Adan Z. Becerra

Extended Intervals after Neoadjuvant Therapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: The Key to Improved Tumor Response and Potential Organ Preservation

BACKGROUND Many rectal cancer patients experience tumor downstaging and some are found to achieve a pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). Previous data suggest that there is an association between the time interval from nCRT completion to surgery and tumor response rates, including pCR. However, these studies have been primarily from single institutions with small sample sizes. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between a longer interval after nCRT and pCR in a nationally representative cohort of rectal cancer patients. STUDY DESIGN Clinical stage II to III rectal cancer patients undergoing nCRT with a documented surgical resection were selected from the 2006 to 2011 National Cancer Data Base. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess the association between the nCRT-surgery interval time (<6 weeks, 6 to 8 weeks, >8 weeks) and the odds of pCR. The relationship between nCRT-surgery interval, surgical morbidity, and tumor downstaging was also examined. RESULTS Overall, 17,255 patients met the inclusion criteria. An nCRT-surgery interval time >8 weeks was associated with higher odds of pCR (odds ratio [OR] 1.12, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.25) and tumor downstaging (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.25). The longer time delay was also associated with lower odds of 30-day readmission (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.92). CONCLUSIONS An nCRT-surgery interval time >8 weeks results in increased odds of pCR, with no evidence of associated increased surgical complications compared with an interval of 6 to 8 weeks. These data support implementation of a lengthened interval after nCRT to optimize the chances of pCR and perhaps add to the possibility of ultimate organ preservation (nonoperative management).

Large Variation in Blood Transfusion Use After Colorectal Resection: A Call to Action.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative blood transfusions are associated with an increased risk of adverse postoperative outcomes through immunomodulatory effects. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with variation in blood transfusion use after elective colorectal resection and associated postoperative infectious complications DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: The study included elective colorectal resections in New York State from 2001 to 2013. PATIENTS: The study cohort consists of 125,160 colorectal resections. Patients who were admitted nonelectively or who were admitted before the date of surgery were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Receipt of a perioperative allogeneic red blood cell transfusion and the secondary end points of postoperative pneumonia, surgical site infection, intra-abdominal abscess, and sepsis were measured. RESULTS: The overall rate of perioperative blood transfusion for the study cohort was 13.9%. The unadjusted blood transfusion rates ranged from 2.4% to 58.7% for individual surgeons and 2.9% to 32.8% for individual hospitals. After controlling for patient-, surgeon-, and hospital-level factors in a 3-level mixed-effects multivariable model, significant variation was still present across both surgeons (p < 0.0001) and hospitals (p < 0.0001), with a 16.8-fold difference in adjusted blood transfusion rates across surgeons and a 13.2-fold difference in adjusted blood transfusion rates across hospitals. Receipt of a blood transfusion was also independently associated with pneumonia (OR = 3.23 (95% CI, 2.92–3.57)), surgical site infection (OR = 2.27 (95% CI, 2.14–2.40)), intra-abdominal abscess (OR = 2.72 (95% CI, 2.41–3.07)), and sepsis (OR = 4.51 (95% CI, 4.11–4.94)). LIMITATIONS: Limitations include the retrospective design and the possibility of miscoding within administrative data. CONCLUSIONS: Large surgeon- and hospital-level variations in perioperative blood transfusion use for patients undergoing colorectal resection are present despite controlling for patient-, surgeon-, and hospital-level factors. In addition, receipt of a blood transfusion was independently associated with an increased risk of postoperative infectious complications. These findings support the creation and implementation of perioperative blood transfusion protocols aimed at limiting unwarranted variation.

Missed Opportunity: Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection Is Associated With Lower Incidence of Small Bowel Obstruction Compared to an Open Approach.

Objective: To investigate the effect of a laparoscopic approach on the rate of adhesion-related small bowel obstruction (SBO) following colorectal resection. Background: Currently, there is little compelling evidence with regard to rates of SBO after laparoscopic versus open abdominal surgery. Few studies have compared risk-adjusted rates of SBO following laparoscopic and open colorectal resection. Methods: The Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System was queried for elective colorectal resections in New York State from 2003 to 2010. A propensity score was calculated to account for selection bias between choice of laparoscopic versus open resection. Bivariate and multivariable competing-risks models were constructed to assess patient, hospital, surgeon, and operative characteristics associated with SBO and operation for SBO within 3 years of resection. Results: Among 69,303 patients who underwent elective colorectal resection (26% laparoscopic, 74% open), 5.3% of patients developed SBO and 2% of patients underwent an operation for SBO. After controlling for other risk factors and conducting an intention-to-treat analysis, open resection was associated with a higher risk of both SBO [hazard ratio (HR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03–1.26] and operation for SBO (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.94–1.32). This effect was even greater when characterizing laparoscopic-to-open conversions as an open approach (SBO: HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.20–1.49; SBO operation: HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.12–1.63). Most other independent risk factors were nonmodifiable and included age <60, female sex, black race, higher comorbidity burden, previous surgery, inflammatory bowel disease, and procedure type. Conclusions: Open colorectal resection increases the risk of SBO compared with laparoscopy. Increased utilization of a laparoscopic approach has the potential to achieve a significant reduction in the incidence of SBO following colorectal resection.

