The impact of multidisciplinary team decision-making in locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Appropriate patient selection within the context of a multidisciplinary team (MDT) is key to good clinical outcomes. The current evidence base for factors that guide the decision-making process in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) is limited to anatomical factors. METHODS: A registry-based, prospective cohort study was undertaken of patients referred to our specialist MDT between 2015 and 2019. Data were collected on patients and disease characteristics including performance status, Charlson Comorbidity Index, the English Index of Multiple Deprivation quintiles and MDT treatment decision. Curative treatment was defined as neoadjuvant treatment and surgical resection that would achieve a R0 resection, and/or complete treatment of distant metastatic disease. Palliative treatment was defined as non-surgical treatment. RESULTS: In total, 325 patients were identified; 72.7% of patients with LARC and 63.6% of patients with LRRC were offered treatment with curative intent (p = 0.08). Patients with poor performance status (PS > 2; p < 0.001), severe comorbidity (p < 0.001), socio-economic deprivation (p = 0.004), a positive predictive circumferential resection margin (p = 0.005) and metastatic disease (p < 0.001) were associated with palliative treatment. Overall survival in the curative cohort was 49 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 32.4-65.5) compared with 12 months (95% CI 9.1-14.9) in the palliative cohort (p < 0.001). The presence of metastatic disease was identified as a prognostic factor for patients undergoing curative treatment (p = 0.05). The only prognostic factor identified in patients treated palliatively was performance status (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study identifies a number of preoperative, prognostic factors that affect MDT decision-making and overall survival.

Laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery in the acute setting (LaCeS trial): a multicentre randomized feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 30 000 people undergo major emergency abdominal gastrointestinal surgery annually, and 36 per cent of these procedures (around 10 800) are carried out for emergency colorectal pathology. Some 14 per cent of all patients requiring emergency surgery have a laparoscopic procedure. The aims of the LaCeS (laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery in the acute setting) feasibility trial were to assess the feasibility, safety and acceptability of performing a large-scale definitive phase III RCT, with a comparison of emergency laparoscopic versus open surgery for acute colorectal pathology. METHODS: LaCeS was designed as a prospective, multicentre, single-blind, parallel-group, pragmatic feasibility RCT with an integrated qualitative study. Randomization was undertaken centrally, with patients randomized on a 1 : 1 basis between laparoscopic or open surgery. RESULTS: A total of 64 patients were recruited across five centres. The overall mean steady-state recruitment rate was 1·2 patients per month per site. Baseline compliance for clinical and health-related quality-of-life data was 99·8 and 93·8 per cent respectively. The conversion rate from laparoscopic to open surgery was 39 (95 per cent c.i. 23 to 58) per cent. The 30-day postoperative complication rate was 27 (13 to 46) per cent in the laparoscopic arm and 42 (25 to 61) per cent in the open arm. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic emergency colorectal surgery may have an acceptable safety profile. Registration number: ISRCTN15681041 ( http://www.controlled-trials.com).

ANTECEDENTES: Aproximadamente 30.000 personas se someten cada año una operación de cirugía mayor urgente gastrointestinal de las cuales el 36% (~ 10.800) se realizan por patología colorrectal urgente. Aproximadamente el 14% de todos los pacientes que requieren cirugía urgente son operados mediante abordaje laparoscópico. Los objetivos del ensayo de factibilidad LaCeS (Laparoscopic versus Open Colorectal Surgery in the Acute Setting; Cirugía Colorrectal Laparoscópica versus Abierta en Urgencias) fueron evaluar la factibilidad, seguridad y aceptabilidad de realizar un ensayo clínico aleatorizado definitivo a gran escala de fase III comparando la cirugía colorrectal urgente por vía laparoscópica con el abordaje abierto. MÉTODOS: LaCeS se diseñó como un ensayo clínico prospectivo, multicéntrico, simple ciego, de grupos paralelos, pragmático, aleatorizado (factibilidad) con un estudio cualitativo integrado. La asignación al azar se realizó de forma centralizada y los pacientes se asignaron al azar en proporción 1:1 a cirugía laparoscópica o abierta. RESULTADOS: Un total de 64 pacientes fueron reclutados en 5 centros. La tasa media global estable de reclutamiento fue de 1,2 pacientes/mes. El cumplimiento inicial de los datos clínicos y de calidad de vida (HRQoL) fue del 99,8% y del 93,8%, respectivamente. La tasa de conversión de la cirugía laparoscópica a cirugía abierta fue del 39,4% (i.c. del 95%: 22,9% a 57,9%). La tasa de complicaciones postoperatorias a los 30 días fue del 27,3% (i.c. del 95%: 13,3-45,5) para la cirugía laparoscópica y del 41,9% (i.c. del 95%: 24,6-60,9) para la cirugía abierta. CONCLUSIÓN: La cirugía colorrectal urgente por vía laparoscópica puede tener un perfil de seguridad aceptable.

