Colon and Rectal

LOS ANGELES – Primary small cell cancer of the anus is a rare but devastating condition and overall survival may not be improved with surgical treatment.

Those are key findings from what is believed to be the largest analysis of its kind to date.

“There are very limited data for patients with anal small cell cancers who need preoperative counseling and risk stratification,” study author Dr. Cornelius A. Thiels said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. “There are also no data to guide treatment, so, until now, management was based on the treatment of small cell of the lung, and other anal cancers.”

Cancers of the anal canal are estimated to represent about 2.5% of all gastrointestinal neoplasms, while primary small cell cancer of the anus is believed to account for less than 1% of all anal neoplasms, according to Dr. Thiels, who is a third-year general surgery resident in the department of surgery and a surgical outcomes fellow in the Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

In an effort to evaluate the outcomes of patients with primary small cell cancer of the anus, the researchers reviewed their own institutional experience in treating nine patients with this condition between from 1994-2014, as well as National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) records of 174 patients from 1998-2014. The NCDB is maintained by collecting data prospectively from more than 1,500 facilities across the United States and is estimated to capture approximately 70% of all newly diagnosed cases of cancer annually. Institutional data allowed the researchers to identify details, including how these patients presented and what type of chemotherapy they received. However, analysis of a national database was necessary given the rarity of the diagnosis.

In the analysis of NCDB records, the mean patient age was 59 years and 74% were female. Most of the tumors (95%) were high grade and the majority of patients presented with advanced disease (50 with stage IV disease, 49 with stage III disease, 29 with stage II disease, 25 with stage I disease, and 21 with unknown stage). Overall survival was 66% at 12 months and 29% at 36 months. Among patients with stage I-III disease, survival was 72% at 12 months and 39% at 36 months.

Of the 103 patients with stage I-III disease, 95% received medical therapy, 70% underwent medical management alone, while 30% underwent surgery with curative intent. Patients who did not undergo surgery tended to have a higher stage of disease, compared with those who did (57% vs. 26%: P = .005). Overall survival at 36 months was similar between the two groups (33.9% in the surgery group vs. 35.8% in the no surgery group; P = .87).

“Unfortunately, it seems from our own experience and from national data that additional research is needed to determine how best to treat these patients and that surgery may not prolong survival in many of these patients,” Dr. Thiels said. “Although additional research is needed to optimize outcomes for these patients, harnessing the power of a national cancer database like the NCDB allows us to improve our understanding of these otherwise extremely rare, and difficult to study, tumors.”

Dr. Thiels reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – Primary small cell cancer of the anus is a rare but devastating condition and overall survival may not be improved with surgical treatment.

Those are key findings from what is believed to be the largest analysis of its kind to date.

“There are very limited data for patients with anal small cell cancers who need preoperative counseling and risk stratification,” study author Dr. Cornelius A. Thiels said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. “There are also no data to guide treatment, so, until now, management was based on the treatment of small cell of the lung, and other anal cancers.”

Cancers of the anal canal are estimated to represent about 2.5% of all gastrointestinal neoplasms, while primary small cell cancer of the anus is believed to account for less than 1% of all anal neoplasms, according to Dr. Thiels, who is a third-year general surgery resident in the department of surgery and a surgical outcomes fellow in the Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

In an effort to evaluate the outcomes of patients with primary small cell cancer of the anus, the researchers reviewed their own institutional experience in treating nine patients with this condition between from 1994-2014, as well as National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) records of 174 patients from 1998-2014. The NCDB is maintained by collecting data prospectively from more than 1,500 facilities across the United States and is estimated to capture approximately 70% of all newly diagnosed cases of cancer annually. Institutional data allowed the researchers to identify details, including how these patients presented and what type of chemotherapy they received. However, analysis of a national database was necessary given the rarity of the diagnosis.

In the analysis of NCDB records, the mean patient age was 59 years and 74% were female. Most of the tumors (95%) were high grade and the majority of patients presented with advanced disease (50 with stage IV disease, 49 with stage III disease, 29 with stage II disease, 25 with stage I disease, and 21 with unknown stage). Overall survival was 66% at 12 months and 29% at 36 months. Among patients with stage I-III disease, survival was 72% at 12 months and 39% at 36 months.

Of the 103 patients with stage I-III disease, 95% received medical therapy, 70% underwent medical management alone, while 30% underwent surgery with curative intent. Patients who did not undergo surgery tended to have a higher stage of disease, compared with those who did (57% vs. 26%: P = .005). Overall survival at 36 months was similar between the two groups (33.9% in the surgery group vs. 35.8% in the no surgery group; P = .87).

“Unfortunately, it seems from our own experience and from national data that additional research is needed to determine how best to treat these patients and that surgery may not prolong survival in many of these patients,” Dr. Thiels said. “Although additional research is needed to optimize outcomes for these patients, harnessing the power of a national cancer database like the NCDB allows us to improve our understanding of these otherwise extremely rare, and difficult to study, tumors.”

Dr. Thiels reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – Primary small cell cancer of the anus is a rare but devastating condition and overall survival may not be improved with surgical treatment.

Those are key findings from what is believed to be the largest analysis of its kind to date.

“There are very limited data for patients with anal small cell cancers who need preoperative counseling and risk stratification,” study author Dr. Cornelius A. Thiels said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. “There are also no data to guide treatment, so, until now, management was based on the treatment of small cell of the lung, and other anal cancers.”

Cancers of the anal canal are estimated to represent about 2.5% of all gastrointestinal neoplasms, while primary small cell cancer of the anus is believed to account for less than 1% of all anal neoplasms, according to Dr. Thiels, who is a third-year general surgery resident in the department of surgery and a surgical outcomes fellow in the Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

In an effort to evaluate the outcomes of patients with primary small cell cancer of the anus, the researchers reviewed their own institutional experience in treating nine patients with this condition between from 1994-2014, as well as National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) records of 174 patients from 1998-2014. The NCDB is maintained by collecting data prospectively from more than 1,500 facilities across the United States and is estimated to capture approximately 70% of all newly diagnosed cases of cancer annually. Institutional data allowed the researchers to identify details, including how these patients presented and what type of chemotherapy they received. However, analysis of a national database was necessary given the rarity of the diagnosis.

In the analysis of NCDB records, the mean patient age was 59 years and 74% were female. Most of the tumors (95%) were high grade and the majority of patients presented with advanced disease (50 with stage IV disease, 49 with stage III disease, 29 with stage II disease, 25 with stage I disease, and 21 with unknown stage). Overall survival was 66% at 12 months and 29% at 36 months. Among patients with stage I-III disease, survival was 72% at 12 months and 39% at 36 months.

Of the 103 patients with stage I-III disease, 95% received medical therapy, 70% underwent medical management alone, while 30% underwent surgery with curative intent. Patients who did not undergo surgery tended to have a higher stage of disease, compared with those who did (57% vs. 26%: P = .005). Overall survival at 36 months was similar between the two groups (33.9% in the surgery group vs. 35.8% in the no surgery group; P = .87).

“Unfortunately, it seems from our own experience and from national data that additional research is needed to determine how best to treat these patients and that surgery may not prolong survival in many of these patients,” Dr. Thiels said. “Although additional research is needed to optimize outcomes for these patients, harnessing the power of a national cancer database like the NCDB allows us to improve our understanding of these otherwise extremely rare, and difficult to study, tumors.”

Dr. Thiels reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – The detection rate of significant polyps was highest for the first postoperative surveillance colonoscopies performed at 1 year following curative resection for colorectal cancer, results from a single-center study demonstrated.

“There’s no consensus on when to perform the first surveillance colonoscopy post curative resection for colorectal cancer,” lead study author Dr. Noura Alhassan said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. For example, the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and National Carcinoma Comprehensive Network guidelines recommend a colonoscopy at 1 year, while the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology recommends surveillance at 3 years postoperatively.

Doug Brunk/Frontline Medical News

In an effort to determine the optimal timing of the first surveillance colonoscopy following curative colorectal carcinoma resection, Dr. Alhassan and her associates retrospectively reviewed the charts of all patients who underwent colorectal resection from 2007 to 2012 at Jewish General Hospital, a tertiary care center affiliated with McGill University, Montreal. The study included patients who had a complete preoperative colonoscopy, those who had a complete postoperative colonoscopy performed by one of the Jewish General Hospital colorectal surgeons, and those who had colorectal cancer resection with curative intent. Excluded from the study were patients with stage IV colorectal cancer, those with a prior history of colorectal cancer, those who underwent total abdominal colectomies or proctocolectomies, those who underwent local excision, and those with familial cancer syndromes and inflammatory bowel disease.

Dr. Alhassan, a fourth-year resident in the division of general surgery at McGill University, said that the researchers classified the colonoscopic findings as normal, nonsignificant polyps, significant polyps, and recurrence. Significant polyps consisted of adenomas 1 cm or greater in size, villous or tubulovillous adenoma, adenoma with high-grade dysplasia, three or more adenomas, or sessile serrated polyps at least 1 cm in size or with dysplasia. Of the 857 colorectal resections performed during the study period, 181 met inclusion criteria. The tumor stage was evenly distributed among study participants and 57% of the resections were colon operations, while the remaining 43% were proctectomies.

The preoperative colonoscopy was done by one of the Jewish General Hospital gastroenterologists 43% of the time, by one of the Jewish General Hospital colorectal surgeons 41% of the time, and by an outside hospital 16% of the time. The median time to postoperative colonoscopy was 421 days (1.1 years). Specifically, 25.90% of patients underwent their first surveillance colonoscopy in the first postoperative year, 48.10% in the second year, 14.40% in the third year, 8.5% in the fourth year, and 2.7% in the fifth year.

Dr. Alhassan reported that the all-polyp detection rate was 30.1%; 21.3% were detected in postoperative year 1, 33.3% in year 2, and 34.6% in year 3.

