomy-targeted data was also associated with improved outcomes,” Dr. Al-Mazrou said in his presentation describing the results.

Prior to this study, the question of whether the introduction of ACS NSQIP has improved outcomes over time had not been well characterized, according to Dr. Al-Mazrou and his colleagues.

To evaluate the impact, the investigators looked at more than 310,000 nonemergency colorectal resections in ACS NSQIP, of which about 58% were done after the introduction of colectomy-targeted variables in 2013.

They found that, over time, incidence of most complications fell, including surgical site infections, urinary tract infections, sepsis and septic shock, and venous thromboembolism, while rates of early discharge increased.

For example, surgical site infections decreased from 13.7% to 4.7% over the 10-year period, while the number of patients discharged within 5 days or fewer increased from about 8% to 47%.

Introduction of colectomy-targeted data was associated with fewer surgical site infections (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.80), multivariable analysis showed. Likewise, there were lower rates of systemic infections (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91-0.98) and urinary tract infections (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.67-0.74) after introduction of the data.

Rates of reoperation also decreased (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.85-0.91) while early-discharge rates increased (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.57-1.63) after colectomy data was introduced, the multivariable analysis further showed.

Principal investigator P. Ravi Kiran, MD, FACS, professor of surgery at Columbia University and chief of the medical center’s division of colorectal surgery, said the improved outcomes were attributable to a few different factors.

First, the NSQIP national data allows participants to benchmark with peer hospitals and find areas for improvement, Dr. Kiran said in an ACS press release.

That benchmarking encourages participating centers to follow evidence-based recommendations, including ACS guidelines for preventing surgical site infections, he added.

The introduction of procedure-targeted datasets in NSQIP was done in response to user requests for more clinically detailed information, according to Clifford Y. Ko, MD, FACS, director of the ACS division of research and optimal patient care.

While the NSQIP data are important in improving surgical outcomes, credit also goes to the organizations that are leading the quality improvement efforts by effectively using the data, Dr. Ko said in the press release.

Dr. Ko was not involved in the study. Dr. Al-Mazrou and Dr. Kiran reported no disclosures relevant to the study.

SOURCE: Al-Mazrou AM et al. ACS Clinical Congress. Abstract SF330.

BOSTON – Rates of colorectal procedure complications have steadily decreased over time in the 10 years since the introduction of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP), a recent analysis shows.

Andrew Boswer/MDedge News

Reoperation rates have also decreased, while early-discharge rates have steadily increased, according to results of the analysis, presented at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

The findings underline the value of such ACS-led initiatives in improving patient care and surgical quality, said Ahmed M. Al-Mazrou, MD, a general surgery resident at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York.

“Over its first decade of introduction, ACS NSQIP was associated with improved outcomes after colorectal surgery, and also introduction of colectomy-targeted data was also associated with improved outcomes,” Dr. Al-Mazrou said in his presentation describing the results.

Prior to this study, the question of whether the introduction of ACS NSQIP has improved outcomes over time had not been well characterized, according to Dr. Al-Mazrou and his colleagues.

To evaluate the impact, the investigators looked at more than 310,000 nonemergency colorectal resections in ACS NSQIP, of which about 58% were done after the introduction of colectomy-targeted variables in 2013.

They found that, over time, incidence of most complications fell, including surgical site infections, urinary tract infections, sepsis and septic shock, and venous thromboembolism, while rates of early discharge increased.

For example, surgical site infections decreased from 13.7% to 4.7% over the 10-year period, while the number of patients discharged within 5 days or fewer increased from about 8% to 47%.

Introduction of colectomy-targeted data was associated with fewer surgical site infections (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.80), multivariable analysis showed. Likewise, there were lower rates of systemic infections (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91-0.98) and urinary tract infections (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.67-0.74) after introduction of the data.

Rates of reoperation also decreased (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.85-0.91) while early-discharge rates increased (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.57-1.63) after colectomy data was introduced, the multivariable analysis further showed.

