Search

Background: Prolonged operative duration has been associated with increased post-operative morbidity in numerous surgical subspecialties; however, data are limited in operations for colon cancer specifically and existing literature makes unwarranted methodological assumptions of linearity. We sought to assess the effects of extended operative duration on perioperative outcomes in those undergoing segmental colectomy for cancer using a methodologically sound approach., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing segmental colectomy for cancer between 2014 and 2018, logged in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program datasets. Our primary outcome was a composite of any complication within 30 days; secondary outcomes included length of stay and discharge disposition. Our main factor of interest was operative duration., Results: We analyzed 26,380 segmental colectomy cases, the majority of which were approached laparoscopically (64.95%) and were right sided (62.93%). Median operative duration was 152 (95% CI 112-206) minutes. On multivariable regression, increased operative duration was linearly associated with any complication (OR = 1.003, 95% CI 1.003-1.003, p < 0.0001) in the overall cohort, as was length of stay (p < 0.0001). All subgroups except for the laparoscopic left colectomy group were linearly associated with operative duration. In the laparoscopic left colectomy group, an inflection point in the odds of any complication was found at 176 min (OR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.20-1.61, p < 0.0001)., Conclusions: This study suggests that the risk of perioperative complications increases linearly with increasing operative duration, where each additional 30 min increases the odds of complication by 10%. In those undergoing laparoscopic left colectomy, the risk of complications sharply increases after ~ 3 h, suggesting that surgeons should aim to complete these procedures within 3 h where possible., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Introduction: Surgeons may choose an open approach to locally advanced colon cancer (LACC) because of the elevated conversion rate (minimally invasive to open) in these patients (resulting in part from a judgment of the technical feasibility of a minimally invasive approach). Poorer outcomes have been suggested in those requiring conversion from a minimal access to an open approach; however, the influence of conversion has not been studied in LACC. We sought to compare perioperative outcomes in patients with T4aN2 colon cancer undergoing minimally invasive surgery (MIS), planned open (PO), and converted (CN) procedures to evaluate the influence of conversion in this subgroup., Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the NSQIP database. Patients with T4aN2 colon cancer undergoing elective resection were included; rectal/unknown tumor location, and T4b disease were excluded (to ensure homogeneity in surgical management). Patients were divided into cohorts based on approach: PO, MIS, and CN. Summary statistics were compared between groups. Multivariable analysis was conducted for mortality and morbidity outcomes., Results: 1286 cases were included (313 PO, 842 MIS, 131 CN); 10.2% underwent conversion. Those undergoing MIS had a shorter length of stay than those undergoing PO or CN (p < 0.0001). On univariable analysis, CN resulted in increased rates of any complication (p < 0.0001). CN also had a greater rate of anastomotic leak (p = 0.0046) and death (p = 0.05). On multivariable analysis, significant predictors of any complication included age, ASA class, M stage, and approach; however, CN did not increase the risk of complication compared with MIS, whereas PO nearly doubled the risk of complication (OR = 1.98, p = 0.0083). The only significant predictor of mortality on multivariable analysis was age (HR = 1.09, p = 0.0002)-approach was not associated with mortality., Conclusion: PO confers the greatest risk of suffering any complication. Surgical approach was not associated with death. Results of our study challenge the notion that conversion is associated with the worst perioperative outcomes and an MIS approach should be considered in patients with LACC., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Black patients are disproportionally impacted by colorectal cancer, both with respect to incidence and mortality. Studies accounting for patient- and community-level factors that contribute to such disparities are lacking. Our objective is to determine if Black compared to White race is associated with worse survival in colon cancer, while accounting for socioeconomic and clinical factors., Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of Black or White patients with nonmetastatic colon cancer in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry between 2008 and 2016. Multivariable Cox regression analysis and propensity-score matching was performed., Results: A total of 100,083 patients were identified, 15,155 Black patients and 84,928 White patients. Median follow-up was 38 months (interquartile range: 15-67). Black patients were more likely to lack health insurance and reside in counties with low household income, high unemployment, and lower high school completion rates. Black race was associated with poorer unadjusted 5-year cancer-specific survival (79.4% vs 82.4%, P < .001). After multivariable adjustment, Black race was associated with greater 5-year cancer-specific mortality (hazard ratio: 1.19, 95% confidence interval: 1.13-1.25, P < .001) and overall mortality (hazard ratio: 1.12, 95% confidence interval: 1.08-1.16, P < .001). Mortality was higher for Black patients across stages: stage I (hazard ratio: 1.08, 95% confidence interval: 1.08-1.09), stage II (hazard ratio: 