The overall significant polyp detection rate was 10.5%, but the detection rate was 12.8% in postoperative year 1, 8% in postoperative year 2, and 7.7% in postoperative year 3. There were two anastomotic recurrences: one in year 1 (2.1%) and one in year 3 (3.8%).

On univariate analysis, factors associated with significant polyp detection were male gender, poor bowel preparation on preoperative colonoscopy, and concomitant use of metformin, while having stage III disease was associated with a lower significant polyp detection rate.

On multivariate analysis only male gender was associated with a higher significant polyp detection rate, while stage III disease was associated with a lower significant polyp detection rate.

“Significant polyp detection rate of 12.8% at postoperative year 1 justifies surveillance colonoscopy at 1 year post curative colon cancer resection,” Dr. Alhassan concluded. She reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – The detection rate of significant polyps was highest for the first postoperative surveillance colonoscopies performed at 1 year following curative resection for colorectal cancer, results from a single-center study demonstrated.

“There’s no consensus on when to perform the first surveillance colonoscopy post curative resection for colorectal cancer,” lead study author Dr. Noura Alhassan said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. For example, the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and National Carcinoma Comprehensive Network guidelines recommend a colonoscopy at 1 year, while the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology recommends surveillance at 3 years postoperatively.

Doug Brunk/Frontline Medical News

In an effort to determine the optimal timing of the first surveillance colonoscopy following curative colorectal carcinoma resection, Dr. Alhassan and her associates retrospectively reviewed the charts of all patients who underwent colorectal resection from 2007 to 2012 at Jewish General Hospital, a tertiary care center affiliated with McGill University, Montreal. The study included patients who had a complete preoperative colonoscopy, those who had a complete postoperative colonoscopy performed by one of the Jewish General Hospital colorectal surgeons, and those who had colorectal cancer resection with curative intent. Excluded from the study were patients with stage IV colorectal cancer, those with a prior history of colorectal cancer, those who underwent total abdominal colectomies or proctocolectomies, those who underwent local excision, and those with familial cancer syndromes and inflammatory bowel disease.

Dr. Alhassan, a fourth-year resident in the division of general surgery at McGill University, said that the researchers classified the colonoscopic findings as normal, nonsignificant polyps, significant polyps, and recurrence. Significant polyps consisted of adenomas 1 cm or greater in size, villous or tubulovillous adenoma, adenoma with high-grade dysplasia, three or more adenomas, or sessile serrated polyps at least 1 cm in size or with dysplasia. Of the 857 colorectal resections performed during the study period, 181 met inclusion criteria. The tumor stage was evenly distributed among study participants and 57% of the resections were colon operations, while the remaining 43% were proctectomies.

The preoperative colonoscopy was done by one of the Jewish General Hospital gastroenterologists 43% of the time, by one of the Jewish General Hospital colorectal surgeons 41% of the time, and by an outside hospital 16% of the time. The median time to postoperative colonoscopy was 421 days (1.1 years). Specifically, 25.90% of patients underwent their first surveillance colonoscopy in the first postoperative year, 48.10% in the second year, 14.40% in the third year, 8.5% in the fourth year, and 2.7% in the fifth year.

Dr. Alhassan reported that the all-polyp detection rate was 30.1%; 21.3% were detected in postoperative year 1, 33.3% in year 2, and 34.6% in year 3.

The overall significant polyp detection rate was 10.5%, but the detection rate was 12.8% in postoperative year 1, 8% in postoperative year 2, and 7.7% in postoperative year 3. There were two anastomotic recurrences: one in year 1 (2.1%) and one in year 3 (3.8%).

On univariate analysis, factors associated with significant polyp detection were male gender, poor bowel preparation on preoperative colonoscopy, and concomitant use of metformin, while having stage III disease was associated with a lower significant polyp detection rate.

On multivariate analysis only male gender was associated with a higher significant polyp detection rate, while stage III disease was associated with a lower significant polyp detection rate.

“Significant polyp detection rate of 12.8% at postoperative year 1 justifies surveillance colonoscopy at 1 year post curative colon cancer resection,” Dr. Alhassan concluded. She reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – The detection rate of significant polyps was highest for the first postoperative surveillance colonoscopies performed at 1 year following curative resection for colorectal cancer, results from a single-center study demonstrated.

“There’s no consensus on when to perform the first surveillance colonoscopy post curative resection for colorectal cancer,” lead study author Dr. Noura Alhassan said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. For example, the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and National Carcinoma Comprehensive Network guidelines recommend a colonoscopy at 1 year, while the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology recommends surveillance at 3 years postoperatively.

Doug Brunk/Frontline Medical News

In an effort to determine the optimal timing of the first surveillance colonoscopy following curative colorectal carcinoma resection, Dr. Alhassan and her associates retrospectively reviewed the charts of all patients who underwent colorectal resection from 2007 to 2012 at Jewish General Hospital, a tertiary care center affiliated with McGill University, Montreal. The study included patients who had a complete preoperative colonoscopy, those who had a complete postoperative colonoscopy performed by one of the Jewish General Hospital colorectal surgeons, and those who had colorectal cancer resection with curative intent. Excluded from the study were patients with stage IV colorectal cancer, those with a prior history of colorectal cancer, those who underwent total abdominal colectomies or proctocolectomies, those who underwent local excision, and those with familial cancer syndromes and inflammatory bowel disease.

Dr. Alhassan, a fourth-year resident in the division of general surgery at McGill University, said that the researchers classified the colonoscopic findings as normal, nonsignificant polyps, significant polyps, and recurrence. Significant polyps consisted of adenomas 1 cm or greater in size, villous or tubulovillous adenoma, adenoma with high-grade dysplasia, three or more adenomas, or sessile serrated polyps at least 1 cm in size or with dysplasia. Of the 857 colorectal resections performed during the study period, 181 met inclusion criteria. The tumor stage was evenly distributed among study participants and 57% of the resections were colon operations, while the remaining 43% were proctectomies.

The preoperative colonoscopy was done by one of the Jewish General Hospital gastroenterologists 43% of the time, by one of the Jewish General Hospital colorectal surgeons 41% of the time, and by an outside hospital 16% of the time. The median time to postoperative colonoscopy was 421 days (1.1 years). Specifically, 25.90% of patients underwent their first surveillance colonoscopy in the first postoperative year, 48.10% in the second year, 14.40% in the third year, 8.5% in the fourth year, and 2.7% in the fifth year.

Dr. Alhassan reported that the all-polyp detection rate was 30.1%; 21.3% were detected in postoperative year 1, 33.3% in year 2, and 34.6% in year 3.

The overall significant polyp detection rate was 10.5%, but the detection rate was 12.8% in postoperative year 1, 8% in postoperative year 2, and 7.7% in postoperative year 3. There were two anastomotic recurrences: one in year 1 (2.1%) and one in year 3 (3.8%).

On univariate analysis, factors associated with significant polyp detection were male gender, poor bowel preparation on preoperative colonoscopy, and concomitant use of metformin, while having stage III disease was associated with a lower significant polyp detection rate.

On multivariate analysis only male gender was associated with a higher significant polyp detection rate, while stage III disease was associated with a lower significant polyp detection rate.

“Significant polyp detection rate of 12.8% at postoperative year 1 justifies surveillance colonoscopy at 1 year post curative colon cancer resection,” Dr. Alhassan concluded. She reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – Overall 5-year survival rates for anal cancer in the United States have steadily improved since the 1970s, but the incidence of disease continues to rise. In addition, African Americans with anal cancer have significantly and disproportionally lower 5-year survival rates, compared with whites.

Those are key findings from an analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data that primary study author Dr. Marco Ferrara presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons.

“Disparities in health-related outcomes for diseases such as cancer are unfortunately commonly observed,” Dr. Ferrara’s mentor and the senior study author Dr. Daniel I. Chu said in an interview in advance of the meeting. “African Americans in particular have higher cancer-specific death rates, higher rates of advanced cancer on initial diagnosis, and less frequent use of cancer screening tests. While our understanding of disparities continues to progress for the more common cancers (lung, breast, prostate, colorectal), comparatively fewer data are available for anal cancer. This gap in knowledge is important because anal cancer incidence has actually been increasing in the U.S. population over the past decades. While effective treatment is available, we asked if disparities exist in anal cancer.”

To find out, the researchers used the national SEER database to identify all patients with cancer of the anus, anal canal, and anorectum from 1973 to 1999 (Period 1; a total of 6,755 cases) and 2000 to 2012 (Period 2; a total of 18,027 cases) and stratified them by race. They determined the incidence, staging, and treatment provided for each group and used 2000 Census data to calculate the age-adjusted annual incidence of anal cancer. The primary outcome was 5-year survival.

More than half of patients (61%) were female, 86% were white, 10% were African American, and the remaining 4% were from other ethnic groups. Dr. Ferrara, who is a fourth-year surgery resident at Baptist Health System in Birmingham, Ala., reported that between Periods 1 and 2, the overall incidence of anal cancer increased from 1.1 to 1.8 cases per 100,000 individuals. The overall incidence was higher among African Americans, compared with whites (1.6 vs. 1.3 cases per 100,000 individuals, respectively). The incidence among African-American males was slightly higher, at 1.9 cases per 100,000 individuals.

The researchers found that nearly half of patients (48%) presented with localized disease, while 31% had regional disease. Between Periods 1 and 2 the proportion of patients who received any treatment for anal cancer increased from 63% to 74%. The use of radiation therapy increased from 61% to 72%, while the use of local excisions and abdominoperineal resections decreased from 60% to 45%. Overall, African Americans were more likely than whites to not undergo recommended surgery (9.8% vs. 8.7%, respectively) or to refuse recommended surgery (1.8% vs. 1.1%; P less than .05 for both associations).

Overall 5-year survival for anal cancer improved from 63% in Period 1 to 70% in Period 2 (P less than .05). However, African Americans had significantly lower 5-year survival rates, compared with whites in both time periods (53% vs. 64% in Period 1, and 62% vs. 71% in Period 2; P less than .05 for both associations).