Principal investigator P. Ravi Kiran, MD, FACS, professor of surgery at Columbia University and chief of the medical center’s division of colorectal surgery, said the improved outcomes were attributable to a few different factors.

First, the NSQIP national data allows participants to benchmark with peer hospitals and find areas for improvement, Dr. Kiran said in an ACS press release.

That benchmarking encourages participating centers to follow evidence-based recommendations, including ACS guidelines for preventing surgical site infections, he added.

The introduction of procedure-targeted datasets in NSQIP was done in response to user requests for more clinically detailed information, according to Clifford Y. Ko, MD, FACS, director of the ACS division of research and optimal patient care.

While the NSQIP data are important in improving surgical outcomes, credit also goes to the organizations that are leading the quality improvement efforts by effectively using the data, Dr. Ko said in the press release.

Dr. Ko was not involved in the study. Dr. Al-Mazrou and Dr. Kiran reported no disclosures relevant to the study.

SOURCE: Al-Mazrou AM et al. ACS Clinical Congress. Abstract SF330.

BOSTON – Rates of colorectal procedure complications have steadily decreased over time in the 10 years since the introduction of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP), a recent analysis shows.

Andrew Boswer/MDedge News

Reoperation rates have also decreased, while early-discharge rates have steadily increased, according to results of the analysis, presented at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

The findings underline the value of such ACS-led initiatives in improving patient care and surgical quality, said Ahmed M. Al-Mazrou, MD, a general surgery resident at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York.

“Over its first decade of introduction, ACS NSQIP was associated with improved outcomes after colorectal surgery, and also introduction of colectomy-targeted data was also associated with improved outcomes,” Dr. Al-Mazrou said in his presentation describing the results.

Prior to this study, the question of whether the introduction of ACS NSQIP has improved outcomes over time had not been well characterized, according to Dr. Al-Mazrou and his colleagues.

To evaluate the impact, the investigators looked at more than 310,000 nonemergency colorectal resections in ACS NSQIP, of which about 58% were done after the introduction of colectomy-targeted variables in 2013.

They found that, over time, incidence of most complications fell, including surgical site infections, urinary tract infections, sepsis and septic shock, and venous thromboembolism, while rates of early discharge increased.

For example, surgical site infections decreased from 13.7% to 4.7% over the 10-year period, while the number of patients discharged within 5 days or fewer increased from about 8% to 47%.

Introduction of colectomy-targeted data was associated with fewer surgical site infections (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.80), multivariable analysis showed. Likewise, there were lower rates of systemic infections (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91-0.98) and urinary tract infections (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.67-0.74) after introduction of the data.

Rates of reoperation also decreased (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.85-0.91) while early-discharge rates increased (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.57-1.63) after colectomy data was introduced, the multivariable analysis further showed.

Principal investigator P. Ravi Kiran, MD, FACS, professor of surgery at Columbia University and chief of the medical center’s division of colorectal surgery, said the improved outcomes were attributable to a few different factors.

First, the NSQIP national data allows participants to benchmark with peer hospitals and find areas for improvement, Dr. Kiran said in an ACS press release.

That benchmarking encourages participating centers to follow evidence-based recommendations, including ACS guidelines for preventing surgical site infections, he added.

The introduction of procedure-targeted datasets in NSQIP was done in response to user requests for more clinically detailed information, according to Clifford Y. Ko, MD, FACS, director of the ACS division of research and optimal patient care.

While the NSQIP data are important in improving surgical outcomes, credit also goes to the organizations that are leading the quality improvement efforts by effectively using the data, Dr. Ko said in the press release.

Dr. Ko was not involved in the study. Dr. Al-Mazrou and Dr. Kiran reported no disclosures relevant to the study.

SOURCE: Al-Mazrou AM et al. ACS Clinical Congress. Abstract SF330.

BOSTON – A new surgical option for stage IV colon cancer with isolated liver metastases is beginning to attract attention: the liver-first approach.

It’s an alternative to usual care, meaning simultaneous bowel and liver resection or bowel resection with liver surgery later on.

