Search

After completion of treatment for colorectal cancer, patients are offered a control program. This program can be split into aftercare and follow-up. Aftercare is meant to treat and to support the patient in the somatic and psychologic sequelae of the intensive treatment. In most cases, the patient has adopted to these consequences after 1 year. In this period, follow-up has already been started to detect recurrent disease in curatively treated patients. The rationale behind this scheduled follow-up is to detect asymptomatic recurrent disease as early as possible and by that increase the rate of curable recurrences followed by a better survival in a cost-effective way. Traditionally it consists of anamnesis, physical examination, blood tests, and imaging. Timing and duration has been debated for many years with endless discussions about the definition of minimal or intensive schedule, but guidelines all over the world have incorporated a kind of follow-up schedule in their national or institutional guidelines. However, evidence for a certain schedule of follow-up is based on old, often poor, designed studies with inclusion of the patients in the 1970s and 1980s of the last century, when surgery was suboptimal and the preoperative staging more or less missing. The subsequent meta-analyses have included all these old series and are the rationale of today’s practice. In general, the conclusion is that a kind of follow-up results in an improved survival, but it is not possible to determine the best combination of tests and the frequency.

Background: Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer is associated with improved recovery and similar cancer outcomes at 3 and 5 years in comparison with open surgery. However, long-term survival rates have rarely been reported. Here, we present survival and recurrence rates of the Dutch patients included in the COlon cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR) trial at 10-year follow-up. Methods: Between March 1997 and March 2003, patients with non-metastatic colon cancer were recruited by 29 hospitals in eight countries and randomised to either laparoscopic or open surgery. Main inclusion criterion for the COLOR trial was solitary adenocarcinoma of the left or right colon. The primary outcome was disease-free survival at 3 years, and secondary outcomes included overall survival and recurrence. The 10-year follow-up data of all Dutch patients were collected. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00387842). Results: In total, 1248 patients were randomised, of which 329 were Dutch. Fifty-eight Dutch patients were excluded and 15 were lost to follow-up, leaving 256 patients for 10-year analysis. Median follow-up was 112 months. Disease-free survival rates were 45.2 % in the laparoscopic group and 43.2 % in the open group (difference 2.0 %; 95 % confidence interval (CI) −10.3 to 14.3; p = 0.96). Overall survival rates were 48.4 and 46.7 %, respectively (difference 1.7 %; 95 % CI −10.6 to 14.0; p = 0.83). Stage-specific analysis revealed similar survival rates for both groups. Sixty-two patients were diagnosed with recurrent disease, accounting for 29.4 % in the laparoscopic group and 28.2 % in the open group (difference 1.2 %; 95 % CI −11.1 to 13.5; p = 0.73). Seven patients had port- or wound-site recurrences (laparoscopic n =

AimPreclinical studies have suggested that nitinol-based compression anastomosis might be a viable solution to anastomotic leak following low anterior resection. A prospective multicentre open label study was therefore designed to evaluate the performance of the ColonRing(™) in (low) colorectal anastomosis.MethodThe primary outcome measure was anastomotic leakage. Patients were recruited at 13 different colorectal surgical units in Europe, the United States and Israel. Institutional review board approval was obtained.ResultsBetween 21 March 2010 and 3 August 2011, 266 patients completed the study protocol. The overall anastomotic leakage rate was 5.3% for all anastomoses, including a rate of 3.1% for low anastomoses. Septic anastomotic complications occurred in 8.3% of all anastomoses and 8.2% of low anastomoses.ConclusionNitinol compression anastomosis is safe, effective and easy to use and may offer an advantage for low colorectal anastomosis. A prospective randomized trial comparing ColonRing(™) with conventional stapling is needed.

AimPreclinical studies have suggested that nitinol-based compression anastomosis might be a viable solution to anastomotic leak following low anterior resection. A prospective multicentre open label study was therefore designed to evaluate the performance of the ColonRing(™) in (low) colorectal anastomosis.MethodThe primary outcome measure was anastomotic leakage. Patients were recruited at 13 different colorectal surgical units in Europe, the United States and Israel. Institutional review board approval was obtained.ResultsBetween 21 March 2010 and 3 August 2011, 266 patients completed the study protocol. The overall anastomotic leakage rate was 5.3% for all anastomoses, including a rate of 3.1% for low anastomoses. Septic anastomotic complications occurred in 8.3% of all anastomoses and 8.2% of low anastomoses.ConclusionNitinol compression anastomosis is safe, effective and easy to use and may offer an advantage for low colorectal anastomosis. A prospective randomized trial comparing ColonRing(™) with conventional stapling is needed.

