Jonathan Sack

A 10-Year Outcomes Evaluation of Mucinous and Signet-Ring Cell Carcinoma of the Colon and Rectum

PURPOSEMost studies examining mucinous or signet-ring cell colorectal cancers are single institution reports. This study used a national cancer registry to analyze the epidemiology and survival outcomes of these two subtypes of colorectal cancer compared with adenocarcinoma tumors.METHODSAll patients diagnosed with mucinous (n = 16,991), signet-ring cell (n = 1,522), or adenocarcinoma (n = 146,115) colorectal cancer in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (1991–2000) were evaluated. Analyses were performed to obtain age-adjusted incidence rates, stage at presentation, tumor grade, and five-year relative survival for each subtype.RESULTSMucinous were slightly more common in females (53.4 percent). Incidence rates per 100,000 persons were: mucinous, 5.5; signet-ring cell, 0.6; and adenocarcinoma 46.6. The annual percent change during ten years was stable for mucinous, increased for signet-ring cell (4.8 percent; P < 0.05), and decreased for adenocarcinoma (−1.1 percent; P < 0.05). Fewer mucinous (18 percent) and signet-ring cell (21 percent) tumors were located in the rectum compared with adenocarcinoma (29 percent). Signet-ring cell presented at later stage (III/IV, 80.9 percent) more often than mucinous (52.8 percent) and adenocarcinoma (49.5 percent), and also had worse tumor grade (high grade: signet-ring cell, 73.5 percent; mucinous, 20.9 percent; adenocarcinoma, 17.5 percent). Relative five-year survival was worse for signet-ring cell than mucinous or adenocarcinoma.CONCLUSIONSWe present a large population-based review of colorectal cancer subtypes by analyzing national data from the past decade. Although the incidence of colorectal adenocarcinoma is decreasing in the United States, mucinous and signet-ring cell subtypes are stable and increasing, respectively. Importantly, it seems that the signet-ring cell subtype has worse outcomes, whereas survival rates for mucinous tumors are similar to adenocarcinomas.

Colonic stent vs. emergency surgery for management of acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: a decision analysis

BACKGROUND Acute colonic obstruction because of malignancy is often a surgical emergency. Surgical decompression with colostomy with or without resection and eventual re-anastomosis is the traditional treatment of choice. Endoscopic colonic stent insertion effectively decompresses the obstructed colon, allowing for surgery to be performed electively. This study sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of colonic stent vs. surgery for emergent management of acute malignant colonic obstruction. METHODS Decision analysis was used to calculate the cost-effectiveness of two competing strategies in a hypothetical patient presenting with acute, complete, malignant colonic obstruction: (1) emergent colonic stent followed by elective surgical resection and re-anastomosis; (2) emergent surgical resection followed by diversion (Hartmanns procedure) or primary anastomosis. Cost estimates were obtained from a third-party payer perspective. Primary outcome measures were mortality, stoma requirement, and total number of operative procedures. RESULTS Colonic stent resulted in 23% fewer operative procedures per patient (1.01 vs. 1.32 operations per patient), an 83% reduction in stoma requirement (7% vs. 43%), and lower procedure-related mortality (5% vs. 11%). Colonic stent was associated with a lower mean cost per patient (

Reporting randomized, controlled trials: Where quality of reporting may be improved

45,709 vs.

A nationwide 2010-2012 analysis of U.S. health care utilization in inflammatory bowel diseases.

49,941). CONCLUSIONS Colonic stent insertion followed by elective surgery appears more effective and less costly than emergency surgery under base-case conditions. This finding remains robust over a wide range of assumptions for clinical inputs in sensitivity analysis. Our findings suggest that colonic stent insertion should be offered, whenever feasible, as a bridge to elective surgery in patients presenting with malignant colonic obstruction.

Impact of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery and Opioid-Free Anesthesia on Opioid Prescriptions at Discharge From the Hospital: A Historical-Prospective Study.