Systemic chemotherapy comes first, followed by liver resection. If margins are microscopically negative, the patient gets another round of chemotherapy. If no additional lesions emerge, the primary tumor is taken out. The entire process can take up to a year.

The approach was developed in the Netherlands for rectal cancer with advanced liver metastases. The idea was to get the liver lesions out before they became unresectable, then remove the primary tumor later on. It’s gaining traction now for colon cancer, and beginning to trickle into the United States at a few academic medical centers.

It comes down to what’s more dangerous, the metastases or the primary tumor? Tumor science hasn’t answered that question yet. There’s general agreement that metastases are what kill people with cancer, but it’s not known if they come mostly from previous metastases or from the primary tumor. The liver-first approach assumes the former.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Liver-first is “extremely controversial. For older surgeons who are not in tertiary care centers, liver-first doesn’t make sense, and it doesn’t seem to make sense to patients. They wonder why you would go after the liver when they were diagnosed with a colon tumor,” said Janice Rafferty, MD, FACS, professor of surgery at the University of Cincinnati, at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

“Well, it’s because the primary tumor doesn’t limit your life,” she continued. “The life-limiting disease is in the liver, not the colon. If you explain it to them that way, it makes sense. If we cannot get an R0 resection on the liver, it doesn’t make sense to go after the primary, unless it’s symptomatic with obstruction, bleeding, or fistula.”

There have been about 10 attempts at a randomized trial of this approach versus usual care, but they were not successful because of the difficulty of recruiting patients. Patients – and no doubt, some surgeons – may have some resistance to the logic of going after metastases first.

Dr. Rafferty moderated a review of research from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., that attempted to plug the evidence gap. The Yale investigators “presented really interesting data that shows that liver-first has improved survival,” she said.

The Yale team used the National Cancer Database to compare 2010-2015 outcomes from liver-first patients with patients who had simultaneous or bowel-first resections, followed by later liver resections. The database didn’t allow them to tease out simultaneous from bowel-first cases, so they lumped them together as usual care. To avoid confounding, rectal carcinomas and metastases to the lung, brain, and other organs were excluded.

Median survival was 34 months among 358 liver-first patients versus 24 months among 18,042 usual care patients in an intention-to-treat analysis. Among patients who completed their resections, median survival was 57 months among 140 liver-first patients versus 36 months with usual care in 3,988.

The benefit held after adjustment for patient and tumor characteristics (hazard ratio for death 0.77 in favor of liver first). When further adjusted for chemotherapy timing, there was a strong trend for liver-first but it was not statistically significant, suggesting that up-front chemotherapy contributed to the results (HR, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.01; P = .09).

There were many caveats. The liver-first patients were younger, with over half under the age of 60 years versus just over 40% in usual care. They were also healthier based on Charlson comorbidity scores and more likely to have upfront chemotherapy and be treated at an academic center.

So, what should surgeons make of these findings? Lead investigator Vadim Kurbatov, MD, a Yale surgery resident, argued that, at the very least, they suggest that liver-first is a viable option for stage IV colon cancer with isolated liver metastases. Going further, they suggest that liver first may be the right way to go for younger, healthier patients at academic centers.

For sicker stage IV patients, however, the role of liver-first is unclear. “We really do need a randomized trial,” he said.

Dr. Kurbatov and Dr. Rafferty had no relevant disclosures to report. The work was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

BOSTON – A new surgical option for stage IV colon cancer with isolated liver metastases is beginning to attract attention: the liver-first approach.

It’s an alternative to usual care, meaning simultaneous bowel and liver resection or bowel resection with liver surgery later on.

Systemic chemotherapy comes first, followed by liver resection. If margins are microscopically negative, the patient gets another round of chemotherapy. If no additional lesions emerge, the primary tumor is taken out. The entire process can take up to a year.

The approach was developed in the Netherlands for rectal cancer with advanced liver metastases. The idea was to get the liver lesions out before they became unresectable, then remove the primary tumor later on. It’s gaining traction now for colon cancer, and beginning to trickle into the United States at a few academic medical centers.