“Health disparities exist in anal cancer with African Americans faring worse than Caucasian patients,” said Dr. Chu, who is a gastrointestinal surgeon at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “While the etiologies for these disparities are unclear, anal cancer is a very treatable disease when caught early, regardless of race. Screening should be done for those at higher risk, such as patients with a family history of anal cancer, HIV, or HPV [human papillomavirus]. Ultimately, more research is needed to understand the factors driving these disparities at the patient, provider, and health care system level.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its retrospective nature, the inability to assess the potential impact of education status and other social factors, and the generalizability of its findings, since SEER is limited to major cancer hospitals.

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – Overall 5-year survival rates for anal cancer in the United States have steadily improved since the 1970s, but the incidence of disease continues to rise. In addition, African Americans with anal cancer have significantly and disproportionally lower 5-year survival rates, compared with whites.

Those are key findings from an analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data that primary study author Dr. Marco Ferrara presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons.

“Disparities in health-related outcomes for diseases such as cancer are unfortunately commonly observed,” Dr. Ferrara’s mentor and the senior study author Dr. Daniel I. Chu said in an interview in advance of the meeting. “African Americans in particular have higher cancer-specific death rates, higher rates of advanced cancer on initial diagnosis, and less frequent use of cancer screening tests. While our understanding of disparities continues to progress for the more common cancers (lung, breast, prostate, colorectal), comparatively fewer data are available for anal cancer. This gap in knowledge is important because anal cancer incidence has actually been increasing in the U.S. population over the past decades. While effective treatment is available, we asked if disparities exist in anal cancer.”

To find out, the researchers used the national SEER database to identify all patients with cancer of the anus, anal canal, and anorectum from 1973 to 1999 (Period 1; a total of 6,755 cases) and 2000 to 2012 (Period 2; a total of 18,027 cases) and stratified them by race. They determined the incidence, staging, and treatment provided for each group and used 2000 Census data to calculate the age-adjusted annual incidence of anal cancer. The primary outcome was 5-year survival.

More than half of patients (61%) were female, 86% were white, 10% were African American, and the remaining 4% were from other ethnic groups. Dr. Ferrara, who is a fourth-year surgery resident at Baptist Health System in Birmingham, Ala., reported that between Periods 1 and 2, the overall incidence of anal cancer increased from 1.1 to 1.8 cases per 100,000 individuals. The overall incidence was higher among African Americans, compared with whites (1.6 vs. 1.3 cases per 100,000 individuals, respectively). The incidence among African-American males was slightly higher, at 1.9 cases per 100,000 individuals.

The researchers found that nearly half of patients (48%) presented with localized disease, while 31% had regional disease. Between Periods 1 and 2 the proportion of patients who received any treatment for anal cancer increased from 63% to 74%. The use of radiation therapy increased from 61% to 72%, while the use of local excisions and abdominoperineal resections decreased from 60% to 45%. Overall, African Americans were more likely than whites to not undergo recommended surgery (9.8% vs. 8.7%, respectively) or to refuse recommended surgery (1.8% vs. 1.1%; P less than .05 for both associations).

Overall 5-year survival for anal cancer improved from 63% in Period 1 to 70% in Period 2 (P less than .05). However, African Americans had significantly lower 5-year survival rates, compared with whites in both time periods (53% vs. 64% in Period 1, and 62% vs. 71% in Period 2; P less than .05 for both associations).

“Health disparities exist in anal cancer with African Americans faring worse than Caucasian patients,” said Dr. Chu, who is a gastrointestinal surgeon at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “While the etiologies for these disparities are unclear, anal cancer is a very treatable disease when caught early, regardless of race. Screening should be done for those at higher risk, such as patients with a family history of anal cancer, HIV, or HPV [human papillomavirus]. Ultimately, more research is needed to understand the factors driving these disparities at the patient, provider, and health care system level.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its retrospective nature, the inability to assess the potential impact of education status and other social factors, and the generalizability of its findings, since SEER is limited to major cancer hospitals.

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – Overall 5-year survival rates for anal cancer in the United States have steadily improved since the 1970s, but the incidence of disease continues to rise. In addition, African Americans with anal cancer have significantly and disproportionally lower 5-year survival rates, compared with whites.

Those are key findings from an analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data that primary study author Dr. Marco Ferrara presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons.

“Disparities in health-related outcomes for diseases such as cancer are unfortunately commonly observed,” Dr. Ferrara’s mentor and the senior study author Dr. Daniel I. Chu said in an interview in advance of the meeting. “African Americans in particular have higher cancer-specific death rates, higher rates of advanced cancer on initial diagnosis, and less frequent use of cancer screening tests. While our understanding of disparities continues to progress for the more common cancers (lung, breast, prostate, colorectal), comparatively fewer data are available for anal cancer. This gap in knowledge is important because anal cancer incidence has actually been increasing in the U.S. population over the past decades. While effective treatment is available, we asked if disparities exist in anal cancer.”

To find out, the researchers used the national SEER database to identify all patients with cancer of the anus, anal canal, and anorectum from 1973 to 1999 (Period 1; a total of 6,755 cases) and 2000 to 2012 (Period 2; a total of 18,027 cases) and stratified them by race. They determined the incidence, staging, and treatment provided for each group and used 2000 Census data to calculate the age-adjusted annual incidence of anal cancer. The primary outcome was 5-year survival.

More than half of patients (61%) were female, 86% were white, 10% were African American, and the remaining 4% were from other ethnic groups. Dr. Ferrara, who is a fourth-year surgery resident at Baptist Health System in Birmingham, Ala., reported that between Periods 1 and 2, the overall incidence of anal cancer increased from 1.1 to 1.8 cases per 100,000 individuals. The overall incidence was higher among African Americans, compared with whites (1.6 vs. 1.3 cases per 100,000 individuals, respectively). The incidence among African-American males was slightly higher, at 1.9 cases per 100,000 individuals.

The researchers found that nearly half of patients (48%) presented with localized disease, while 31% had regional disease. Between Periods 1 and 2 the proportion of patients who received any treatment for anal cancer increased from 63% to 74%. The use of radiation therapy increased from 61% to 72%, while the use of local excisions and abdominoperineal resections decreased from 60% to 45%. Overall, African Americans were more likely than whites to not undergo recommended surgery (9.8% vs. 8.7%, respectively) or to refuse recommended surgery (1.8% vs. 1.1%; P less than .05 for both associations).

Overall 5-year survival for anal cancer improved from 63% in Period 1 to 70% in Period 2 (P less than .05). However, African Americans had significantly lower 5-year survival rates, compared with whites in both time periods (53% vs. 64% in Period 1, and 62% vs. 71% in Period 2; P less than .05 for both associations).

“Health disparities exist in anal cancer with African Americans faring worse than Caucasian patients,” said Dr. Chu, who is a gastrointestinal surgeon at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “While the etiologies for these disparities are unclear, anal cancer is a very treatable disease when caught early, regardless of race. Screening should be done for those at higher risk, such as patients with a family history of anal cancer, HIV, or HPV [human papillomavirus]. Ultimately, more research is needed to understand the factors driving these disparities at the patient, provider, and health care system level.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its retrospective nature, the inability to assess the potential impact of education status and other social factors, and the generalizability of its findings, since SEER is limited to major cancer hospitals.

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

A 3- to 6-month learning program for pediatric and family medicine providers significantly improved their screening for autism spectrum disorders (ASD) at 18- and 24-month well child visits, based on data from 26 primary care practices that participated in the program and from 43 physicians who completed surveys before and after the program, according to findings published online May 5 in Pediatrics.

“Unlike traditional continuing medical education, the LC [learning collaborative] focused on improvement of processes of care at the practice level,” wrote Dr. Paul S. Carbone and his colleagues of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. The first signs of ASD can be present as early as 2 years of age, but often remain undiagnosed for lack of screening at 18- and 24-month visits, they noted.

©Devonyu/thinkstockphotos.com

Rates of documented ASD screening among toddlers increased from 16% before starting the program to 91% during the last month of the program, and 70% of the practices sustained the 91% screening rate 4 years later.

Physician self-efficacy improved significantly from baseline to after the program on the nine autism conditions (such as sleep problems, constipation, and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder [ADHD]) and seven autism needs (such as making referrals, addressing developmental concerns, and identifying community support services) included in the survey. On a scale of 1 to 10, the average physician’s progress rating was 6.5 after completing the program.

“A LC using the methods we describe is a successful approach to improving the early identification and ongoing care of children with ASD in primary care practices,” they researchers said.

Read the whole article at Pediatrics (2016 May. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-1850).

A 3- to 6-month learning program for pediatric and family medicine providers significantly improved their screening for autism spectrum disorders (ASD) at 18- and 24-month well child visits, based on data from 26 primary care practices that participated in the program and from 43 physicians who completed surveys before and after the program, according to findings published online May 5 in Pediatrics.

“Unlike traditional continuing medical education, the LC [learning collaborative] focused on improvement of processes of care at the practice level,” wrote Dr. Paul S. Carbone and his colleagues of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. The first signs of ASD can be present as early as 2 years of age, but often remain undiagnosed for lack of screening at 18- and 24-month visits, they noted.

©Devonyu/thinkstockphotos.com

Rates of documented ASD screening among toddlers increased from 16% before starting the program to 91% during the last month of the program, and 70% of the practices sustained the 91% screening rate 4 years later.

Physician self-efficacy improved significantly from baseline to after the program on the nine autism conditions (such as sleep problems, constipation, and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder [ADHD]) and seven autism needs (such as making referrals, addressing developmental concerns, and identifying community support services) included in the survey. On a scale of 1 to 10, the average physician’s progress rating was 6.5 after completing the program.

“A LC using the methods we describe is a successful approach to improving the early identification and ongoing care of children with ASD in primary care practices,” they researchers said.