AimPreclinical studies have suggested that nitinol-based compression anastomosis might be a viable solution to anastomotic leak following low anterior resection. A prospective multicentre open label study was therefore designed to evaluate the performance of the ColonRing(™) in (low) colorectal anastomosis.MethodThe primary outcome measure was anastomotic leakage. Patients were recruited at 13 different colorectal surgical units in Europe, the United States and Israel. Institutional review board approval was obtained.ResultsBetween 21 March 2010 and 3 August 2011, 266 patients completed the study protocol. The overall anastomotic leakage rate was 5.3% for all anastomoses, including a rate of 3.1% for low anastomoses. Septic anastomotic complications occurred in 8.3% of all anastomoses and 8.2% of low anastomoses.ConclusionNitinol compression anastomosis is safe, effective and easy to use and may offer an advantage for low colorectal anastomosis. A prospective randomized trial comparing ColonRing(™) with conventional stapling is needed.

In many European countries, short-term 5 × 5 Gy radiotherapy has become the standard preoperative treatment of patients with resectable rectal cancer. Individualized risk assessment might allow a better selection of patients who will benefit from postoperative treatment and intensified follow-up.

Several studies have shown remarkable differences in colorectal cancer survival across Europe. Most of these studies lacked information about stage and treatment. In this study we compared short-term survival as well as differences in tumour stage and treatment strategies between five European countries: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands. For this retrospective cohort study all patients aged 18 years or older and operated on adenocarcinoma of the rectum without distant metastases and diagnosed in 2008 and 2009 were selected in national audit registries from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Differences in pre-operative treatment between the countries were compared using univariable and multivariable logistic regression. One year relative survival and one year relative excess risk of death (RER) were compared between the five countries. Large variation in the use of preoperative radiotherapy and chemoradiation was found between the countries. Even though, there was little variation in relative survival between the countries, except Sweden, which had a significant better one year RER of death among the elderly patients after adjustment. The differences in survival are expected to be caused by differences in pen-operative care, selection of patients, and especially management of elderly patients. The effects of preoperative treatment are expected to be seen on long term follow-up.

Care for patients with colon and rectal cancer has improved in the last 20years; however considerable variation still exists in cancer management and outcome between European countries. Large variation is also apparent between national guidelines and patterns of cancer care in Europe. Therefore, EURECCA, which is the acronym of European Registration of Cancer Care, is aiming at defining core treatment strategies and developing a European audit structure in order to improve the quality of care for all patients with colon and rectal cancer. In December 2012, the first multidisciplinary consensus conference about cancer of the colon and rectum was held. The expert panel consisted of representatives of European scientific organisations involved in cancer care of patients with colon and rectal cancer and representatives of national colorectal registries.

Several studies have shown remarkable differences in colorectal cancer survival across Europe. Most of these studies lacked information about stage and treatment. In this study we compared short-term survival as well as differences in tumour stage and treatment strategies between five European countries: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands. For this retrospective cohort study all patients aged 18 years or older and operated on adenocarcinoma of the rectum without distant metastases and diagnosed in 2008 and 2009 were selected in national audit registries from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Differences in pre-operative treatment between the countries were compared using univariable and multivariable logistic regression. One year relative survival and one year relative excess risk of death (RER) were compared between the five countries. Large variation in the use of preoperative radiotherapy and chemoradiation was found between the countries. Even though, there was little variation in relative survival between the countries, except Sweden, which had a significant better one year RER of death among the elderly patients after adjustment. The differences in survival are expected to be caused by differences in peri-operative care, selection of patients, and especially management of elderly patients. The effects of preoperative treatment are expected to be seen on long term follow-up.

Care for patients with colon and rectal cancer has improved in the last 20years; however considerable variation still exists in cancer management and outcome between European countries. Large variation is also apparent between national guidelines and patterns of cancer care in Europe. Therefore, EURECCA, which is the acronym of European Registration of Cancer Care, is aiming at defining core treatment strategies and developing a European audit structure in order to improve the quality of care for all patients with colon and rectal cancer. In December 2012, the first multidisciplinary consensus conference about cancer of the colon and rectum was held. The expert panel consisted of representatives of European scientific organisations involved in cancer care of patients with colon and rectal cancer and representatives of national colorectal registries.

Care for patients with colon and rectal cancer has improved in the last twenty years however still considerable variation exists in cancer management and outcome between European countries. Therefore, EURECCA, which is the acronym of European Registration of cancer care, is aiming at defining core treatment strategies and developing a European audit structure in order to improve the quality of care for all patients with colon and rectal cancer. In December 2012 the first multidisciplinary consensus conference about colon and rectum was held looking for multidisciplinary consensus. The expert panel consisted of representatives of European scientific organisations involved in cancer care of patients with colon and rectal cancer and representatives of national colorectal registries.