It comes down to what’s more dangerous, the metastases or the primary tumor? Tumor science hasn’t answered that question yet. There’s general agreement that metastases are what kill people with cancer, but it’s not known if they come mostly from previous metastases or from the primary tumor. The liver-first approach assumes the former.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Liver-first is “extremely controversial. For older surgeons who are not in tertiary care centers, liver-first doesn’t make sense, and it doesn’t seem to make sense to patients. They wonder why you would go after the liver when they were diagnosed with a colon tumor,” said Janice Rafferty, MD, FACS, professor of surgery at the University of Cincinnati, at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

“Well, it’s because the primary tumor doesn’t limit your life,” she continued. “The life-limiting disease is in the liver, not the colon. If you explain it to them that way, it makes sense. If we cannot get an R0 resection on the liver, it doesn’t make sense to go after the primary, unless it’s symptomatic with obstruction, bleeding, or fistula.”

There have been about 10 attempts at a randomized trial of this approach versus usual care, but they were not successful because of the difficulty of recruiting patients. Patients – and no doubt, some surgeons – may have some resistance to the logic of going after metastases first.

Dr. Rafferty moderated a review of research from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., that attempted to plug the evidence gap. The Yale investigators “presented really interesting data that shows that liver-first has improved survival,” she said.

The Yale team used the National Cancer Database to compare 2010-2015 outcomes from liver-first patients with patients who had simultaneous or bowel-first resections, followed by later liver resections. The database didn’t allow them to tease out simultaneous from bowel-first cases, so they lumped them together as usual care. To avoid confounding, rectal carcinomas and metastases to the lung, brain, and other organs were excluded.

Median survival was 34 months among 358 liver-first patients versus 24 months among 18,042 usual care patients in an intention-to-treat analysis. Among patients who completed their resections, median survival was 57 months among 140 liver-first patients versus 36 months with usual care in 3,988.

The benefit held after adjustment for patient and tumor characteristics (hazard ratio for death 0.77 in favor of liver first). When further adjusted for chemotherapy timing, there was a strong trend for liver-first but it was not statistically significant, suggesting that up-front chemotherapy contributed to the results (HR, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.01; P = .09).

There were many caveats. The liver-first patients were younger, with over half under the age of 60 years versus just over 40% in usual care. They were also healthier based on Charlson comorbidity scores and more likely to have upfront chemotherapy and be treated at an academic center.

So, what should surgeons make of these findings? Lead investigator Vadim Kurbatov, MD, a Yale surgery resident, argued that, at the very least, they suggest that liver-first is a viable option for stage IV colon cancer with isolated liver metastases. Going further, they suggest that liver first may be the right way to go for younger, healthier patients at academic centers.

For sicker stage IV patients, however, the role of liver-first is unclear. “We really do need a randomized trial,” he said.

Dr. Kurbatov and Dr. Rafferty had no relevant disclosures to report. The work was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

BOSTON – A new surgical option for stage IV colon cancer with isolated liver metastases is beginning to attract attention: the liver-first approach.

It’s an alternative to usual care, meaning simultaneous bowel and liver resection or bowel resection with liver surgery later on.

Systemic chemotherapy comes first, followed by liver resection. If margins are microscopically negative, the patient gets another round of chemotherapy. If no additional lesions emerge, the primary tumor is taken out. The entire process can take up to a year.

The approach was developed in the Netherlands for rectal cancer with advanced liver metastases. The idea was to get the liver lesions out before they became unresectable, then remove the primary tumor later on. It’s gaining traction now for colon cancer, and beginning to trickle into the United States at a few academic medical centers.