Systematic review of definitions and outcome measures for return of bowel function after gastrointestinal surgery.

Background: Ileus is common after gastrointestinal surgery and has been identified as a research priority. Several issues have limited previous research, including a widely accepted definition and agreed outcome measure. This review is the first stage in the development of a core outcome set for the return of bowel function after gastrointestinal surgery. It aims to characterize the extent of variation in current outcome reporting. Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and the Cochrane Library was performed for 1990-2017. RCTs of adults undergoing gastrointestinal surgery, including at least one reported measure relating to return of bowel function, were eligible. Trial registries were searched across the same period for ongoing and completed (but not published) RCTs. Definitions of ileus and outcome measures describing the return of bowel function were extracted. Results: Of 5670 manuscripts screened, 215 (reporting 217 RCTs) were eligible. Most RCTs involved patients undergoing colorectal surgery (161 of 217, 74·2 per cent). A total of 784 outcomes were identified across all published RCTs, comprising 73 measures (clinical: 63, 86 per cent; radiological: 6, 8 per cent; physiological: 4, 5 per cent). The most commonly reported outcome measure was 'time to first passage of flatus' (140 of 217, 64·5 per cent). The outcomes 'ileus' and 'prolonged ileus' were defined infrequently and variably. Conclusion: Outcome reporting for the return of bowel function after gastrointestinal surgery is variable and not fit for purpose. An agreed core outcome set will improve the consistency, reliability and clinical value of future studies.

Systematic review of health-related quality of life in patients undergoing pelvic exenteration.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration is a radical operative treatment reserved for the management of a number of advanced primary and recurrent pelvic malignancies, including, rectal, gynaecological and urological. The advances in radiological staging, surgical techniques and greater use of chemotherapeutic agents haves translated clinically into improvements in the overall survival of this cohort of patients, irrespective of underlying disease pathology. Consequently, a greater proportion of the surviving population will present to healthcare professionals with a range of physical and psychological issues, therefore the profiling and understanding of the health-related quality of life (HrQoL) is integral to the long term management of this cohort of patients. The aim of this systematic review is to identify HrQoL themes from the current literature relevant to patients undergoing a pelvic exenteration. METHODS: Literature searches were performed in three databases: MEDLINE (1975-November 2015), EMBASE and CINAHL. Each study was evaluated with regards to its design and statistical methodology. Data quality was reviewed in accordance with the Newcastle-Ottowa score and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklist (CAPS) for quantitative and qualitative data accordingly. A narrative synthesis of all identified HrQoL issues was undertaken using the principles of content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 24 studies were identified; 20 quantitative and 4 qualitative with 976 patients assessed in total. HrQoL was assessed as the main primary endpoint in 15 studies. The majority of studies were retrospective. Baseline data prior to the initiation of treatments were available in 6 studies alone. Nine themes were identified across the literature, which included body image, social impact, sexual function, treatment expectations, symptoms, communication, psychological impact, relationships and work and finance. CONCLUSIONS: Pelvic exenteration has a wide ranging impact on patients HrQoL affecting a range of physical and psychological domains.

Development of a conceptual framework of health-related quality of life in locally recurrent rectal cancer.

AIM: The surgical management of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) has become widely accepted to afford cure and improve quality of life in this subset of patients. Thus far, traditional surgical and oncological markers have been used to highlight the success of surgical intervention. The use of patient-reported outcomes, specifically health-related quality of life (HRQoL), is sparse in these patients. This may be in part due to the lack of well-designed, validated instruments. This study identifies HRQoL issues relevant to patients undergoing surgery for LRRC, with the aim of developing a conceptual framework of HRQoL specific to LRRC to enable measurement of patient-reported outcomes in this cohort of patients. METHOD: Qualitative focus groups were undertaken at two institutions to identify relevant HRQoL themes. The principles of thematic content analysis were used to analysis data. NViVo10 was used to analyse data. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients participated in six consecutive focus groups. Two patterns of themes emerged related to HRQoL and healthcare service delivery and utilization. Identified themes related to HRQoL included symptoms, sexual function, psychological impact, role and social functioning and future perspective. Under healthcare service and delivery and utilization the subdomain of disease management, treatment expectations and healthcare professionals were identified. CONCLUSION: This is the first qualitative study undertaken exclusively in patients with LRRC to ascertain relevant HRQoL outcomes. The impact of LRRC on patients is wide-ranging and extends beyond traditional HRQoL outcomes. The study operationalizes the identified outcomes into a conceptual framework, which will provide the basis for the development of a LRRC-specific patient-reported outcome measure.