AbstractINTRODUCTION: Evidence-based medicine relies on reproducible, high-quality reporting in the literature. Previous evaluations, which have assessed 11 basic elements of design and analysis in top impact clinical journals (both nonsurgical and surgical), have demonstrated that the reporting quality is less than perfect, although improving. The current study evaluates the quality of reporting in Diseases of the Colon and Rectum and other clinically related journals to identify specific areas where future improvements may be made. METHODS: Two independent evaluators assessed all randomized, controlled trials published in Diseases of the Colon and Rectum in the years 1990, 1995, and 2000. Additional assessments for 2000 were performed on all randomized, controlled trials published in Annals of Surgery, Archives of Surgery, and Gastroenterology. The frequency of reporting of 11 explicitly defined, traditionally important, basic elements of design and analysis were determined. These elements included reporting of eligibility criteria, admission before allocation, randomization (and method), blinded assessment (patient and observer), complications, loss to follow-up, statistical approach and tests, and power calculation. RESULTS: Interobserver reliability was strong (kappa, 0.76). The number of randomized, controlled trials published in Diseases of the Colon and Rectum increased from 5 (in 1990) to 13 (in 1995) to 17 (in 2000). Of the 1990 randomized, controlled trials, an average of 60 percent of the 11 basic elements were reported. Of the 1995 randomized, controlled trials, 72 percent of the items were reported (P = 0.05), whereas of the 2000 randomized, controlled trials, 77 percent of the 11 items were reported (P < 0.002 vs. 1990). The best-reported items were eligibility criteria, discussion of statistical tests, and accounting for all patients lost to follow-up. Only 11 percent of the 2000 randomized, controlled trials reported statistical power calculations. For the other journals that were evaluated, 72 to 88 percent of items were reported, with eligibility criterion being the best consistently reported item and power calculation being the worst. CONCLUSIONS: For Diseases of the Colon and Rectum, the number of randomized, controlled trials and the quality of reporting is improving. However, although certain research standards are reported adequately, others are not. The calculation of statistical power is clearly important when interpreting randomized, controlled trial results (whether differences are reported or not), yet only 11 percent of studies contained this information. Improving the reporting of this single item would likely lead to improving the overall quality of clinical studies in colorectal surgery. Improved reporting might be best facilitated by having authors adhere to a list of explicitly determined elements that should be included. Ko CY, Sack J, Chang JT, Fink A. Reporting randomized, controlled trials: where quality of reporting may be improved. Dis Colon Rectum 2002;45:443–447.

Rescue Diverting Loop Ileostomy: An Alternative to Emergent Colectomy in the Setting of Severe Acute Refractory IBD-Colitis

Background:Implementation of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) calls for a collaborative effort to transform the U.S. health care system toward patient-centered and value-based care. To identify how specialty care can be improved, we mapped current U.S. health care utilization in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) using a national insurance claims database. Methods:We performed a cross-sectional study analyzing U.S. health care utilization in 964,633 patients with IBD between 2010 and 2012 using insurance claims data, including pharmacy and medical claims. Frequency of IBD-related care utilization (medication, tests, and treatments) and their charges were evaluated. Subsequently, outcomes were put into the framework of current U.S. guidelines to identify areas of improvement. Results:A disproportionate usage of aminosalicylates in Crohns disease (42%), frequent corticosteroid use (46%, with 9% long-term users), and low rates of corticosteroid-sparing drugs (thiopurines 15%; methotrexate 2.7%) were observed. Markers for inflammatory activity, such as C-reactive protein or fecal calprotectin were not commonly used (8.8% and 0.13%, respectively). Although infrequently used (11%), anti-TNF antibody therapy represents a major part of observed IBD charges. Conclusions:This analysis shows 2010–2012 utilization and medication patterns of IBD health care in the United States and suggests that improvement can be obtained through enhanced guidelines adherence.