It comes down to what’s more dangerous, the metastases or the primary tumor? Tumor science hasn’t answered that question yet. There’s general agreement that metastases are what kill people with cancer, but it’s not known if they come mostly from previous metastases or from the primary tumor. The liver-first approach assumes the former.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Liver-first is “extremely controversial. For older surgeons who are not in tertiary care centers, liver-first doesn’t make sense, and it doesn’t seem to make sense to patients. They wonder why you would go after the liver when they were diagnosed with a colon tumor,” said Janice Rafferty, MD, FACS, professor of surgery at the University of Cincinnati, at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

“Well, it’s because the primary tumor doesn’t limit your life,” she continued. “The life-limiting disease is in the liver, not the colon. If you explain it to them that way, it makes sense. If we cannot get an R0 resection on the liver, it doesn’t make sense to go after the primary, unless it’s symptomatic with obstruction, bleeding, or fistula.”

There have been about 10 attempts at a randomized trial of this approach versus usual care, but they were not successful because of the difficulty of recruiting patients. Patients – and no doubt, some surgeons – may have some resistance to the logic of going after metastases first.

Dr. Rafferty moderated a review of research from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., that attempted to plug the evidence gap. The Yale investigators “presented really interesting data that shows that liver-first has improved survival,” she said.

The Yale team used the National Cancer Database to compare 2010-2015 outcomes from liver-first patients with patients who had simultaneous or bowel-first resections, followed by later liver resections. The database didn’t allow them to tease out simultaneous from bowel-first cases, so they lumped them together as usual care. To avoid confounding, rectal carcinomas and metastases to the lung, brain, and other organs were excluded.

Median survival was 34 months among 358 liver-first patients versus 24 months among 18,042 usual care patients in an intention-to-treat analysis. Among patients who completed their resections, median survival was 57 months among 140 liver-first patients versus 36 months with usual care in 3,988.

The benefit held after adjustment for patient and tumor characteristics (hazard ratio for death 0.77 in favor of liver first). When further adjusted for chemotherapy timing, there was a strong trend for liver-first but it was not statistically significant, suggesting that up-front chemotherapy contributed to the results (HR, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.01; P = .09).

There were many caveats. The liver-first patients were younger, with over half under the age of 60 years versus just over 40% in usual care. They were also healthier based on Charlson comorbidity scores and more likely to have upfront chemotherapy and be treated at an academic center.

So, what should surgeons make of these findings? Lead investigator Vadim Kurbatov, MD, a Yale surgery resident, argued that, at the very least, they suggest that liver-first is a viable option for stage IV colon cancer with isolated liver metastases. Going further, they suggest that liver first may be the right way to go for younger, healthier patients at academic centers.

For sicker stage IV patients, however, the role of liver-first is unclear. “We really do need a randomized trial,” he said.

Dr. Kurbatov and Dr. Rafferty had no relevant disclosures to report. The work was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

BOSTON – When pancreatitis symptoms don’t resolve within a month, patients need some sort of surgical intervention, according to Steven Hughes, MD, FACS, professor and chief of surgical oncology at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

Pancreatitis management has been evolving in recent years. Prophylactic antibiotics and total parenteral nutrition are out; tube feeds are in, and there’s compelling evidence to take the gallbladder out, regardless of etiology, he said at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

However, too many patients get drains placed in the first 2 weeks; it’s the wrong move because it consigns to surgery a lot of patients who otherwise would have recovered on their own. “In the first 2 weeks, please do not place drains. Once you place the drain, you have committed the patient to a very different clinical course,” Dr. Hughes said.

Surgery generally comes a month or more after the initial presentation. Infection is inevitable at that point; the delay gives the lesion time to consolidate and wall itself off, making for a cleaner, safer operation.

Transgastric necrosectomy is the go-to when pancreatic lesions are toward the midline. It’s Dr. Hughes’s favored approach when the anatomy is appropriate; he shared his thoughts at the meeting.

Transgastric necrosectomy provides “single-stop shopping. You can get a thorough debridement in a single procedure,” and durable internal drainage. “Most importantly, from a patient’s perspective, it leaves them without external drains. You can transition a patient who’s been percutaneously drained to no external drainage at the time of this operation,” he said.

Additional pluses include cholecystectomy either before or after necrosectomy and the ability to place enteric feeding systems. “I like to use a combination G-J tube that allows drainage of the emptying stomach along with distal tube feeds,” he said.