High Variability in Nosocomial Clostridium difficile Infection Rates Across Hospitals After Colorectal Resection.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile infection is associated with adverse patient outcomes and high medical costs. The incidence and severity of C. difficile has been rising in both medical and surgical patients. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to assess risk factors and variation associated with the development of nosocomial C. difficile colitis among patients undergoing colorectal resection. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: The study included segmental colectomy and proctectomy cases in New York State from 2005 to 2013. PATIENTS: The study cohort included 150,878 colorectal resections. Patients with a documented previous history of C. difficile infection or residence outside of New York State were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A diagnosis of C. difficile colitis either during the index hospital stay or on readmission within 30 days was the main measure. RESULTS: C. difficile colitis occurred in 3323 patients (2.2%). Unadjusted C. difficile colitis rates ranged from 0% to 11.3% among surgeons and 0% to 6.8% among hospitals. After controlling for patient, surgeon, and hospital characteristics using mixed-effects multivariable analysis, significant unexplained variation in C. difficile rates remained present across hospitals but not surgeons. Patient factors explained only 24% of the total hospital-level variation, and known surgeon and hospital-level characteristics explained an additional 8% of the total hospital-level variation. Therefore, ≈70% of the hospital variation in C. difficile infection rates remained unexplained by captured patient, surgeon, and hospital factors. Furthermore, there was an ≈5-fold difference in adjusted C. difficile rates across hospitals. LIMITATIONS: A limited set of hospital and surgeon characteristics was available. CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal surgery patients appear to be at high risk for C. difficile infection, and alarming variation in nosocomial C. difficile infection rates currently exists among hospitals after colorectal resection. Given the high morbidity and cost associated with C. difficile colitis, adopting institutional quality improvement programs and maintaining strict prevention strategies are of the utmost importance.

Association Among Blood Transfusion, Sepsis, and Decreased Long-term Survival After Colon Cancer Resection.

Objective: To investigate the potential additive effects of blood transfusion and sepsis on colon cancer disease-specific survival, cardiovascular disease-specific survival, and overall survival after colon cancer surgery. Background: Perioperative blood transfusions are associated with infectious complications and increased risk of cancer recurrence through systemic inflammatory effects. Furthermore, recent studies have suggested an association among sepsis, subsequent systemic inflammation, and adverse cardiovascular outcomes. However, no study has investigated the association among transfusion, sepsis, and disease-specific survival in postoperative patients. Methods: The New York State Cancer Registry and Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System were queried for stage I to III colon cancer resections from 2004 to 2011. Propensity-adjusted survival analyses assessed the association of perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion, sepsis, and 5-year colon cancer disease-specific survival, cardiovascular disease-specific survival, and overall survival. Results: Among 24,230 patients, 29% received a transfusion and 4% developed sepsis. After risk adjustment, transfusion and sepsis were associated with worse colon cancer disease-specific survival [(+)transfusion: hazard ratio (HR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09–1.30; (+)sepsis: HR 1.84, 95% CI 1.44–2.35; (+)transfusion/(+)sepsis: HR 2.27, 95% CI 1.87–2.76], cardiovascular disease-specific survival [(+)transfusion: HR 1.18, 95% CI 1.04–1.33; (+)sepsis: HR 1.63, 95% CI 1.14–2.31; (+)transfusion/(+)sepsis: HR 2.04, 95% CI 1.58–2.63], and overall survival [(+)transfusion: HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.14–1.29; (+)sepsis: HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.48–2.09; (+)transfusion/(+)sepsis: HR 2.36, 95% CI 2.07–2.68] relative to (−)transfusion/(−)sepsis. Additional analyses suggested an additive effect with those who both received a blood transfusion and developed sepsis having even worse survival. Conclusions: Perioperative blood transfusions are associated with shorter survival, independent of sepsis, after colon cancer resection. However, receiving a transfusion and developing sepsis has an additive effect and is associated with even worse survival. Restrictive perioperative transfusion practices are a possible strategy to reduce sepsis rates and improve survival after colon cancer surgery.