Systematic review of emergency laparoscopic colorectal resection.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery (LS) has become standard practice for a range of elective general surgical operations. Its role in emergency general surgery is gaining momentum. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of LS compared with open surgery (OS) for colorectal resections in the emergency setting. METHODS: A systematic review was performed of studies reporting outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal resections in the acute or emergency setting in patients aged over 18 years, between January 1966 and January 2013. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were included, providing outcomes for 5557 patients: 932 laparoscopic and 4625 open emergency resections. Median (range) operating time was 184 (63-444) min for LS versus 148 (61-231) min for OS. Median (range) length of stay was 10 (3-23) and 15 (6-33) days in the LS and OS groups respectively. The overall median (range) complication rate was 27.8 (0-33.3) and 48.3 (9-72) per cent respectively. There were insufficient data to detect differences in reoperation and readmission rates. CONCLUSION: Emergency laparoscopic colorectal resection, where technically feasible, has better short-term outcomes than open resection.

Partial anterior sacrectomy with nerve preservation to treat locally advanced rectal cancer.

AIM: Most studies that have reported outcomes after composite abdomino-sacral resection for locally advanced/recurrent rectal cancer have involved resections below the S2/3 disc space. Involvement of the sacrum above this level is uncommon and, until recently, was considered a contraindication to resection. METHOD: We report here a surgical technique to deal with high sacral involvement with an anterior approach and maintenance of sacropelvic stability. RESULTS: The operative findings confirmed a locally perforated rectal cancer with an associated abscess cavity and direct invasion into S2. Given the likelihood that a complete dislocation of the sacrum would cause significant neurological damage and pelvic instability without oncological benefit, we opted for a partial high anterior sacrectomy with nerve preservation. The patient made an uncomplicated recovery without neurological deficit and was able to walk with the aid of crutches from postoperative day 3. CONCLUSION: While a high sacral transection is appropriate for some patients with locally advanced/recurrent rectal cancer, operative decisions and options should be tailored to each individual.

Surgical resection of recurrent colonic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Locoregional recurrence of colonic cancer includes anastomotic recurrence, associated nodal masses, masses that involve the abdominal wall and pelvic masses. The aim of this study was to report the outcome of resection of such recurrences and to provide guidance on the management of this disease. METHODS: Patients were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Data were obtained on demographics, surgical procedure, morbidity, histopathology and outcome. Univariable and multivariable analyses of factors influencing survival were performed using stepwise Cox logistic regression. RESULTS: Forty-two patients (21 men; median age 61 (range 41-82) years) underwent resection of recurrent colonic cancer between 2003 and 2011. The median interval between resection of the primary and recurrent colonic tumour was 37·5 (interquartile range 7-91) months. The recurrences developed at the previous anastomosis (9 patients), elsewhere within the abdominal cavity or wall (8) and as discrete masses within the pelvic cavity (25). Eighteen of 42 patients underwent resection of hepatic or pulmonary metastases at some stage after resection of the primary tumour. Median survival was 29 months after R0 resection and 26 months after R1 resection of the recurrent tumour (P = 0·226). The survival benefit depended on the location of the recurrence (median survival after resection of recurrent disease: anastomotic 33 months, pelvic 26 months, abdominal 19 months; P = 0·010). CONCLUSION: This study described a classification system, management algorithm and prognostic factors for recurrent colonic cancer. The distribution of disease influenced survival. Long-term survival was achieved, including a subset of patients with drop metastases and/or previous metastasectomy.

Surgery for recurrent rectal cancer: higher and wider?

AIM: There has been a steady increase in the number of centres that carry out resection of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). The aim of this review was to highlight the present management and suggest technical strategies that may improve survival and quality of life. METHOD: The review identified relevant studies from an electronic search of MEDLINE and PubMed databases between 1980 and 2011. References in published articles were also reviewed. RESULTS: Surgical intervention offers the best hope to control LRRC but the proportion of patients offered this remains small. Certain contraindications previously considered to be absolute should now be thought of as relative. CONCLUSION: Awareness of the surgical options and a willingness to consider more aggressive options may result in more patients being considered for potentially curative resection.