Read the whole article at Pediatrics (2016 May. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-1850).

A 3- to 6-month learning program for pediatric and family medicine providers significantly improved their screening for autism spectrum disorders (ASD) at 18- and 24-month well child visits, based on data from 26 primary care practices that participated in the program and from 43 physicians who completed surveys before and after the program, according to findings published online May 5 in Pediatrics.

“Unlike traditional continuing medical education, the LC [learning collaborative] focused on improvement of processes of care at the practice level,” wrote Dr. Paul S. Carbone and his colleagues of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. The first signs of ASD can be present as early as 2 years of age, but often remain undiagnosed for lack of screening at 18- and 24-month visits, they noted.

©Devonyu/thinkstockphotos.com

Rates of documented ASD screening among toddlers increased from 16% before starting the program to 91% during the last month of the program, and 70% of the practices sustained the 91% screening rate 4 years later.

Physician self-efficacy improved significantly from baseline to after the program on the nine autism conditions (such as sleep problems, constipation, and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder [ADHD]) and seven autism needs (such as making referrals, addressing developmental concerns, and identifying community support services) included in the survey. On a scale of 1 to 10, the average physician’s progress rating was 6.5 after completing the program.

“A LC using the methods we describe is a successful approach to improving the early identification and ongoing care of children with ASD in primary care practices,” they researchers said.

Read the whole article at Pediatrics (2016 May. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-1850).

LOS ANGELES – Overall, 44% of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients on vedolizumab had some form of infectious complication following intra-abdominal or anorectal surgery, results from a small single-center study suggest.

According to lead study author Dr. Samuel Eisenstein, there are currently no published surgical outcomes of patients receiving vedolizumab, an integrin receptor antagonist which was approved in May 2014 for the treatment of adults with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis as well as those with moderate to severe Crohn’s disease. “We’re not trying to alienate people who are proponents of the medication,” Dr. Eisenstein said in an interview in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. “It’s an effective medication for treating Crohn’s and ulcerative colitis. We need to have a high index of suspicion that patients may have complications after these surgeries and to treat them with caution until we have better data.”

Dr. Eisenstein and his associates in the section of colon and rectal surgery at Moores Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, Health System, retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 26 patients with IBD who underwent intra-abdominal or anorectal surgery at the center following treatment with vedolizumab. The patients underwent a total of 36 operations: 27 that were intra-abdominal and 9 that were anorectal. Their mean age was 31 years and 46% were female.

Dr. Eisenstein reported that 17 of the 26 patients (65%) had a Clavien-Dindo grade II or greater complication following 19 operations. In all, 26 complications occurred following these 19 operations, and 53% were infectious in nature. The overall rate of infectious complications following any operation was 44%. In addition, the rate of anastomotic leak was 15%, and two patients died from culture-negative sepsis following abdominal surgery, for an overall mortality rate of 7.7%.

The researchers also observed that there were 23 visits to the emergency room following surgery and 10 hospital readmissions. The only preoperative characteristics that differed significantly between patients who had complications and those who did not were level of hemoglobin (10.6 g/dL vs. 11.9 g/dL, respectively; P = .02) and platelet count (349 vs. 287 K/mm³; P = .025). No differences in the rate of complications were observed based on the number of biologic medications each patient failed prior to the initiation of vedolizumab (P = .718). Compared with patients who had no postoperative complications, those who did were more likely to have undergone intra-abdominal surgery (17 vs. 10 patients; P = .034), require postoperative transfusion (4 vs. none; P = .045), visit the emergency department (10 vs. none; P less than .001), or require hospital readmission (10 vs. none; P less than .001).

Dr. Eisenstein acknowledged certain limitations of the study including its small sample size, single-center, retrospective design, and the potential for selection bias. “The patients who were getting vedolizumab are the patients who failed all of the anti-TNFs, so we’re really selecting patients with the worst, most medically refractory disease,” he noted. “Because of that we can’t say for sure [if the complications] are due to their severity of disease or due to the medication itself.”

The data are “preliminary and retrospectively analyzed, but there is some concern that patients on these types of medications may have an increased risk of postoperative complications,” he concluded. “What we really need are bigger studies. To that end, we are actually starting an IBD collaborative based on some of the findings we have here, because we really want to analyze these data over a much larger population of patients.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – Overall, 44% of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients on vedolizumab had some form of infectious complication following intra-abdominal or anorectal surgery, results from a small single-center study suggest.

According to lead study author Dr. Samuel Eisenstein, there are currently no published surgical outcomes of patients receiving vedolizumab, an integrin receptor antagonist which was approved in May 2014 for the treatment of adults with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis as well as those with moderate to severe Crohn’s disease. “We’re not trying to alienate people who are proponents of the medication,” Dr. Eisenstein said in an interview in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. “It’s an effective medication for treating Crohn’s and ulcerative colitis. We need to have a high index of suspicion that patients may have complications after these surgeries and to treat them with caution until we have better data.”

Dr. Eisenstein and his associates in the section of colon and rectal surgery at Moores Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, Health System, retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 26 patients with IBD who underwent intra-abdominal or anorectal surgery at the center following treatment with vedolizumab. The patients underwent a total of 36 operations: 27 that were intra-abdominal and 9 that were anorectal. Their mean age was 31 years and 46% were female.

Dr. Eisenstein reported that 17 of the 26 patients (65%) had a Clavien-Dindo grade II or greater complication following 19 operations. In all, 26 complications occurred following these 19 operations, and 53% were infectious in nature. The overall rate of infectious complications following any operation was 44%. In addition, the rate of anastomotic leak was 15%, and two patients died from culture-negative sepsis following abdominal surgery, for an overall mortality rate of 7.7%.

The researchers also observed that there were 23 visits to the emergency room following surgery and 10 hospital readmissions. The only preoperative characteristics that differed significantly between patients who had complications and those who did not were level of hemoglobin (10.6 g/dL vs. 11.9 g/dL, respectively; P = .02) and platelet count (349 vs. 287 K/mm³; P = .025). No differences in the rate of complications were observed based on the number of biologic medications each patient failed prior to the initiation of vedolizumab (P = .718). Compared with patients who had no postoperative complications, those who did were more likely to have undergone intra-abdominal surgery (17 vs. 10 patients; P = .034), require postoperative transfusion (4 vs. none; P = .045), visit the emergency department (10 vs. none; P less than .001), or require hospital readmission (10 vs. none; P less than .001).

Dr. Eisenstein acknowledged certain limitations of the study including its small sample size, single-center, retrospective design, and the potential for selection bias. “The patients who were getting vedolizumab are the patients who failed all of the anti-TNFs, so we’re really selecting patients with the worst, most medically refractory disease,” he noted. “Because of that we can’t say for sure [if the complications] are due to their severity of disease or due to the medication itself.”

The data are “preliminary and retrospectively analyzed, but there is some concern that patients on these types of medications may have an increased risk of postoperative complications,” he concluded. “What we really need are bigger studies. To that end, we are actually starting an IBD collaborative based on some of the findings we have here, because we really want to analyze these data over a much larger population of patients.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – Overall, 44% of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients on vedolizumab had some form of infectious complication following intra-abdominal or anorectal surgery, results from a small single-center study suggest.

According to lead study author Dr. Samuel Eisenstein, there are currently no published surgical outcomes of patients receiving vedolizumab, an integrin receptor antagonist which was approved in May 2014 for the treatment of adults with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis as well as those with moderate to severe Crohn’s disease. “We’re not trying to alienate people who are proponents of the medication,” Dr. Eisenstein said in an interview in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. “It’s an effective medication for treating Crohn’s and ulcerative colitis. We need to have a high index of suspicion that patients may have complications after these surgeries and to treat them with caution until we have better data.”

Dr. Eisenstein and his associates in the section of colon and rectal surgery at Moores Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, Health System, retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 26 patients with IBD who underwent intra-abdominal or anorectal surgery at the center following treatment with vedolizumab. The patients underwent a total of 36 operations: 27 that were intra-abdominal and 9 that were anorectal. Their mean age was 31 years and 46% were female.

Dr. Eisenstein reported that 17 of the 26 patients (65%) had a Clavien-Dindo grade II or greater complication following 19 operations. In all, 26 complications occurred following these 19 operations, and 53% were infectious in nature. The overall rate of infectious complications following any operation was 44%. In addition, the rate of anastomotic leak was 15%, and two patients died from culture-negative sepsis following abdominal surgery, for an overall mortality rate of 7.7%.

The researchers also observed that there were 23 visits to the emergency room following surgery and 10 hospital readmissions. The only preoperative characteristics that differed significantly between patients who had complications and those who did not were level of hemoglobin (10.6 g/dL vs. 11.9 g/dL, respectively; P = .02) and platelet count (349 vs. 287 K/mm³; P = .025). No differences in the rate of complications were observed based on the number of biologic medications each patient failed prior to the initiation of vedolizumab (P = .718). Compared with patients who had no postoperative complications, those who did were more likely to have undergone intra-abdominal surgery (17 vs. 10 patients; P = .034), require postoperative transfusion (4 vs. none; P = .045), visit the emergency department (10 vs. none; P less than .001), or require hospital readmission (10 vs. none; P less than .001).

Dr. Eisenstein acknowledged certain limitations of the study including its small sample size, single-center, retrospective design, and the potential for selection bias. “The patients who were getting vedolizumab are the patients who failed all of the anti-TNFs, so we’re really selecting patients with the worst, most medically refractory disease,” he noted. “Because of that we can’t say for sure [if the complications] are due to their severity of disease or due to the medication itself.”

The data are “preliminary and retrospectively analyzed, but there is some concern that patients on these types of medications may have an increased risk of postoperative complications,” he concluded. “What we really need are bigger studies. To that end, we are actually starting an IBD collaborative based on some of the findings we have here, because we really want to analyze these data over a much larger population of patients.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – Patients over the age of 80 who present with diverticulitis requiring an emergent Hartmann’s procedure have a 30-day mortality rate of 20%, results from a study of national data demonstrated.

