Search

PURPOSE: Cancer impacts caregivers as well as patients. Ambulatory oncology surgeries requiring a short hospital stay place additional responsibility on informal caregivers as they help patients navigate their post-operative recovery at home, and determine if symptoms are expected or emergent. Our objective was to explore the experience of informal caregivers during patients’ ambulatory cancer surgery and then recovery at home with remote monitoring of symptoms via web-based patient-reported outcomes questionnaire (“Recovery Tracker”). METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with caregivers from a larger sample participating in a randomized trial of the Recovery Tracker. Thematic analysis was applied to derive key themes and codes via NVivo qualitative analysis software (QSR International Inc.). Recruitment was conducted iteratively to ensure a heterogenous sample and thematic saturation. RESULTS: Twenty-three semi-structured interviews were conducted. Four main themes emerged: 1) Predictability reduced stress among caregivers; 2) Unexpected events caused stress for caregivers; 3) The importance of a caregiver being present during the recovery process; 4) Caregiver involvement in remote monitoring of symptoms was minimal. CONCLUSION: Caregivers report not being overly burdened by the ambulatory surgery process, but they are very sensitive to any deviations from what they expected to happen. Further research and clinical practice on caregivers in the ambulatory setting should focus on how to set expectations and avoid unexpected events.

Background Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) improves tumor response in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) patients compared to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy alone. The effect of TNT on patient survival has not been fully investigated. Materials and Methods This was a retrospective case series of patients with LARC at a comprehensive cancer center. Three hundred and eleven patients received chemoradiotherapy (chemoRT) as the sole neoadjuvant treatment and planned adjuvant chemotherapy, and 313 received TNT (induction fluorouracil and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting). These patients then underwent total mesorectal excision or were entered in a watch-and-wait protocol. The proportion of patients with complete response (CR) after neoadjuvant therapy (defined as pathological CR or clinical CR sustained for 2 years) was compared by the χ2 test. Disease-free survival (DFS), local recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival were assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank test. Cox regression models were used to further evaluate DFS. Results The rate of CR was 20% for chemoRT and 27% for TNT (P=.05). DFS, local recurrence-free survival, metastasis-free survival, and overall survival were no different. Disease-free survival was not associated with the type of neoadjuvant treatment (hazard ratio [HR] 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93-1.80; P = .12). Conclusions Although TNT does not prolong survival than neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus intended postoperative chemotherapy, the higher response rate associated with TNT may create opportunities to preserve the rectum in more patients with LARC.

Following polypectomy, colectomy is performed selectively to ensure complete clearance of neoplasia.This study aimed to determine the risk factors associated with residual disease at colectomy following malignant polypectomy.This is a retrospective study.This investigation took place at a tertiary teaching cancer center.Consecutive patients undergoing polypectomy followed by colectomy from 1990 to 2007 were identified from a prospective database.Factors associated with residual disease at colectomy were associated with clinicopathologic features.Colectomy following polypectomy was performed in 143 patients: 127 with clear invasion of polyp submucosa (invasive disease), and 16 suspicious for submucosal invasion. Residual disease after colectomy was diagnosed in 27 (19%) of 143 patients. Disease was present in the colonic wall in 19 patients (13%): invasive in 16 (11%), and noninvasive in 3 (2.1%). Of the 16 patients with residual invasive disease at colectomy, 15 had clearly invasive disease at polypectomy and 1 was suspicious for invasive disease at polypectomy. Lymph node metastasis was noted in 10 (7.0%) patients. When analyzing patients with clearly invasive disease at polypectomy by margin status, residual invasive disease in the colon wall was noted in 8 of 50 (16%) with1 mm (positive) polypectomy margin, 7 of 33 (21%) with indeterminate polypectomy margin, and 0 of 44 with ≥1 mm (negative) polypectomy margin (p = 0.009). Nodal metastasis was associated with the presence of lymphovascular invasion (p = 0.01).This study is limited by its retrospective nature and selection bias.Following malignant polypectomy, colectomy should be considered in medically fit patients if the polypectomy margin is positive (≤1 mm) or unknown, or if lymphovascular invasion is present.

For some patients with low rectal cancer, ostomy (with elimination into a pouch) may be the only realistic surgical option. However, some patients have a choice between ostomy and sphincter-sparing surgery. Sphincter-sparing surgery has been preferred over ostomy because it offers preservation of normal bowel function. However, this surgery can cause incontinence and bowel dysfunction. Increasingly, it has become evident that certain patients who are eligible for sphincter-sparing surgery may not be well served by the surgery, and construction of an ostomy may be better. No validated assessment tool or decision aid has been published to help newly diagnosed patients decide between the two surgeries or to help physicians elicit long-term surgical outcomes. Furthermore, comparison of long-term outcomes and late effects after the two surgeries has not been synthesized. Therefore, this systematic review summarizes controlled studies that compared long-term survivorship outcomes between these two surgical groups. The goals are: 1) to improve understanding and shared decision-making among surgeons, oncologists, primary care providers, patients, and caregivers; 2) to increase the patient's participation in the decision; 3) to alert the primary care provider to patient challenges that could be addressed by provider attention and intervention; and 4) ultimately, to improve patients' long-term quality of life. This report includes discussion points for health care providers to use with their patients during initial discussions of ostomy and sphincter-sparing surgery as well as questions to ask during follow-up examinations to ascertain any long-term challenges facing the patient. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:387-397. © 2016 American Cancer Society.