Safe discharge for patients admitted for lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGITB): derivation and validation of a novel scoring system.

AIM: Bleeding from the lower gastrointestinal tract (LGITB) is a common clinical presentation. Recent guidelines have recommended for incorporation of clinical risk assessment tools in the management for LGITB. We derived and validated a novel clinical scoring system to predict safe discharge after LGITB admission, and compared it to other published scoring systems in current literature. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of 798 patients with LGITB from August 2018 to March 2021 was included in the derivation cohort. Multivariate binary logistic regression was performed to identify significant clinical variables predictive of safe discharge. A clinical scoring system was developed based on the results, and validated on a prospective cohort of 312 consecutive patients with LGITB from April 2021 to March 2022. The performance of the novel scoring system was compared to other LGITB clinical risk assessment scores via area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) analysis. RESULTS: Variables predictive of safe discharge included the following; absence of previous LGITB admission, absence of ischemic heart disease, absence of blood on digital rectal examination, absence of dizziness or syncope at presentation and the systolic blood pressure and haemoglobin levels at presentation. The novel score had an AUROC of 0.907. A cut-off point of 4 provided a sensitivity of 41.9%, specificity of 97.5%, positive predictive value of 96.4% and negative predictive value of 51.5% for prediction of safe discharge. The score performs comparably to the Oakland score. CONCLUSION: The novel LGITB clinical risk score has good predictive performance for safe discharge in patients admitted for LGITB.

Clinical outcomes and cost comparison of laparoscopic versus open surgery in elderly colorectal cancer patients over 80 years.

PURPOSE: The growth of Singapore's geriatric population, coupled with the rise in colorectal cancer (CRC), has increased the number of colorectal surgeries performed on elderly patients. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and costs of laparoscopic versus open elective colorectal resections in elderly CRC patients over 80 years. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgery Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) identified patients over 80 years undergoing elective colectomy and proctectomy between 2018 and 2021. Patient demographics, length of stay (LOS), 30-day postoperative complications, and mortality rates were analysed. Cost data in Singapore dollars were obtained from the finance database. Univariate and multivariate regression models were used to determine cost drivers. The 5-year overall survival (OS) for the entire octogenarian CRC cohort with and without postoperative complications was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: Of the 192 octogenarian CRC patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery between 2018 and 2021, 114 underwent laparoscopic resection (59.4%), while 78 underwent open surgery (40.6%). The proportion of proctectomy cases was similar between laparoscopic and open groups (24.6% vs. 23.1%, P = 0.949). Baseline characteristics, including Charlson Comorbidity Index, albumin level, and tumour staging, were comparable between both groups. Median operative duration was 52.5 min longer in the laparoscopic group (232.5 vs. 180.0 min, P < 0.001). Both groups had no significant differences in postoperative complications and 30-day and 1-year mortality rates. Median LOS was 6 days in the laparoscopic group compared to 9 days in the open group (P < 0.001). The mean total cost was 11.7% lower in the laparoscopic group (S$25,583.44 vs. S$28,970.85, P = 0.012). Proctectomy (P = 0.024), postoperative pneumonia (P < 0.001) and urinary tract infection (P < 0.001), and prolonged LOS > 6 days (P < 0.001) were factors contributing to increased costs in the entire cohort. The 5-year OS of octogenarians with minor or major postoperative complications was significantly lower than those without complications (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic resection is associated with significantly reduced overall hospitalization costs and decreased LOS compared to open resection among octogenarian CRC patients, with comparable postoperative outcomes and 30-day and 1-year mortality rates. The extended operative time and higher consumables costs from laparoscopic resection were mitigated by the decrease in other inpatient hospitalization costs, including ward accommodation, daily treatment fees, investigation costs, and rehabilitation expenditures. Comprehensive perioperative care and optimised surgical approach to mitigate the impact of postoperative complications can improve survival in elderly patients undergoing CRC resection.

Short- and long-term outcomes after minimally invasive versus open spleen-saving distal pancreatectomies.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent minimally invasive spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (MI-SPDP) versus open surgery SPDP (O-SPDP). It also aimed to determine the long-term vascular patency after spleen-saving vessel-preserving distal pancreatectomies (SSVDPs). METHODS: A retrospective review of 74 patients who underwent successful SPDP and met the study criteria was performed. Of these, 67 (90.5%) patients underwent SSVDP, of which 38 patients (21 open, 17 MIS) had adequate long-term post-operative follow-up imaging to determine vascular patency. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients underwent open SPDP, whereas 23 patients underwent minimally invasive SPDP, out of which 10 (43.5%) were laparoscopic and 13 (56.5%) were robotic. Patients who underwent MI-SPDP had significantly longer operative time (307.5 vs. 162.5 min, P = 0.001) but shorter hospital stay (5 vs. 7 days, P = 0.021) and lower median blood loss (100 vs. 200 cc, P = 0.046) compared to that of O-SPDP. Minimally-invasive spleen-saving vessel-preserving distal pancreatectomy (MI-SSVDP) was associated with poorer long-term splenic vein patency rates compared to O-SSVDP (P = 0.048). This was particularly with respect to partial occlusion of the splenic vein, and there was no significant difference between the complete splenic vein occlusion rates between the MIS group and open group (29.4% vs. 28.6%, P = 0.954). The operative time was statistically significantly longer in patients who underwent robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery (330 vs. 173 min, P = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Adoption of MI-spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) is safe and feasible. MI-SPDP is associated with a shorter hospital stay, lower blood loss but longer operation time compared to O-SPDP. In the present study, MI-SSVDP was associated with poorer long-term splenic vein patency rates compared to O-SSVDP.