No abstract available

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to analyse late gastrointestinal disorders necessitating hospital admission following rectal cancer surgery and to determine their relationship to preoperative radiation therapy. METHODS: Curatively treated patients participating in the Swedish Rectal Cancer Trial during 1987-1990, randomized to preoperative irradiation (454 patients) or surgery alone (454), were matched against the Swedish Hospital Discharge Registry. Hospital records for patients admitted with gastrointestinal diagnoses were reviewed. RESULTS: Irradiated patients had an increased relative risk (RR) of late small bowel obstruction (RR 2.49 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 1.48 to 4.19)) and abdominal pain (RR 2.09 (95 per cent c.i. 1.03 to 4.24)) compared with patients treated by surgery alone. The risk of late small bowel obstruction requiring surgery was greatly increased (RR 7.42 (95 per cent c.i. 2.23 to 24.66)). Irradiated patients with postoperative anastomotic leakage were at increased risk for late small bowel obstruction (RR 2.99 (95 per cent c.i. 1.07 to 8.31)). The risk of small bowel obstruction was also related to the radiation technique and energy used. CONCLUSION: Small bowel obstruction is more common in patients with rectal cancer treated with preoperative radiation therapy.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to identify risk factors in emergency surgery for colonic cancer in a large population and to investigate the economic impact of such surgery. METHODS: Data from the colonic cancer registry (1997-2001) of the Uppsala/Orebro Regional Oncological Centre were analysed and classified by hospital category. Some 3259 patients were included; 806 had an emergency and 2453 an elective procedure. Data for calculating effects on health economy were derived from a national case-costing register. RESULTS: Patients who had emergency surgery had more advanced tumours and a lower survival rate than those who had an elective procedure (5-year survival rate 29.8 versus 52.4 per cent; P < 0.001). There was a stage-specific difference in survival, with poorer survival both for patients with stage I and II tumours and for those with stage III tumours after emergency compared with elective surgery (P < 0.001). Emergency surgery was associated with a longer hospital stay (mean 18.0 versus 10.0 days; P < 0.001) and higher costs (relative cost 1.5 (95 per cent confidence interval 1.4 to 1.6)) compared with elective surgery. The duration of hospital stay was the strongest determinant of cost (r(2) = 0.52, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Emergency surgery for colonic cancer is associated with a stage-specific increase in mortality rate.

AIMS: To analyse time-trends in survival of patients with colon and rectal cancer in Sweden. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data including all patients diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the colon and rectum between 1960 and 1999, from the Swedish Cancer Registry, were analysed. The observed and relative survival rates were calculated according to the Hakulinen cohort method. RESULTS: Five-year relative survival rate for cancer of the colon improved significantly from 39.6% in 1960--1964 to 57.2% in 1995--1999 and for rectal cancer from 36.1 to 57.6%, respectively. Corresponding observed survival improved from 31.2 to 44.3% for colon cancer and from 28.4 to 45.4% for rectal cancer. The largest improvement of survival were seen during the later part of the period observed. CONCLUSION: The survival of patients with colon and rectal cancer in Sweden continues to improve, especially in rectal cancer, which now has a 5-year observed and relative survival rate comparable to that for colon cancer. The survival improvement in rectal cancer is probably a result of the implementation of total mesorectal excision and pre-operative radiotherapy.

AIM: To investigate the relation between the type of circular stapler and anastomotic leak in rectal cancer surgery. BACKGROUND: During the past decades results from rectal cancer surgery have improved considerably regarding risk of local recurrence and survival. Two main paradigm changes are considered to be the cause for this: the introduction of total mesorectal excision (TME) and the increasing use of radiotherapy. However, rectal cancer surgery is associated with an unacceptably high frequency of complications of which anastomotic leak is one of the most severe ones. The hypothesis was raised that the choice of stapler influenced the leakage rates. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to all departments of surgery (n = 66) performing rectal cancer surgery in Sweden to determine the choice of circular stapler when performing anterior resection for rectal cancer. These data were linked to the Swedish Rectal Cancer Registry for the period 1995-99. RESULTS: A total of 3316 patients had an anterior resection. The choice of circular stapling device was determined in 70% of the cases. When stapler A was used, the leakage rate was 11% whereas it was 7% when stapler B was used (P = 0.0039). In the cases where it was impossible to determine which stapler had been used the leakage rate was 8%. CONCLUSION: Quality control is an important part of medicine and the present study suggests that it also must include surgical instruments. A prospective randomised study is needed to confirm the results.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to describe variability in compliance to clinical guidelines in colorectal cancer surgery related to hospital structure. METHODS: All patients registered in the databases of the Regional Oncologic Centre, operated upon electively for colon cancer between the start of the register in 1997 until 2000 (n=1771) and for rectal cancer between the start of the register in 1995 until 2000 (n=1841) were selected for analysis. RESULTS: There was no difference in 5-year survival rate between colon and rectal cancer (mean follow-up 2.6 and 3.0 years, respectively; p=0.22). There was a significant difference in frequency of preoperative liver scan depending on hospital category with an increase in colon cancer from 39 to 46% (p=0.02) and in rectal cancer from 42 to 64% (p<0.001). For colon cancer there was no difference, according to hospital category, in quotient sigmoid and high anterior resection to left-sided resection. Furthermore, high anterior resection was more common at university and general district hospitals (8%) compared with district hospitals (4%) (p=0.01). Sphincter-saving surgery was more common at university hospitals and district general hospitals than at district hospitals (low anterior/abdomino-perineal resection quotients 2.3, 2.4 and 1.6, respectively; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Population-based audit forms an appropriate and valuable basis for quality assurance projects. In addition to describing compliance to guidelines and pointing to process steps that can be improved, such investigations may also indicate changes due to scientific development. Linked to case-costing data, such results may form an important basis for decisions about modifications in health care.