Laparoscopic and endoscopic approaches are possible, but Dr. Hughes favors an open procedure “because the finger is the best debriding tool I have found.” There’s an anterior and then posterior gastric incision to dig out the necroma. The anterior incision is closed, but the posterior cut is sealed open to the necroma with a running hemostatic suture to allow for a “large cavity between the cavity and the stomach” for ongoing drainage.

“I have ultrasound on the field, but typically finding the necroma is like falling out of a canoe and finding water.” Even so, “I like to bring a 10-mm straight scope for direct viewing onto the field to explore the necrotic cavity and ensure I’ve done an adequate necrosectomy,” he said.

“I do think that this operation can be performed in patients who have some retrocolic extension even over into the pancreatic head and down the right paracolic gutter, but certainly if the collection extends down towards the pelvis, the notion that this is going to be adequate in and of itself requires further investigation,” he said.

In a cohort of 18 patients he and his colleagues followed for at least 2 years, “I was impressed that this operation is rather durable,” with rapid resolution of disease, Dr. Hughes said. Just a couple people needed additional operations. “The majority created persistent fistulas between the pancreatic body tail and the stomach.”

He cautioned that the procedure “is not for the faint of heart. The splenic vein and the splenic artery as well the celiac axis and portal vein are at risk during this procedure, and if you get into them, you have got a wolf by both ears. I would encourage you to consider referral for these patients.”

Dr. Hughes strongly encouraged surgeons to “ make sure your interventional radiologists and advanced endoscopists are on board, whether for the postop pseudoaneurysm bleeding or recurrent sepsis.”

Dr. Hughes had no relevant disclosures to report.

[email protected]

BOSTON – When pancreatitis symptoms don’t resolve within a month, patients need some sort of surgical intervention, according to Steven Hughes, MD, FACS, professor and chief of surgical oncology at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

Pancreatitis management has been evolving in recent years. Prophylactic antibiotics and total parenteral nutrition are out; tube feeds are in, and there’s compelling evidence to take the gallbladder out, regardless of etiology, he said at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

However, too many patients get drains placed in the first 2 weeks; it’s the wrong move because it consigns to surgery a lot of patients who otherwise would have recovered on their own. “In the first 2 weeks, please do not place drains. Once you place the drain, you have committed the patient to a very different clinical course,” Dr. Hughes said.

Surgery generally comes a month or more after the initial presentation. Infection is inevitable at that point; the delay gives the lesion time to consolidate and wall itself off, making for a cleaner, safer operation.

Transgastric necrosectomy is the go-to when pancreatic lesions are toward the midline. It’s Dr. Hughes’s favored approach when the anatomy is appropriate; he shared his thoughts at the meeting.

Transgastric necrosectomy provides “single-stop shopping. You can get a thorough debridement in a single procedure,” and durable internal drainage. “Most importantly, from a patient’s perspective, it leaves them without external drains. You can transition a patient who’s been percutaneously drained to no external drainage at the time of this operation,” he said.

Additional pluses include cholecystectomy either before or after necrosectomy and the ability to place enteric feeding systems. “I like to use a combination G-J tube that allows drainage of the emptying stomach along with distal tube feeds,” he said.

Laparoscopic and endoscopic approaches are possible, but Dr. Hughes favors an open procedure “because the finger is the best debriding tool I have found.” There’s an anterior and then posterior gastric incision to dig out the necroma. The anterior incision is closed, but the posterior cut is sealed open to the necroma with a running hemostatic suture to allow for a “large cavity between the cavity and the stomach” for ongoing drainage.

“I have ultrasound on the field, but typically finding the necroma is like falling out of a canoe and finding water.” Even so, “I like to bring a 10-mm straight scope for direct viewing onto the field to explore the necrotic cavity and ensure I’ve done an adequate necrosectomy,” he said.

“I do think that this operation can be performed in patients who have some retrocolic extension even over into the pancreatic head and down the right paracolic gutter, but certainly if the collection extends down towards the pelvis, the notion that this is going to be adequate in and of itself requires further investigation,” he said.