Combined endoscopic and laparoscopic surgery may be an alternative to bowel resection for the management of colon polyps not removable by standard colonoscopy

BACKGROUND: The United States is in the midst of an opioid epidemic, and opioid use disorder often begins with a prescription for acute pain. The perioperative period represents an important opportunity to prevent chronic opioid use, and recently there has been a paradigm shift toward implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols that promote opioid-free and multimodal analgesia. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of an ERAS intervention for colorectal surgery on discharge opioid prescribing practices. METHODS: We conducted a historical-prospective quality improvement study of an ERAS protocol implemented for patients undergoing colorectal surgery with a focus on the opioid-free and multimodal analgesia components of the pathway. We compared patients undergoing colorectal surgery 1 year before implementation (June 15, 2015, to June 14, 2016) and 1 year after implementation (June 15, 2016, to June 14, 2017). RESULTS: Before the ERAS intervention, opioids at discharge were not significantly increasing (1% per month; 95% confidence interval [CI], −1% to 3%; P = .199). Immediately after the ERAS intervention, opioid prescriptions were not significantly lower (13%; 95% CI, −30% to 3%; P = .110). After the intervention, the rate of opioid prescriptions at discharge did not decrease significantly 1% (95% CI, −3% to 1%) compared to the pre-period rate (P = .399). Subgroup analysis showed that in patients with a combination of low discharge pain scores, no preoperative opioid use, and low morphine milligram equivalents consumption before discharge, the rate of discharge opioid prescription was 72% (95% CI, 61%–83%). CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to report discharge opioid prescribing practices in an ERAS setting. Although an ERAS intervention for colorectal surgery led to an increase in opioid-free anesthesia and multimodal analgesia, we did not observe an impact on discharge opioid prescribing practices. The majority of patients were discharged with an opioid prescription, including those with a combination of low discharge pain scores, no preoperative opioid use, and low morphine milligram equivalents consumption before discharge. This observation in the setting of an ERAS pathway that promotes multimodal analgesia suggests that our findings are very likely to also be observed in non-ERAS settings and offers an opportunity to modify opioid prescribing practices on discharge after surgery. For opioid-free anesthesia and multimodal analgesia to influence the opioid epidemic, the dose and quantity of the opioids prescribed should be modified based on the information gathered by in-hospital pain scores and opioid use as well as pain history before admission.

Removable colonic stenting: time to expand the indications?

BACKGROUND: Severe acute refractory colitis has traditionally been an indication for emergent colectomy in IBD, yet under these circumstances patients are at elevated risk for complications because of their heightened inflammatory state, nutritional deficiencies, and immunocompromised state. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that rescue diverting loop ileostomy may be a viable alternative to emergent colectomy, providing the opportunity for colonic healing and patient optimization before more definitive surgery. DESIGN: This was a retrospective case series. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a single academic center. PATIENTS: Patients with severe acute medically refractory IBD-related colitis were included. INTERVENTION: Rescue diverting loop ileostomy was the intervening procedure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was avoidance of urgent/emergent colectomy. The secondary outcome was efficacy, defined by 3 clinical aims: 1) reduced steroid dependence or opportunity for bridge to medical rescue, 2) improved nutritional status, and 3) ability to undergo an elective laparoscopic definitive procedure or ileostomy reversal with colon salvage. RESULTS: Among 33 patients, 14 had Crohn’s disease and 19 had ulcerative colitis. Three patients required urgent/emergent colectomy, 2 with ulcerative colitis and 1 with Crohn’s disease. Across both disease cohorts, >80% of patients achieved each clinical aim for efficacy: 88% reduced their steroid dependence or were able to bridge to medical rescue, 87% improved their nutritional status, and 82% underwent an elective laparoscopic definitive procedure or ileostomy reversal. A total of 4 patients (11.7%) experienced a postoperative complication following diversion, including 3 surgical site infections and 1 episode of acute kidney injury. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by being a single-center, retrospective series. CONCLUSIONS: Rescue diverting loop ileostomy in the setting of severe, refractory IBD–colitis is a safe and effective alternative to emergent colectomy. This procedure has acceptably low complication rates and affords patients time for medical and nutritional optimization before definitive surgical intervention. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A520.