“Given the high morbidity and mortality described in this study, further work to elucidate whether an elective surgical therapy should be pursued in the octogenarian population is warranted,” lead study author Dr. Ian C. Bostock said in an interview in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons.

In an effort to investigate the 30-day outcomes for patients undergoing emergent Hartmann’s procedures for diverticular disease, Dr. Bostock of the department of general surgery at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., and his associates queried the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database from 2005 to 2013 to identify all patients aged 80 years or older who underwent an open and laparoscopic Hartmann’s procedure in an emergency setting for diverticular disease. They divided patients into two groups: those with 30-day postoperative mortality (expired) and those alive after 30 days (alive), and used univariate analysis to assess the risk of mortality and to identify associated risk factors.

Of the 464 patients who met inclusion criteria, 91 expired within 30 days postoperatively, for a mortality rate of 20%. No statistically significant differences were observed between the expired and alive groups in terms of age, gender distribution, body mass index, smoking status, alcohol use, prior chemotherapy/radiotherapy, comorbid conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, current hemodialysis use, and operative time. Factors identified to be associated with a higher risk for death were congestive heart failure (odds ratio, 3.0), steroid use (OR, 3.0), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 2.1), and ASA classification of greater than 3 (OR, 2.9). Additionally, the development of postoperative cardiac arrest (OR, 22.9), MI (OR, 8.7), renal failure (OR, 6.3), respiratory failure (OR, 4.7), and septic shock (OR, 5.6) were associated with death. A laparoscopic procedure was shown to have a protective effect (0.169).

“Interestingly, the most common complication in both groups was respiratory failure,” Dr. Bostock said. “These results suggest that the elderly are more prone to respiratory complications as a whole. These results have been corroborated in prior studies in patients exposed to major abdominal operations.”

Dr. Bostock acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that ACS-NSQIP is unable to track procedure-specific complications that might occur after surgery. “It mainly helps us to determine the morbidity rate after specific types of procedures,” he said. “Additionally, the exact indication for emergent operation in the patients included in our analysis is unknown since we don’t have any access to specific patient data and/or chart review.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – Patients over the age of 80 who present with diverticulitis requiring an emergent Hartmann’s procedure have a 30-day mortality rate of 20%, results from a study of national data demonstrated.

“Given the high morbidity and mortality described in this study, further work to elucidate whether an elective surgical therapy should be pursued in the octogenarian population is warranted,” lead study author Dr. Ian C. Bostock said in an interview in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons.

In an effort to investigate the 30-day outcomes for patients undergoing emergent Hartmann’s procedures for diverticular disease, Dr. Bostock of the department of general surgery at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., and his associates queried the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database from 2005 to 2013 to identify all patients aged 80 years or older who underwent an open and laparoscopic Hartmann’s procedure in an emergency setting for diverticular disease. They divided patients into two groups: those with 30-day postoperative mortality (expired) and those alive after 30 days (alive), and used univariate analysis to assess the risk of mortality and to identify associated risk factors.

Of the 464 patients who met inclusion criteria, 91 expired within 30 days postoperatively, for a mortality rate of 20%. No statistically significant differences were observed between the expired and alive groups in terms of age, gender distribution, body mass index, smoking status, alcohol use, prior chemotherapy/radiotherapy, comorbid conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, current hemodialysis use, and operative time. Factors identified to be associated with a higher risk for death were congestive heart failure (odds ratio, 3.0), steroid use (OR, 3.0), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 2.1), and ASA classification of greater than 3 (OR, 2.9). Additionally, the development of postoperative cardiac arrest (OR, 22.9), MI (OR, 8.7), renal failure (OR, 6.3), respiratory failure (OR, 4.7), and septic shock (OR, 5.6) were associated with death. A laparoscopic procedure was shown to have a protective effect (0.169).

“Interestingly, the most common complication in both groups was respiratory failure,” Dr. Bostock said. “These results suggest that the elderly are more prone to respiratory complications as a whole. These results have been corroborated in prior studies in patients exposed to major abdominal operations.”

Dr. Bostock acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that ACS-NSQIP is unable to track procedure-specific complications that might occur after surgery. “It mainly helps us to determine the morbidity rate after specific types of procedures,” he said. “Additionally, the exact indication for emergent operation in the patients included in our analysis is unknown since we don’t have any access to specific patient data and/or chart review.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – Patients over the age of 80 who present with diverticulitis requiring an emergent Hartmann’s procedure have a 30-day mortality rate of 20%, results from a study of national data demonstrated.

“Given the high morbidity and mortality described in this study, further work to elucidate whether an elective surgical therapy should be pursued in the octogenarian population is warranted,” lead study author Dr. Ian C. Bostock said in an interview in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons.

In an effort to investigate the 30-day outcomes for patients undergoing emergent Hartmann’s procedures for diverticular disease, Dr. Bostock of the department of general surgery at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., and his associates queried the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database from 2005 to 2013 to identify all patients aged 80 years or older who underwent an open and laparoscopic Hartmann’s procedure in an emergency setting for diverticular disease. They divided patients into two groups: those with 30-day postoperative mortality (expired) and those alive after 30 days (alive), and used univariate analysis to assess the risk of mortality and to identify associated risk factors.

Of the 464 patients who met inclusion criteria, 91 expired within 30 days postoperatively, for a mortality rate of 20%. No statistically significant differences were observed between the expired and alive groups in terms of age, gender distribution, body mass index, smoking status, alcohol use, prior chemotherapy/radiotherapy, comorbid conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, current hemodialysis use, and operative time. Factors identified to be associated with a higher risk for death were congestive heart failure (odds ratio, 3.0), steroid use (OR, 3.0), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 2.1), and ASA classification of greater than 3 (OR, 2.9). Additionally, the development of postoperative cardiac arrest (OR, 22.9), MI (OR, 8.7), renal failure (OR, 6.3), respiratory failure (OR, 4.7), and septic shock (OR, 5.6) were associated with death. A laparoscopic procedure was shown to have a protective effect (0.169).

“Interestingly, the most common complication in both groups was respiratory failure,” Dr. Bostock said. “These results suggest that the elderly are more prone to respiratory complications as a whole. These results have been corroborated in prior studies in patients exposed to major abdominal operations.”

Dr. Bostock acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that ACS-NSQIP is unable to track procedure-specific complications that might occur after surgery. “It mainly helps us to determine the morbidity rate after specific types of procedures,” he said. “Additionally, the exact indication for emergent operation in the patients included in our analysis is unknown since we don’t have any access to specific patient data and/or chart review.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – Observation, compared with elective resection, was associated with significantly increased recurrence rates in a single-center randomized, controlled trial of patients who had successfully recovered via nonoperative management from their first episode of acute sigmoid diverticulitis with extraluminal air/abscess.

Recurrence rates in 111 patients randomized to observation or elective resection were 31% in the observation group and 7% in the resection group, at 15 and 18 months, respectively, Dr. Ryan Bendl of State University of New York, Stony Brook reported at the annual meeting of the American Surgical Association.

Patients in the two groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, body mass index, Colorectal Physiologic and Operative Severity Score for the Enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity (CR-POSSUM), and comorbidities, he noted.

Subjects included in the single-center study were adults admitted for a first episode of acute diverticulitis with abscess or extraluminal air who were managed nonoperatively with intravenous antibiotics, a period of nothing by mouth, drainage, and total parenteral nutrition followed by colonoscopy. They were randomized 3:1 to observation or resection, and 68% of the elective resection patients underwent minimally invasive surgery. The study’s primary endpoint was recurrent diverticulitis defined as an acute episode confirmed by computed tomography and requiring hospitalization with intravenous antibiotics.

Diverticulitis accounted for more than 300,000 hospital admissions in 2010 in the United States alone, and 10%-20% of patients had abscess formation. At one time, most patients were managed with immediate operative intervention, but medical and radiologic advances have led to a shift toward nonoperative management, Dr. Bendl said.

Some prior studies have suggested that recurrence rates are higher with nonoperative management, and the current study supports those data.

However, despite the significant increase in the recurrence rate with observation vs. resection, most patients in the observation group did not experience recurrence, and of those who did, none had peritonitis.

“All those with recurrences were successfully treated again using nonoperative management,” he said.

This study was supported in part by grants from Merck and Covidien. Dr. Bendl reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

CHICAGO – Observation, compared with elective resection, was associated with significantly increased recurrence rates in a single-center randomized, controlled trial of patients who had successfully recovered via nonoperative management from their first episode of acute sigmoid diverticulitis with extraluminal air/abscess.

Recurrence rates in 111 patients randomized to observation or elective resection were 31% in the observation group and 7% in the resection group, at 15 and 18 months, respectively, Dr. Ryan Bendl of State University of New York, Stony Brook reported at the annual meeting of the American Surgical Association.

Patients in the two groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, body mass index, Colorectal Physiologic and Operative Severity Score for the Enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity (CR-POSSUM), and comorbidities, he noted.

Subjects included in the single-center study were adults admitted for a first episode of acute diverticulitis with abscess or extraluminal air who were managed nonoperatively with intravenous antibiotics, a period of nothing by mouth, drainage, and total parenteral nutrition followed by colonoscopy. They were randomized 3:1 to observation or resection, and 68% of the elective resection patients underwent minimally invasive surgery. The study’s primary endpoint was recurrent diverticulitis defined as an acute episode confirmed by computed tomography and requiring hospitalization with intravenous antibiotics.

Diverticulitis accounted for more than 300,000 hospital admissions in 2010 in the United States alone, and 10%-20% of patients had abscess formation. At one time, most patients were managed with immediate operative intervention, but medical and radiologic advances have led to a shift toward nonoperative management, Dr. Bendl said.