In a cohort of 18 patients he and his colleagues followed for at least 2 years, “I was impressed that this operation is rather durable,” with rapid resolution of disease, Dr. Hughes said. Just a couple people needed additional operations. “The majority created persistent fistulas between the pancreatic body tail and the stomach.”

He cautioned that the procedure “is not for the faint of heart. The splenic vein and the splenic artery as well the celiac axis and portal vein are at risk during this procedure, and if you get into them, you have got a wolf by both ears. I would encourage you to consider referral for these patients.”

Dr. Hughes strongly encouraged surgeons to “ make sure your interventional radiologists and advanced endoscopists are on board, whether for the postop pseudoaneurysm bleeding or recurrent sepsis.”

Dr. Hughes had no relevant disclosures to report.

[email protected]

BOSTON – When pancreatitis symptoms don’t resolve within a month, patients need some sort of surgical intervention, according to Steven Hughes, MD, FACS, professor and chief of surgical oncology at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

Pancreatitis management has been evolving in recent years. Prophylactic antibiotics and total parenteral nutrition are out; tube feeds are in, and there’s compelling evidence to take the gallbladder out, regardless of etiology, he said at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

However, too many patients get drains placed in the first 2 weeks; it’s the wrong move because it consigns to surgery a lot of patients who otherwise would have recovered on their own. “In the first 2 weeks, please do not place drains. Once you place the drain, you have committed the patient to a very different clinical course,” Dr. Hughes said.

Surgery generally comes a month or more after the initial presentation. Infection is inevitable at that point; the delay gives the lesion time to consolidate and wall itself off, making for a cleaner, safer operation.

Transgastric necrosectomy is the go-to when pancreatic lesions are toward the midline. It’s Dr. Hughes’s favored approach when the anatomy is appropriate; he shared his thoughts at the meeting.

Transgastric necrosectomy provides “single-stop shopping. You can get a thorough debridement in a single procedure,” and durable internal drainage. “Most importantly, from a patient’s perspective, it leaves them without external drains. You can transition a patient who’s been percutaneously drained to no external drainage at the time of this operation,” he said.

Additional pluses include cholecystectomy either before or after necrosectomy and the ability to place enteric feeding systems. “I like to use a combination G-J tube that allows drainage of the emptying stomach along with distal tube feeds,” he said.

Laparoscopic and endoscopic approaches are possible, but Dr. Hughes favors an open procedure “because the finger is the best debriding tool I have found.” There’s an anterior and then posterior gastric incision to dig out the necroma. The anterior incision is closed, but the posterior cut is sealed open to the necroma with a running hemostatic suture to allow for a “large cavity between the cavity and the stomach” for ongoing drainage.

“I have ultrasound on the field, but typically finding the necroma is like falling out of a canoe and finding water.” Even so, “I like to bring a 10-mm straight scope for direct viewing onto the field to explore the necrotic cavity and ensure I’ve done an adequate necrosectomy,” he said.

“I do think that this operation can be performed in patients who have some retrocolic extension even over into the pancreatic head and down the right paracolic gutter, but certainly if the collection extends down towards the pelvis, the notion that this is going to be adequate in and of itself requires further investigation,” he said.

In a cohort of 18 patients he and his colleagues followed for at least 2 years, “I was impressed that this operation is rather durable,” with rapid resolution of disease, Dr. Hughes said. Just a couple people needed additional operations. “The majority created persistent fistulas between the pancreatic body tail and the stomach.”

He cautioned that the procedure “is not for the faint of heart. The splenic vein and the splenic artery as well the celiac axis and portal vein are at risk during this procedure, and if you get into them, you have got a wolf by both ears. I would encourage you to consider referral for these patients.”

Dr. Hughes strongly encouraged surgeons to “ make sure your interventional radiologists and advanced endoscopists are on board, whether for the postop pseudoaneurysm bleeding or recurrent sepsis.”

Dr. Hughes had no relevant disclosures to report.

[email protected]