Outcome of surgical resection of second-time locally recurrent rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Locally recurrent rectal cancer relapses in the pelvis in up to 60 per cent of patients following resection. This study assessed the surgical and oncological outcomes of patients who underwent surgery for re-recurrent rectal cancer. METHODS: Patients who underwent second-time resection of locally recurrent rectal cancer between 2001 and 2010 were eligible for inclusion. Data were collected on demographics, presentation of disease, preoperative staging imaging, adjuvant therapy, operative detail, histopathology and follow-up status (clinical and imaging) for the primary tumour, and first and second recurrences. RESULTS: Thirty patients (of 56 discussed at the multidisciplinary meeting) underwent resection of re-recurrent rectal cancer. Postoperative morbidity occurred in nine patients but none died within 30 days. Negative resection margins (R0) were achieved in ten patients, microscopic margin positivity (R1) was evident in 15 and macroscopic involvement (R2) was found in five. Although no patient had distant metastatic disease, 22 had involvement of the pelvic side wall. One- and 3-year overall survival rates were 77 and 27 per cent respectively, with a median overall survival of 23 (range 3-78) months. An R0 resection conferred a survival benefit (median survival 32 (11-78) months versus 19 (6-33) months after R1 and 7 (3-10) months after R2 resection). CONCLUSION: Surgical resection of re-recurrent rectal cancer had comparable surgical and oncological outcomes to initial recurrences in well selected patients.

Current UK management of locally recurrent rectal cancer.

AIM: The study aimed to determine current UK practice in the management of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). METHOD: An electronic based survey was sent to UK based Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland members to establish current management in this patient group. A total of 188 questionnaires were sent out to consultant surgeons in a total of 105 colorectal units. RESULTS: Seventy-nine consultants from 69 units responded, giving an overall response rate from consultants of 42% and from colorectal units of 66%. In all, 688 patients were managed by multidisciplinary teams in the 12 months prior to the survey. Seventy-four (94% of responders) surgeons had experience of operating on patients with LRRC. Fifty-nine (74.6%) operated on one to three per year and four (5%) operated on more than 10 patients per year. Central and anterior recurrences were most commonly undertaken locally, with most complex recurrences being referred to a tertiary centre. Forty-seven (61%) surgeons worked to an algorithm. CONCLUSION: A small number of specialist units in the UK manage the full spectrum of LRRC but the majority of patients are managed in small volume centres. The survey provides a snapshot of current activity in the UK and may provide a stimulus for discussion about how to expand and improve the care of a technically challenging group of patients.

An unexpected abdominal tumour in an elderly woman.

We report the case of a 73-year-old woman who presented with pain and an abdominal mass and was found to have an abdominal tumour of unexpected origin.

Spigelian hernia and cryptorchidism.

Spigelian hernias are rare anterior abdominal wall hernias. A recent association has been made between paediatric spigelian hernias and cryptorchidism. We report this phenomenon in a 60-year-old adult male.

Pseudomonal breast infection.

Breast infection and breast sepsis secondary to Pseudomonas aeruginosa is uncommon. We report two cases of pseudomonal breast infection leading to septic shock and abscess formation in women with non-responding breast infection. The management of breast infection is broad-spectrum antibiotics and ultrasound with aspiration of any collection. To treat breast infection effectively, the causative organism must be isolated to enable appropriate antibiotic therapy.

Immunoprophylaxis in asplenic patients.

The asplenic patient is at risk of overwhelming post-splenectomy infection (OPSI) due to encapsulated bacteria, namely pneumococcus, haemophilus influenza B and meningococcal C pathogens. The lifetime risk is 1-2% with the estimated mortality being in the region of 40-70% (Davidson RN, Wall RA. Prevention and management of infections in patients without a spleen. Clin Microbiol Infect 2001;7:657-60). Preventative measures include appropriate prophylactic vaccination, long term antibiotics and patient education. Guidelines for the prevention and treatment of infection in patients with an absent or dysfunctional spleen were first published by the British Committee for Standards in Haematology in 1996, with a revised edition published in 2002. There are a number of permutations of these guidelines published by a number of professional bodies and consequently this has led to variable adherence rates to such guidelines. We review the perioperative administration of prophylactic vaccinations.

Damage control surgery.

The principles of trauma surgery have evolved during the past 20 years; from initial aggressive, definitive management of all surgical injuries in the traumatised patient to an abbreviated laparotomy, secondary correction of abnormal physiological parameters and then planned definitive re-exploration; the damage control sequence.