Actual 10-year survivors and 10-year recurrence free survivors after primary liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in the 21st century: A single institution contemporary experience.

BACKGROUND: At present, the majority of outcome studies of survival of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) post-liver resection (post-LR) present actuarial survival data, which often results in overestimation of survival. We sought to evaluate the actual 10-year survival post-LR for HCC and identify variables that are associated with long-term survival. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 600 consecutive patients who underwent primary LR for HCC from 2000 to 2010 at our institution. Twenty-eight patients (4.7%) with 90-day mortality and 125 patients who were lost to follow-up within 10 years were excluded leaving 447 patients who met the study criteria. RESULTS: There were 140 actual 10-year survivors of which 57 (40.7%) had a recurrence within 10 years. The actual 10-year overall survival (OS) rate of the 447 patients was 31.5% and the actual 10-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) was 18.6%. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that only age >65 years (OR, 0.29; p < .001) (OR, 0.973; p = .041) and presence of cirrhosis (OR. 0.37; p = .005) (OR, 0.31; p = .001) were independent factors negatively associated with actual 10-year OS and actual 10-year RFS, respectively. CONCLUSION: Approximately one-third of patients will survive over 10 years after LR for HCC. Amongst these 10-year survivors, 41% had developed recurrent cancer within 10-years of follow-up.

Primary pulmonary lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma in Singapore.

BACKGROUND: Primary pulmonary lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma (PPLELC) is a rare subtype of nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) predominantly reported in East Asia. We aimed to evaluate clinical characteristics, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of PPLELC in Singapore. METHODS: Retrospective review of all patients diagnosed with PPLELC at our center between 2000 and 2014. RESULTS: All 28 patients were Chinese, 67.9% were female, and the median age was 58 years (range37-76 years). Majority (89.3%) were never smokers and 53.6% asymptomatic at diagnosis. About 28.6% presented with Stage I/II disease, 25% had Stage III disease, and 46.4% had Stage IV disease. All patients with Stage I/II disease underwent lobectomy without adjuvant treatment. Four out of 7 patients with Stage III disease underwent surgery with or without adjuvant therapy while the rest received chemoradiation. Twelve out of 13 patients with Stage IV disease received chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy. At the end of 2016, survival data were available for all 28 patients. Two-year survival rates for Stage I/II, Stage III, and Stage IV disease were 100%, 85.7%, and 61.5%, respectively, while survival was 100%, 85.7%, and 9.6%, respectively, at five years. CONCLUSION: The majority (46.4%) of patients presented with metastatic disease. For those with Stage I-III disease, 5-year survival for PPLELC was better than other NSCLC subtypes. Multimodality treatment including surgery could be considered in locally advanced disease. In Stage IV disease, it tended to approximate that of NSCLC.

A Novel Derivation Predicting Survival After Primary Tumor Resection in Stage IV Colorectal Cancer: Validation of a Prognostic Scoring Model and an Online Calculator to Provide Individualized Survival Estimation.

BACKGROUND: A prognostic scoring model has been devised previously to predict survival following primary tumor resection in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and unresectable metastases. This has yet to be validated. OBJECTIVE: The main objectives of this study are to validate the proposed prognostic scoring model and create an interactive online calculator to estimate an individual's survival after primary tumor resection. DESIGN: Clinical data and survival outcomes of patients were extracted from a prospectively maintained database. Patients were categorized into good, moderate, or poor survivor groups based on the previously proposed scoring algorithm. Discrimination was assessed and recalibration was performed, with the recalibrated model implemented as an interactive Web application to provide individualized survival probability. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: The study included 324 consecutive patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma and unresectable metastases who underwent primary tumor resection between January 2008 and December 2013. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measured was overall survival. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-four patients were included in the study. Median survival in the good, moderate, and poor prognostic groups was 56.8, 25.7, and 19.9 months (log rank test, p = 0.003). The κ statistic was 0.638 and RD was 0.101. Significant differences in survival were found between the moderate and good prognostic groups (HR, 2.79; 95% CI, 1.51-5.15; p = 0.001) and between poor and good prognostic groups (HR, 4.12; 95% CI, 1.98-8.55; p < 0.001). The model was implemented as an interactive online calculator to provide individualized survival estimation after primary tumor resection (http://bit.ly/Stage4PrognosticScore). LIMITATIONS: Selection bias and single-center data preclude the generalizability of the proposed model. Information regarding the severity or likelihood of developing symptoms from the primary tumor were also not accounted for in the prognostic scoring model proposed. CONCLUSIONS: The prognostic scoring model provides good prognostic stratification of survival after primary tumor resection and may be a useful tool to predict survival after primary tumor resection. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A330.