Patients With Adhesive Small Bowel Obstruction Should Be Primarily Managed by a Surgical Team.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of a primary medical versus surgical service on healthcare utilization and outcomes for adhesive small bowel obstruction (SBO) admissions. Summary Background Data: Adhesive-SBO typically requires hospital admission and is associated with high healthcare utilization and costs. Given that most patients are managed nonoperatively, many patients are admitted to medical hospitalists. However, comparisons of outcomes between primary medical and surgical services have been limited to small single-institution studies. Methods: Unscheduled adhesive-SBO admissions in NY State from 2002 to 2013 were identified using the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System. Bivariate and mixed-effects regression analyses were performed assessing factors associated with healthcare utilization and outcomes for SBO admissions. Results: Among 107,603 admissions for adhesive-SBO (78% nonoperative, 22% operative), 43% were primarily managed by a medical attending and 57% were managed by a surgical attending. After controlling for patient, physician, and hospital-level factors, management by a medical service was independently associated with longer length of stay [IRR = 1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.24, 1.56], greater inpatient costs (IRR = 1.38, 95% = 1.21, 1.57), and a higher rate of 30-day readmission (OR = 1.32, 95% CI = 1.22, 1.42) following nonoperative management. Similarly, of those managed operatively, management by a medicine service was associated with a delay in time to surgical intervention (IRR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.69, 2.01), extended length of stay (IRR=1.36, 95% CI = 1.25, 1.49), greater inpatient costs (IRR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.11, 1.71), and higher rates of 30-day mortality (OR = 1.92, 95% CI = 1.50, 2.47) and 30-day readmission (OR = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.97, 1.32). Conclusions: This study suggests that management of patients presenting with adhesive-SBO by a primary medical team is associated with higher healthcare utilization and worse perioperative outcomes. Policies favoring primary management by a surgical service may improve outcomes and reduce costs for patients admitted with adhesive-SBO.

The impact of age on complications, survival, and cause of death following colon cancer surgery

Background:Given scarce data regarding the relationship among age, complications, and survival beyond the 30-day postoperative period for oncology patients in the United States, this study identified age-related differences in complications and the rate and cause of 1-year mortality following colon cancer surgery.Methods:The NY State Cancer Registry and Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System identified stage I–III colon cancer resections (2004–2011). Multivariable logistic regression and survival analyses assessed the relationship among age (<65, 65–74, ⩾75), complications, 1-year survival, and cause of death.Results:Among 24 426 patients surviving >30 days, 1-year mortality was 8.5%. Older age groups had higher complication rates, and older age and complications were independently associated with 1-year mortality (P<0.0001). Increasing age was associated with a decrease in the proportion of deaths from colon cancer with a concomitant increase in the proportion of deaths from cardiovascular disease. Older age and sepsis were independently associated with higher risk of colon cancer-specific death (65–74: HR=1.59, 95% CI=1.26–2.00; ⩾75: HR=2.57, 95% CI=2.09–3.16; sepsis: HR=2.58, 95% CI=2.13–3.11) and cardiovascular disease-specific death (65–74: HR=3.72, 95% CI=2.29–6.05; ⩾75: HR=7.02, 95% CI=4.44–11.10; sepsis: HR=2.33, 95% CI=1.81–2.99).Conclusions:Older age and sepsis are associated with higher 1-year overall, cancer-specific, and cardiovascular-specific mortality, highlighting the importance of geriatric assessment, multidisciplinary care, and cardiovascular optimisation for older patients and those with infectious complications.

Explaining variation in ventral and inguinal hernia repair outcomes: A population-based analysis