1.06, 95% confidence interval: 1.06-1.07), stage III (1.03, 95% confidence interval: 1.03-1.04). Propensity-score matching identified 27,640 patients; Black race was associated with worse 5-year overall survival (67.5% vs 70.2%, P = .003) and cancer-specific survival (79.4% vs 82.3%, P < .001)., Conclusions: This US population-based analysis confirms poorer overall survival and cancer-specific survival in Black patients undergoing surgery for nonmetastatic colon cancer despite accounting for trans-sectoral factors that have been implicated in structural racism., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite persistently poor oncological outcomes, approaches to the management of T4 colonic cancer remain variable, with the role of neoadjuvant therapy unclear. The aim of this review was to compare oncological outcomes between direct-to-surgery and neoadjuvant therapy approaches to T4 colon cancer., Methods: A librarian-led systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CINAHL up to 11 February 2020 was performed. Inclusion criteria were primary research articles comparing oncological outcomes between neoadjuvant therapies or direct to surgery for primary T4 colonic cancer. Based on PRISMA guidelines, screening and data abstraction were undertaken in duplicate. Quality assessment was carried out using Cochrane risk-of-bias tools. Random-effects models were used to pool effect estimates. This study compared pathological resection margins, postoperative morbidity, and oncological outcomes of cancer recurrence and overall survival., Results: Four studies with a total of 43 063 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with direct to surgery, neoadjuvant therapy was associated with increased rates of margin-negative resection (odds ratio (OR) 2.60, 95 per cent c.i. 1.12 to 6.02; n = 15 487) and 5-year overall survival (pooled hazard ratio 1.42, 1.10 to 1.82, I2 = 0 per cent; n = 15 338). No difference was observed in rates of cancer recurrence (OR 0.42, 0.15 to 1.22; n = 131), 30-day minor (OR 1.12, 0.68 to 1.84; n = 15 488) or major (OR 0.62, 0.27 to 1.44; n = 15 488) morbidity, or rates of treatment-related adverse effects., Conclusion: Compared with direct to surgery, neoadjuvant therapy improves margin-negative resection rates and overall survival., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Thirty percent of colon cancer diagnoses occur following emergency presentations, often with bowel obstruction or perforation requiring urgent surgery. We sought to compare cancer care quality between patients receiving emergency versus elective surgery. We conducted an institutional retrospective matched (46 elective:23 emergency; n = 69) case control study. Patients who underwent a colon cancer resection from January 2017 to February 2019 were matched by age, sex, and cancer stage. Data were collected through the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and chart review. Process outcomes of interest included receipt of cross-sectional imaging, CEA testing, pre-operative cancer diagnosis, pre-operative colonoscopy, margin status, nodal yield, pathology reporting, and oncology referral. No differences were found between elective and emergency groups with respect to demographics, margin status, nodal yield, oncology referral times/rates, or time to pathology reporting. Patients undergoing emergency surgery were less likely to have CEA levels, CT staging, and colonoscopy ( p = 0.004, p = 0.017, p < 0.001). Emergency cases were less likely to be approached laparoscopically ( p = 0.03), and patients had a longer length of stay ( p < 0.001) and 30-day readmission rate ( p = 0.01). Patients undergoing emergency surgery receive high quality resections and timely post-operative referrals but receive inferior peri-operative workup. The adoption of a hybrid acute care surgery model including short-interval follow-up with a surgical oncologist or colorectal surgeon may improve the quality of care that patients with colon cancer receive after acute presentations. Surgeons treating patients with colon cancer emergently can improve their care quality by ensuring that appropriate and timely disease evaluation is completed.

While adjuvant treatment of colon cancers that penetrate the serosa (T4) have been well-established, neoadjuvant strategies have yet to be formally evaluated. Our objective was to perform a scoping review of eligibility criteria, treatment regimens, and primary outcomes for neoadjuvant approaches to T4 colon cancer. A librarian-led, systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CINAHL up to 11 February 2020 was performed. Primary research evaluating neoadjuvant treatment in T4 colon cancer were included. Screening and data abstraction were performed in duplicate; analyses were descriptive or thematic. A total of twenty studies were included, most of which were single-arm, single-center, and retrospective. The primary objectives of the literature to date has been to evaluate treatment feasibility, tumor response, disease-free survival, and overall survival in healthy patients. Conventional XELOX and FOLFOX chemotherapy were the most commonly administered interventions. Rationale for selecting a specific regimen and for treatment eligibility criteria were poorly documented across studies. The current literature on neoadjuvant strategies for T4 colon cancer is overrepresented by single-center, retrospective studies that evaluate treatment feasibility and efficacy in healthy patients. Future studies should prioritize evaluating clear selection criteria and rationale for specific neoadjuvant strategies. Validation of outcomes in multi-center, randomized trials for XELOX and FOLFOX have the most to contribute to the growing evidence for this poorly managed disease.