Some prior studies have suggested that recurrence rates are higher with nonoperative management, and the current study supports those data.

However, despite the significant increase in the recurrence rate with observation vs. resection, most patients in the observation group did not experience recurrence, and of those who did, none had peritonitis.

“All those with recurrences were successfully treated again using nonoperative management,” he said.

This study was supported in part by grants from Merck and Covidien. Dr. Bendl reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

CHICAGO – Observation, compared with elective resection, was associated with significantly increased recurrence rates in a single-center randomized, controlled trial of patients who had successfully recovered via nonoperative management from their first episode of acute sigmoid diverticulitis with extraluminal air/abscess.

Recurrence rates in 111 patients randomized to observation or elective resection were 31% in the observation group and 7% in the resection group, at 15 and 18 months, respectively, Dr. Ryan Bendl of State University of New York, Stony Brook reported at the annual meeting of the American Surgical Association.

Patients in the two groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, body mass index, Colorectal Physiologic and Operative Severity Score for the Enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity (CR-POSSUM), and comorbidities, he noted.

Subjects included in the single-center study were adults admitted for a first episode of acute diverticulitis with abscess or extraluminal air who were managed nonoperatively with intravenous antibiotics, a period of nothing by mouth, drainage, and total parenteral nutrition followed by colonoscopy. They were randomized 3:1 to observation or resection, and 68% of the elective resection patients underwent minimally invasive surgery. The study’s primary endpoint was recurrent diverticulitis defined as an acute episode confirmed by computed tomography and requiring hospitalization with intravenous antibiotics.

Diverticulitis accounted for more than 300,000 hospital admissions in 2010 in the United States alone, and 10%-20% of patients had abscess formation. At one time, most patients were managed with immediate operative intervention, but medical and radiologic advances have led to a shift toward nonoperative management, Dr. Bendl said.

Some prior studies have suggested that recurrence rates are higher with nonoperative management, and the current study supports those data.

However, despite the significant increase in the recurrence rate with observation vs. resection, most patients in the observation group did not experience recurrence, and of those who did, none had peritonitis.

“All those with recurrences were successfully treated again using nonoperative management,” he said.

This study was supported in part by grants from Merck and Covidien. Dr. Bendl reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

Although black patients with colon cancer received significantly less treatment than white patients, particularly for late stage disease, much of the overall survival disparity between black and white patients was explained by tumor presentation at diagnosis rather than treatment differences, according to an analysis of SEER data.

Among demographically matched black and white patients, the 5-year survival difference was 8.3% (P less than .0001). Presentation match reduced the difference to 5.0% (P less than .0001), which accounted for 39.8% of the overall disparity. Additional matching by treatment reduced the difference only slightly to 4.9% (P less than .0001), which accounted for 1.2% of the overall disparity. Black patients had lower rates for most treatments, including surgery, than presentation-matched white patients (88.5% vs. 91.4%), and these differences were most pronounced at advanced stages. For example, significant differences between black and white patients in the use of chemotherapy was observed for stage III (53.1% vs. 64.2%; P less than .0001) and stage IV (56.1% vs. 63.3%; P = .001).

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Nephron/Creative Commons License

“Our results indicate that tumor presentation, including tumor stage, is indeed one of the most important factors contributing to the racial disparity in colon cancer survival. We observed that, after controlling for demographic factors, black patients in comparison with white patients had a significantly higher proportion of stage IV and lower proportions of stages I and II disease. Adequately matching on tumor presentation variables (e.g., stage, grade, size, and comorbidity) significantly reduced survival disparities,” wrote Dr. Yinzhi Lai of the Department of Medical Oncology at Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Philadelphia, and colleagues (Gastroenterology. 2016 Apr 4. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.01.030).

Treatment differences in advanced-stage patients, compared with early-stage patients, explained a higher proportion of the demographic-matched survival disparity. For example, in stage II patients, treatment match resulted in modest reductions in 2-, 3-, and 5-year survival rate disparities (2.7%-2.8%, 4.1%-3.6%, and 4.6%-4.0%, respectively); by contrast, in stage III patients, treatment match resulted in more substantial reductions in 2-, 3-, and 5-year survival rate disparities (4.5%-2.2%, 3.1%-2.0%, and 4.3%-2.8%, respectively). A similar effect was observed in patients with stage IV disease. The results suggest that, “to control survival disparity, more efforts may need to be tailored to minimize treatment disparities (especially chemotherapy use) in patients with advanced-stage disease,” the investigators wrote.

The retrospective data analysis used patient information from 68,141 patients (6,190 black, 61,951 white) aged 66 years and older with colon cancer identified from the National Cancer Institute SEER-Medicare database. Using a novel minimum distance matching strategy, investigators drew from the pool of white patients to match three distinct comparison cohorts to the same 6,190 black patients. Close matches between black and white patients bypassed the need for model-based analysis.

The primary matching analysis was limited by the inability to control for substantial differences in socioeconomic status, marital status, and urban/rural residence. A subcohort analysis of 2,000 matched black and white patients showed that when socioeconomic status was added to the demographic match, survival differences were reduced, indicating the important role of socioeconomic status on racial survival disparities.

Significantly better survival was observed in all patients who were diagnosed in 2004 or later, the year the Food and Drug Administration approved the important chemotherapy medicines oxaliplatin and bevacizumab. Separating the cohorts into those who were diagnosed before and after 2004 revealed that the racial survival disparity was lower in the more recent group, indicating a favorable impact of oxaliplatin and/or bevacizumab in reducing the survival disparity.

Although black patients with colon cancer received significantly less treatment than white patients, particularly for late stage disease, much of the overall survival disparity between black and white patients was explained by tumor presentation at diagnosis rather than treatment differences, according to an analysis of SEER data.

Among demographically matched black and white patients, the 5-year survival difference was 8.3% (P less than .0001). Presentation match reduced the difference to 5.0% (P less than .0001), which accounted for 39.8% of the overall disparity. Additional matching by treatment reduced the difference only slightly to 4.9% (P less than .0001), which accounted for 1.2% of the overall disparity. Black patients had lower rates for most treatments, including surgery, than presentation-matched white patients (88.5% vs. 91.4%), and these differences were most pronounced at advanced stages. For example, significant differences between black and white patients in the use of chemotherapy was observed for stage III (53.1% vs. 64.2%; P less than .0001) and stage IV (56.1% vs. 63.3%; P = .001).

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Nephron/Creative Commons License

“Our results indicate that tumor presentation, including tumor stage, is indeed one of the most important factors contributing to the racial disparity in colon cancer survival. We observed that, after controlling for demographic factors, black patients in comparison with white patients had a significantly higher proportion of stage IV and lower proportions of stages I and II disease. Adequately matching on tumor presentation variables (e.g., stage, grade, size, and comorbidity) significantly reduced survival disparities,” wrote Dr. Yinzhi Lai of the Department of Medical Oncology at Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Philadelphia, and colleagues (Gastroenterology. 2016 Apr 4. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.01.030).

Treatment differences in advanced-stage patients, compared with early-stage patients, explained a higher proportion of the demographic-matched survival disparity. For example, in stage II patients, treatment match resulted in modest reductions in 2-, 3-, and 5-year survival rate disparities (2.7%-2.8%, 4.1%-3.6%, and 4.6%-4.0%, respectively); by contrast, in stage III patients, treatment match resulted in more substantial reductions in 2-, 3-, and 5-year survival rate disparities (4.5%-2.2%, 3.1%-2.0%, and 4.3%-2.8%, respectively). A similar effect was observed in patients with stage IV disease. The results suggest that, “to control survival disparity, more efforts may need to be tailored to minimize treatment disparities (especially chemotherapy use) in patients with advanced-stage disease,” the investigators wrote.

The retrospective data analysis used patient information from 68,141 patients (6,190 black, 61,951 white) aged 66 years and older with colon cancer identified from the National Cancer Institute SEER-Medicare database. Using a novel minimum distance matching strategy, investigators drew from the pool of white patients to match three distinct comparison cohorts to the same 6,190 black patients. Close matches between black and white patients bypassed the need for model-based analysis.

The primary matching analysis was limited by the inability to control for substantial differences in socioeconomic status, marital status, and urban/rural residence. A subcohort analysis of 2,000 matched black and white patients showed that when socioeconomic status was added to the demographic match, survival differences were reduced, indicating the important role of socioeconomic status on racial survival disparities.

Significantly better survival was observed in all patients who were diagnosed in 2004 or later, the year the Food and Drug Administration approved the important chemotherapy medicines oxaliplatin and bevacizumab. Separating the cohorts into those who were diagnosed before and after 2004 revealed that the racial survival disparity was lower in the more recent group, indicating a favorable impact of oxaliplatin and/or bevacizumab in reducing the survival disparity.

Although black patients with colon cancer received significantly less treatment than white patients, particularly for late stage disease, much of the overall survival disparity between black and white patients was explained by tumor presentation at diagnosis rather than treatment differences, according to an analysis of SEER data.

Among demographically matched black and white patients, the 5-year survival difference was 8.3% (P less than .0001). Presentation match reduced the difference to 5.0% (P less than .0001), which accounted for 39.8% of the overall disparity. Additional matching by treatment reduced the difference only slightly to 4.9% (P less than .0001), which accounted for 1.2% of the overall disparity. Black patients had lower rates for most treatments, including surgery, than presentation-matched white patients (88.5% vs. 91.4%), and these differences were most pronounced at advanced stages. For example, significant differences between black and white patients in the use of chemotherapy was observed for stage III (53.1% vs. 64.2%; P less than .0001) and stage IV (56.1% vs. 63.3%; P = .001).