OBJECTIVE: A diverting loop ileostomy was previously considered mandatory for minimizing the effects of septic complications in pelvic pouch surgery. During the past decade there has been a trend towards omission of the loop ileostomy without obvious signs of increased numbers of pouch complications or impaired long-term function. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the risk of complications associated with the construction and closure of the loop ileostomy itself. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Complications following diverting loop ileostomies in 143 patients subjected to restorative pelvic pouch surgery during the period 1983-97 were studied retrospectively by evaluation of case records. RESULTS: In the period between discharge after pelvic pouch surgery and closure of the loop ileostomy, 20 (14%) patients were hospitalized because of excessive stoma flow and 19 (13%) patients were treated for other surgical complications, of whom 10 (7%) required surgical intervention. In the early postoperative period (within 30 days) after closure of the loop ileostomy, 18 (13%) patients suffered complications necessitating surgery. Another 12 (8%) patients were hospitalized because of intestinal obstruction that could be treated conservatively. CONCLUSION: The proportion of complications associated with diverting loop ileostomies in pelvic pouch surgery was considerable. A randomised controlled multicentre study is ethically defensible and is recommended.

BACKGROUND: Population-based quality registers have become an important tool in quality assessment during the past decade. For registers to be reliable, however, data must be checked carefully for validity. METHODS: The present study describes the validity of surgical complications registered in a national register run by the National Board of Health and Welfare (NBH), a register run by Regional Oncological Centres (ROC) and, for comparison, a local quality assurance system at Uppsala University Hospital (UUH). A specialized, independent surgeon checked 10 per cent of patient records against datasheets from the registers. RESULTS: The local quality assurance system at UUH showed the best validity for surgical complications. Data for complications of colonic cancer surgery were more valid than those for rectal cancer surgery. Registration of serious complications was more valid than that of wound infections. The calculated proportion of missed surgical complications was 0.69, 0.64, 0.40, 0.22 and 0.07 for rectal and colonic cancer in the NBH register, rectal and colonic cancer in the ROC register, and the UUH register respectively. Corresponding figures for reoperation were 0.45, 0.48, 0.04, 0.09 and 0.21. CONCLUSION: Local interest and routine use of data for quality assurance are crucial factors for valid registers. Careful monitoring of validity is necessary for use of registry data in structured systems for improvement of surgical results.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate oral single dose prophylaxis in colorectal surgery. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: University hospital, Sweden. SUBJECTS: 24 patients (13 women; 11 men; mean age 57 years, range 27-81) listed for elective colorectal operations. INTERVENTION: At 0630 on the day of the operation all patients were given an oral dose of trimethoprim-sulphamethoxazole (TMP 160 mg and SMZ 800 mg) and metronidazole (2 g). The serum concentrations of TMP and SMZ were analysed in venous samples taken at the start and end of each operation. RESULTS: The earliest operation started at 0830 and the last finished at 1700. The median (range) serum concentrations of TMP were 1.4 (0.7-2.6) mg/L (start) and 1.3 (1.0-2.8) mg/L (end), and of SMZ 35 (15-65) mg/L (start) and 33 mg (13-70) mg/L (end). The individual values were above or equal to the minimal inhibitory concentration (TMP 0.8 mg/L; SMZ 15.2 mg/L) for relevant gram-negative species. CONCLUSION: Oral TMP/SMZ in the morning gives satisfactory serum concentrations independently of when the operation is done during the day. The regimen is simple and has the potential for being an effective alternative to intravenous prophylaxis.