Background: No study has evaluated the relative importance of patient, surgeon, and hospital‐level factors on surgeon and hospital variation in hernia reoperation rates. This population‐based retrospective cohort study evaluated factors associated with variation in reoperation rates for recurrence after initial ventral hernia repair and inguinal hernia repair. Methods: The Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System identified initial ventral hernia repairs and inguinal hernia repairs in New York state from 2003–2009. Mixed‐effects Cox proportional hazards analyses were performed assessing factors associated with surgeon/hospital variation in 5‐year reoperation rates for hernia recurrence. Results: Among 78,267 ventral hernia repairs and 124,416 inguinal hernia repairs, the proportion of total variation in reoperation rates attributable to individual surgeons compared with hospitals was 87% for ventral hernia repairs and 92% for inguinal hernia repairs. In explaining variation in ventral hernia repair reoperation between surgeons, 19% was attributable to patient‐level factors, 4% attributable to mesh placement, and 10% attributable to surgeon volume and type of board certification. In explaining variation in inguinal hernia repair reoperation between surgeons, 1.1% was attributable to mesh placement and 10% was attributable to surgeon volume and years of experience. However, 67% of the variation between surgeons for ventral hernia repair and 89% of the variation between surgeons for inguinal hernia repair remained unexplained by factors in the models. Conclusion: The majority of variation in hernia reoperation rates is attributable to surgeon‐level variation. This suggests that hernia recurrence may be an appropriate surgeon quality metric. While modifiable factors such as mesh placement and surgeon characteristics play roles in surgeon variation, future research should focus on identifying additional surgeon attributes responsible for this variation.

Lymph node yield is an independent predictor of survival in rectal cancer regardless of receipt of neoadjuvant therapy.

Aims Lymph node yield (LNY) is used as a marker of adequate oncological resection. The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) currently recommends that at least 12 nodes are necessary to confirm node-negative disease for rectal cancer. A LNY of 12 is not always achieved, particularly in patients who have undergone neoadjuvant treatment. This study attempts to examine factors associated with LNY and its prognostic impact following neoadjuvant chemoradiation in rectal cancer. Methods The 2006–2011 National Cancer Data Base was queried for patients with clinical stage I–III rectal cancer who underwent a proctectomy. Suboptimal LNY was defined as <12 lymph nodes examined. A mixed-effects multinomial logistic regression model was used to identify independent factors associated with LNY. Mixed-effects Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the adjusted effect of LNY on 5-year overall survival. Results 25 447 patients met inclusion criteria. Overall, 62% of the cohort received neoadjuvant chemoradiation and 32% had suboptimal LNY. The median LNY for patients who received neoadjuvant therapy was 13 (IQR: 9–18) and for patients who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy was 15 (IQR: 12–21). After risk adjustment, there was a 3.5-fold difference in the rate of suboptimal LNY among individual hospitals (27%–95%). Suboptimal LNY was independently associated with an 18% increased hazard of death among patients who did not receive neoadjuvant treatment and a 20% increased hazard of death among those who did receive neoadjuvant treatment when controlled for adjuvant treatment, staging, proximal/distal margins and other patient factors. Conclusions Suboptimal LNY is independently associated with worse overall survival regardless of neoadjuvant therapy, pathological staging and patient factors in rectal cancer. This finding underlies the importance and challenge of an optimal lymph node evaluation for prognostication, especially for patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy.

Is the Distance Worth It? Patients With Rectal Cancer Traveling to High-Volume Centers Experience Improved Outcomes

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether traveling long distances to high-volume centers would compensate for travel burden among patients undergoing rectal cancer resection. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether operative volume outweighs the advantages of being treated locally by comparing the outcomes of patients with rectal cancer treated at local, low-volume centers versus far, high-volume centers. DESIGN: This was a population-based study. SETTINGS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with rectal cancer. PATIENTS: Patients with stage II or III rectal cancer who underwent surgical resection between 2006 and 2012 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcomes of interest were margins, lymph node yield, receipt of neoadjuvant chemoradiation, adjuvant chemotherapy, readmission within 30 days, 30-day and 90-day mortality, and 5-year overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 18,605 patients met inclusion criteria; 2067 patients were in the long-distance/high-volume group and 1362 in the short-distance/low-volume group. The median travel distance was 62.6 miles for the long-distance/high-volume group and 2.3 miles for the short-distance/low-volume group. Patients who were younger, white, privately insured, and stage III were more likely to have traveled to a high-volume center. When controlled for patient factors, stage, and hospital factors, patients in the short-distance/low-volume group had lower odds of a lymph node yield ≥12 (OR = 0.51) and neoadjuvant chemoradiation (OR = 0.67) and higher 30-day (OR = 3.38) and 90-day mortality (OR = 2.07) compared with those in the long-distance/high-volume group. The short-distance/low-volume group had a 34% high risk of overall mortality at 5 years compared with the long-distance/high-volume group. LIMITATIONS: We lacked data regarding patient and physician decision making and surgeon-specific factors. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that when controlled for patient, tumor, and hospital factors, patients who traveled a long distance to a high-volume center had improved lymph node yield, neoadjuvant chemoradiation receipt, and 30- and 90-day mortality compared with those who traveled a short distance to a low-volume center. They also had improved 5-year survival. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A446.