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Nephron/Creative Commons License

“Our results indicate that tumor presentation, including tumor stage, is indeed one of the most important factors contributing to the racial disparity in colon cancer survival. We observed that, after controlling for demographic factors, black patients in comparison with white patients had a significantly higher proportion of stage IV and lower proportions of stages I and II disease. Adequately matching on tumor presentation variables (e.g., stage, grade, size, and comorbidity) significantly reduced survival disparities,” wrote Dr. Yinzhi Lai of the Department of Medical Oncology at Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Philadelphia, and colleagues (Gastroenterology. 2016 Apr 4. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.01.030).

Treatment differences in advanced-stage patients, compared with early-stage patients, explained a higher proportion of the demographic-matched survival disparity. For example, in stage II patients, treatment match resulted in modest reductions in 2-, 3-, and 5-year survival rate disparities (2.7%-2.8%, 4.1%-3.6%, and 4.6%-4.0%, respectively); by contrast, in stage III patients, treatment match resulted in more substantial reductions in 2-, 3-, and 5-year survival rate disparities (4.5%-2.2%, 3.1%-2.0%, and 4.3%-2.8%, respectively). A similar effect was observed in patients with stage IV disease. The results suggest that, “to control survival disparity, more efforts may need to be tailored to minimize treatment disparities (especially chemotherapy use) in patients with advanced-stage disease,” the investigators wrote.

The retrospective data analysis used patient information from 68,141 patients (6,190 black, 61,951 white) aged 66 years and older with colon cancer identified from the National Cancer Institute SEER-Medicare database. Using a novel minimum distance matching strategy, investigators drew from the pool of white patients to match three distinct comparison cohorts to the same 6,190 black patients. Close matches between black and white patients bypassed the need for model-based analysis.

The primary matching analysis was limited by the inability to control for substantial differences in socioeconomic status, marital status, and urban/rural residence. A subcohort analysis of 2,000 matched black and white patients showed that when socioeconomic status was added to the demographic match, survival differences were reduced, indicating the important role of socioeconomic status on racial survival disparities.

Significantly better survival was observed in all patients who were diagnosed in 2004 or later, the year the Food and Drug Administration approved the important chemotherapy medicines oxaliplatin and bevacizumab. Separating the cohorts into those who were diagnosed before and after 2004 revealed that the racial survival disparity was lower in the more recent group, indicating a favorable impact of oxaliplatin and/or bevacizumab in reducing the survival disparity.

CHICAGO – Lower extremity duplex scans should be performed prior to colorectal surgery, and anticoagulation should be tailored to the result, findings from a randomized clinical trial suggest.

The findings also raise questions about the fairness of financial penalties imposed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for perioperative venous thromboembolism, Dr. Karen Zaghiyan of Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles said at the annual meeting of the American Surgical Association.

In 376 consecutive adult patients undergoing laparoscopic or open major colorectal surgery who had no occult preoperative deep vein thrombosis (DVT) on lower extremity venous duplex scan and who were randomized to preoperative or postoperative chemical thromboprophylaxis (CTP) with 5,000 U of subcutaneous heparin, no differences were seen with respect to the primary outcome of venous thromboembolism within 48 hours of surgery, Dr. Zaghiyan said.

“There was no significant difference in our primary outcome – early postoperative VTE [venous thromboembolism] – in patients managed with postoperative or preoperative prophylaxis,” she said, noting that three patients in each group developed asymptomatic intraoperative DVT, and two additional patients in the postoperative treatment group developed asymptomatic DVT between postoperative day 0 and 2.

Two additional patients in the postoperative treatment group developed clinically significant DVT between postoperative day 2 and 30.

“Both patients had a complicated prolonged hospital course, and developed DVT while still hospitalized. This difference still did not reach statistical significance, and there were no post-discharge DVT or PEs [pulmonary embolisms] in the entire cohort,” she said.

Bleeding complications, including estimated blood loss and number receiving transfusion, were similar in the two groups, she said, noting that no patients developed heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, and that hospital stay, readmissions, and overall complications were similar between the two groups.

Study subjects had a mean age of 53 years, and 52% were women. The preoperative- and postoperative treatment groups were similar with respect to demographics and preoperative characteristics. They underwent lower extremity venous duplex just prior to surgery, immediately after surgery in the recovery room, on day 2 after surgery, and subsequently as clinically indicated.

Thromboprophylaxis in the preoperative treatment group was given in the “pre-op holding area” then 8 hours after surgery and every 8 hours thereafter until discharge. Thromboprophylaxis in the postoperative treatment group was given within 24 hours after surgery, and then every 8 hours until discharge.

Preoperative and postoperative CTP were equally safe and effective, and since occult preoperative DVT is twice as common as postoperative DVT, occurring in a surprising 4% of patients in this study, the findings support preoperative scans and anticoagulation based on the results – especially in older patients and those with comorbid disease, Dr. Zaghiyan said.

The findings could help improve patients care; although VTE prevention and chemical prophylaxis in colorectal surgery have been extensively studied, current guidelines are vague, with both the American College of Chest Physicians and the Surgical Care Improvement Project recommending that prophylaxis be initiated 24 hours prior to or after major colorectal surgery, she said.

The findings could also help avoid CMS penalties for postoperatively identified VTE,” she added.

Further, those penalties may not be supported by the clinical data; in this study, the majority of early postoperative DVTs were unpreventable, with no additional protection provided with preoperative prophylaxis, she explained.

“CMS should reevaluate the financial penalties, taking preventability into account,” she said.

Dr. Zaghiyan reported having no disclosures.

The complete manuscript of this presentation is anticipated to be published in the Annals of Surgery pending editorial review.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – Lower extremity duplex scans should be performed prior to colorectal surgery, and anticoagulation should be tailored to the result, findings from a randomized clinical trial suggest.

The findings also raise questions about the fairness of financial penalties imposed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for perioperative venous thromboembolism, Dr. Karen Zaghiyan of Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles said at the annual meeting of the American Surgical Association.

In 376 consecutive adult patients undergoing laparoscopic or open major colorectal surgery who had no occult preoperative deep vein thrombosis (DVT) on lower extremity venous duplex scan and who were randomized to preoperative or postoperative chemical thromboprophylaxis (CTP) with 5,000 U of subcutaneous heparin, no differences were seen with respect to the primary outcome of venous thromboembolism within 48 hours of surgery, Dr. Zaghiyan said.

“There was no significant difference in our primary outcome – early postoperative VTE [venous thromboembolism] – in patients managed with postoperative or preoperative prophylaxis,” she said, noting that three patients in each group developed asymptomatic intraoperative DVT, and two additional patients in the postoperative treatment group developed asymptomatic DVT between postoperative day 0 and 2.

Two additional patients in the postoperative treatment group developed clinically significant DVT between postoperative day 2 and 30.

“Both patients had a complicated prolonged hospital course, and developed DVT while still hospitalized. This difference still did not reach statistical significance, and there were no post-discharge DVT or PEs [pulmonary embolisms] in the entire cohort,” she said.

Bleeding complications, including estimated blood loss and number receiving transfusion, were similar in the two groups, she said, noting that no patients developed heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, and that hospital stay, readmissions, and overall complications were similar between the two groups.

Study subjects had a mean age of 53 years, and 52% were women. The preoperative- and postoperative treatment groups were similar with respect to demographics and preoperative characteristics. They underwent lower extremity venous duplex just prior to surgery, immediately after surgery in the recovery room, on day 2 after surgery, and subsequently as clinically indicated.

Thromboprophylaxis in the preoperative treatment group was given in the “pre-op holding area” then 8 hours after surgery and every 8 hours thereafter until discharge. Thromboprophylaxis in the postoperative treatment group was given within 24 hours after surgery, and then every 8 hours until discharge.

Preoperative and postoperative CTP were equally safe and effective, and since occult preoperative DVT is twice as common as postoperative DVT, occurring in a surprising 4% of patients in this study, the findings support preoperative scans and anticoagulation based on the results – especially in older patients and those with comorbid disease, Dr. Zaghiyan said.

The findings could help improve patients care; although VTE prevention and chemical prophylaxis in colorectal surgery have been extensively studied, current guidelines are vague, with both the American College of Chest Physicians and the Surgical Care Improvement Project recommending that prophylaxis be initiated 24 hours prior to or after major colorectal surgery, she said.

The findings could also help avoid CMS penalties for postoperatively identified VTE,” she added.

Further, those penalties may not be supported by the clinical data; in this study, the majority of early postoperative DVTs were unpreventable, with no additional protection provided with preoperative prophylaxis, she explained.

“CMS should reevaluate the financial penalties, taking preventability into account,” she said.

Dr. Zaghiyan reported having no disclosures.

The complete manuscript of this presentation is anticipated to be published in the Annals of Surgery pending editorial review.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – Lower extremity duplex scans should be performed prior to colorectal surgery, and anticoagulation should be tailored to the result, findings from a randomized clinical trial suggest.

The findings also raise questions about the fairness of financial penalties imposed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for perioperative venous thromboembolism, Dr. Karen Zaghiyan of Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles said at the annual meeting of the American Surgical Association.

In 376 consecutive adult patients undergoing laparoscopic or open major colorectal surgery who had no occult preoperative deep vein thrombosis (DVT) on lower extremity venous duplex scan and who were randomized to preoperative or postoperative chemical thromboprophylaxis (CTP) with 5,000 U of subcutaneous heparin, no differences were seen with respect to the primary outcome of venous thromboembolism within 48 hours of surgery, Dr. Zaghiyan said.

“There was no significant difference in our primary outcome – early postoperative VTE [venous thromboembolism] – in patients managed with postoperative or preoperative prophylaxis,” she said, noting that three patients in each group developed asymptomatic intraoperative DVT, and two additional patients in the postoperative treatment group developed asymptomatic DVT between postoperative day 0 and 2.

Two additional patients in the postoperative treatment group developed clinically significant DVT between postoperative day 2 and 30.

“Both patients had a complicated prolonged hospital course, and developed DVT while still hospitalized. This difference still did not reach statistical significance, and there were no post-discharge DVT or PEs [pulmonary embolisms] in the entire cohort,” she said.

Bleeding complications, including estimated blood loss and number receiving transfusion, were similar in the two groups, she said, noting that no patients developed heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, and that hospital stay, readmissions, and overall complications were similar between the two groups.

Study subjects had a mean age of 53 years, and 52% were women. The preoperative- and postoperative treatment groups were similar with respect to demographics and preoperative characteristics. They underwent lower extremity venous duplex just prior to surgery, immediately after surgery in the recovery room, on day 2 after surgery, and subsequently as clinically indicated.

Thromboprophylaxis in the preoperative treatment group was given in the “pre-op holding area” then 8 hours after surgery and every 8 hours thereafter until discharge. Thromboprophylaxis in the postoperative treatment group was given within 24 hours after surgery, and then every 8 hours until discharge.

Preoperative and postoperative CTP were equally safe and effective, and since occult preoperative DVT is twice as common as postoperative DVT, occurring in a surprising 4% of patients in this study, the findings support preoperative scans and anticoagulation based on the results – especially in older patients and those with comorbid disease, Dr. Zaghiyan said.

The findings could help improve patients care; although VTE prevention and chemical prophylaxis in colorectal surgery have been extensively studied, current guidelines are vague, with both the American College of Chest Physicians and the Surgical Care Improvement Project recommending that prophylaxis be initiated 24 hours prior to or after major colorectal surgery, she said.

The findings could also help avoid CMS penalties for postoperatively identified VTE,” she added.

Further, those penalties may not be supported by the clinical data; in this study, the majority of early postoperative DVTs were unpreventable, with no additional protection provided with preoperative prophylaxis, she explained.

“CMS should reevaluate the financial penalties, taking preventability into account,” she said.

Dr. Zaghiyan reported having no disclosures.

The complete manuscript of this presentation is anticipated to be published in the Annals of Surgery pending editorial review.

[email protected]

Receiving anesthesia services while undergoing a colonoscopy may not be in your patients’ best interest, as doing so could significantly increase the likelihood of patients experiencing serious complications within 30 days of the procedure.

This is according to a new study published in the April issue of Gastroenterology, in which Dr. Karen J. Wernli and her coinvestigators analyzed claims data, collected from the Truven Health MarketScan Research Database, related to 3,168,228 colonoscopy procedures that took place between 2008 and 2011, to determine whether patients who received anesthesia were at a higher risk of developing complications after the procedure (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.12.018).

Source: American Gastroenterological Association

“The involvement of anesthesia services for colonoscopy sedation, mainly to administer propofol, has increased accordingly, from 11.0% of colonoscopies in 2001 to 23.4% in 2006, with projections of more than 50% in 2015,” wrote Dr. Wernli of the Group Health Research Institute in Seattle, and her coauthors. “Whether the use of propofol is associated with higher rates of short-term complications compared with standard sedation is not well understood.”

Men and women whose data was included in the study were between 40 and 64 years of age; men accounted for 46.8% of those receiving standard sedation (53.2% women) and 46.5% of those receiving anesthesia services (53.5% women). A total of 4,939,993 individuals were initially screened for enrollment, with 39,784 excluded because of a previous colorectal cancer diagnosis, 240,038 for “noncancer exclusions,” and 1,491,943 for being enrolled in the study less than 1 year.

Standard sedation was done in 2,079,784 (65.6%) of the procedures included in the study, while the other 1,088,444 (34.4%) colonoscopies involved anesthesia services. Use of anesthesia services resulted in a 13% increase in likelihood for patients to experience some kind of complication within 30 days of colonoscopy (95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.14). The most common complications were perforation (odds ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.00-1.15), hemorrhage (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.27-1.30), abdominal pain (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.05-1.08), complications secondary to anesthesia (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.05-1.28), and “stroke and other central nervous system events” (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00-1.08).

Analysis of geographic distribution of colonoscopies performed with and without anesthesia services showed that all areas of the United States had a higher likelihood of postcolonoscopy complications associated with anesthesia except in the Southeast, where there was no association between the two. Additionally, in the western U.S., use of anesthesia services was less common than in any other geographic area, but was associated with a staggering 60% higher chance of complication within 30 days for patients who did opt for it.

“Although the use of anesthesia agents can directly impact colonoscopy outcomes, it is not solely the anesthesia agent that could lead to additional complications,” the study authors wrote. “In the absence of patient feedback, increased colonic-wall tension from colonoscopy pressure may not be identified by the endoscopist, and, consistent with our results, could lead to increased risks of colonic complications, such as perforation and abdominal pain.”

Dr. Wernli and her coauthors did not report any relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Receiving anesthesia services while undergoing a colonoscopy may not be in your patients’ best interest, as doing so could significantly increase the likelihood of patients experiencing serious complications within 30 days of the procedure.

This is according to a new study published in the April issue of Gastroenterology, in which Dr. Karen J. Wernli and her coinvestigators analyzed claims data, collected from the Truven Health MarketScan Research Database, related to 3,168,228 colonoscopy procedures that took place between 2008 and 2011, to determine whether patients who received anesthesia were at a higher risk of developing complications after the procedure (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.12.018).

Source: American Gastroenterological Association

“The involvement of anesthesia services for colonoscopy sedation, mainly to administer propofol, has increased accordingly, from 11.0% of colonoscopies in 2001 to 23.4% in 2006, with projections of more than 50% in 2015,” wrote Dr. Wernli of the Group Health Research Institute in Seattle, and her coauthors. “Whether the use of propofol is associated with higher rates of short-term complications compared with standard sedation is not well understood.”

Men and women whose data was included in the study were between 40 and 64 years of age; men accounted for 46.8% of those receiving standard sedation (53.2% women) and 46.5% of those receiving anesthesia services (53.5% women). A total of 4,939,993 individuals were initially screened for enrollment, with 39,784 excluded because of a previous colorectal cancer diagnosis, 240,038 for “noncancer exclusions,” and 1,491,943 for being enrolled in the study less than 1 year.

Standard sedation was done in 2,079,784 (65.6%) of the procedures included in the study, while the other 1,088,444 (34.4%) colonoscopies involved anesthesia services. Use of anesthesia services resulted in a 13% increase in likelihood for patients to experience some kind of complication within 30 days of colonoscopy (95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.14). The most common complications were perforation (odds ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.00-1.15), hemorrhage (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.27-1.30), abdominal pain (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.05-1.08), complications secondary to anesthesia (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.05-1.28), and “stroke and other central nervous system events” (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00-1.08).

Analysis of geographic distribution of colonoscopies performed with and without anesthesia services showed that all areas of the United States had a higher likelihood of postcolonoscopy complications associated with anesthesia except in the Southeast, where there was no association between the two. Additionally, in the western U.S., use of anesthesia services was less common than in any other geographic area, but was associated with a staggering 60% higher chance of complication within 30 days for patients who did opt for it.

“Although the use of anesthesia agents can directly impact colonoscopy outcomes, it is not solely the anesthesia agent that could lead to additional complications,” the study authors wrote. “In the absence of patient feedback, increased colonic-wall tension from colonoscopy pressure may not be identified by the endoscopist, and, consistent with our results, could lead to increased risks of colonic complications, such as perforation and abdominal pain.”

Dr. Wernli and her coauthors did not report any relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Receiving anesthesia services while undergoing a colonoscopy may not be in your patients’ best interest, as doing so could significantly increase the likelihood of patients experiencing serious complications within 30 days of the procedure.

This is according to a new study published in the April issue of Gastroenterology, in which Dr. Karen J. Wernli and her coinvestigators analyzed claims data, collected from the Truven Health MarketScan Research Database, related to 3,168,228 colonoscopy procedures that took place between 2008 and 2011, to determine whether patients who received anesthesia were at a higher risk of developing complications after the procedure (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.12.018).

Source: American Gastroenterological Association

“The involvement of anesthesia services for colonoscopy sedation, mainly to administer propofol, has increased accordingly, from 11.0% of colonoscopies in 2001 to 23.4% in 2006, with projections of more than 50% in 2015,” wrote Dr. Wernli of the Group Health Research Institute in Seattle, and her coauthors. “Whether the use of propofol is associated with higher rates of short-term complications compared with standard sedation is not well understood.”

Men and women whose data was included in the study were between 40 and 64 years of age; men accounted for 46.8% of those receiving standard sedation (53.2% women) and 46.5% of those receiving anesthesia services (53.5% women). A total of 4,939,993 individuals were initially screened for enrollment, with 39,784 excluded because of a previous colorectal cancer diagnosis, 240,038 for “noncancer exclusions,” and 1,491,943 for being enrolled in the study less than 1 year.

Standard sedation was done in 2,079,784 (65.6%) of the procedures included in the study, while the other 1,088,444 (34.4%) colonoscopies involved anesthesia services. Use of anesthesia services resulted in a 13% increase in likelihood for patients to experience some kind of complication within 30 days of colonoscopy (95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.14). The most common complications were perforation (odds ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.00-1.15), hemorrhage (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.27-1.30), abdominal pain (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.05-1.08), complications secondary to anesthesia (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.05-1.28), and “stroke and other central nervous system events” (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00-1.08).

Analysis of geographic distribution of colonoscopies performed with and without anesthesia services showed that all areas of the United States had a higher likelihood of postcolonoscopy complications associated with anesthesia except in the Southeast, where there was no association between the two. Additionally, in the western U.S., use of anesthesia services was less common than in any other geographic area, but was associated with a staggering 60% higher chance of complication within 30 days for patients who did opt for it.

“Although the use of anesthesia agents can directly impact colonoscopy outcomes, it is not solely the anesthesia agent that could lead to additional complications,” the study authors wrote. “In the absence of patient feedback, increased colonic-wall tension from colonoscopy pressure may not be identified by the endoscopist, and, consistent with our results, could lead to increased risks of colonic complications, such as perforation and abdominal pain.”

Dr. Wernli and her coauthors did not report any relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]