The impact of surgical modality on self-reported body image, quality of life and survivorship after anterior resection for colorectal cancer ­ a mixed methods study

Background: There is growing enthusiasm for robotic and transanal surgery as an alternative to open or laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC). We examined the impact of surgical modality on body image and quality of life (QOL) in patients receiving anterior resection for CRC. Methods: We used a mixed-methods approach, consisting of a chart review and semistructured interviews with CRC patients, at least 8 months after surgery. We assessed cosmetic outcomes and QOL using validated questionnaires. Results: Thirty patients were stratified into open (n = 8), laparoscopic (n = 12) and robotic (n = 10) groups. Mean body image scores were significantly higher (i.e., poorer body image) in patients receiving open surgery (mean difference [MD] +5.7 with laparoscopy, p < 0.001). Open surgery was more detrimental to physical function, including strenuous activities, prolonged ambulation and self-care (MD ­11.6 with laparoscopy, p = 0.039). Patients receiving laparoscopic surgery reported superior role (MD +27.6 with open surgery, p = 0.002) and social function (MD +13.7 with open surgery, p = 0.042), including the ability to enjoy hobbies, family life and social activities. Surgical modality did not impact emotional and cognitive function or symptoms including genitourinary function, pain and defecation. Conclusion: The negative impact of open surgery on body image and physical function warrants further educational interventions for patients. The protective effect of laparoscopy on role and function may be associated with "tumour factors" that are unaccounted for in the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer questionnaires. Open surgery is detrimental to body image and physical function in patients receiving anterior resection for CRC. Prospective randomized studies are required to validate these findings.

Contexte: On observe un intérêt croissant pour la chirurgie transanale robotique comme solution de rechange à la chirurgie ouverte ou laparoscopique dans les cas de cancer colorectal (CCR). Nous avons analysé l'impact de la modalité chirurgicale sur l'image corporelle et la qualité de vie (QdV) chez les patients ayant subi une résection antérieure pour CCR. Méthodes: Nous avons utilisé une approche à méthodologie mixte, composée d'une revue des dossiers et d'entrevues semi-structurées avec des patients atteints de CCR, au moins 8 mois après la chirurgie. Nous avons évalué les résultats cosmétiques et la QdV au moyen de questionnaires validés. Résultats: Trente patients ont été stratifiés en 3 groupes : chirurgie ouverte (n = 8), laparoscopique (n = 12) et robotique (n = 10). Les scores moyens pour l'image corporelle ont été significativement plus élevés (c.-à-d., image corporelle plus négative) chez les patients ayant subi une chirurgie ouverte (différence moyenne [DM] +5,7 avec la laparoscopie, p < 0,001). La chirurgie ouverte a été plus nuisible au fonctionnement physique, y compris aux activités exigeantes, à la déambulation prolongée et à l'autosoin (DM ­11,6 avec la laparoscopie, p = 0,039). Les patients soumis à une chirurgie laparoscopique ont fait état d'un rôle (DM +27,6 avec la chirurgie ouverte, p = 0,002) et d'un fonctionnement social meilleurs (DM +13,7 avec la chirurgie ouverte, p = 0,042), y compris la capacité d'apprécier les loisirs et les activités familiales et sociales. La modalité chirurgicale n'a pas exercé d'impact sur le fonctionnement émotionnel et cognitif ou sur les symptômes, y compris la fonction urogénitale, la douleur et la défécation. Conclusion: L'impact négatif de la chirurgie ouverte sur l'image corporelle et le fonctionnement physique justifie que l'on renseigne plus adéquatement nos patients. L'effet protecteur de la laparoscopie aux plans du rôle et du fonctionnement serait associé à des « facteurs tumoraux ¼ qui n'entrent pas en ligne de compte dans les questionnaires de l'Organisation européenne pour la recherche et le traitement du cancer. La chirurgie ouverte nuit à l'image corporelle et au fonctionnement physique chez les patients qui subissent une résection antérieure pour CCR. Des études prospectives randomisées sont nécessaires pour valider ces résultats.

The effect of a simultaneous versus a staged resection of metastatic colorectal cancer on time to adjuvant chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Patients with colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases may undergo a staged or a simultaneous resection. This study aimed to determine whether the time to adjuvant chemotherapy was delayed in patients undergoing a simultaneous resection. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted between 2005 and 2016. The primary outcome was time to adjuvant chemotherapy. A multivariate linear regression was conducted to ascertain the adjusted effect of a simultaneous versus a staged approach on time to adjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 155 patients were included. A total of 127 patients underwent a staged resection, whereas 28 patients underwent a simultaneous resection. Age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists class as well tumor, node, metastasis stage, tumor location, and number and size of metastases were not significantly different between the groups. The median time to adjuvant chemotherapy was 70 and 63 days for the staged and simultaneous groups, respectively (P = .27). Multivariate analysis did not demonstrate an increased propensity for prolonged time to chemotherapy after simultaneous resection (rate ratio: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.71-1.32, P = .84). There were no significant differences in the length of stay, complications, overall survival, and disease-free survival between the groups (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that simultaneous resection does not result in significant delay of adjuvant chemotherapy compared with a staged approach.

Considering the cost of a simultaneous versus staged approach to resection of colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases in a publicly funded healthcare model.

BACKGROUND: Simultaneous resection for colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases is an established alternative to a staged approach. This study aimed to compare these approaches with regards to economic parameters and short-term outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted between 2005 and 2016. The primary outcome was cost per episode of care. Secondary measures included 30-day clinical outcomes. A multivariate analysis was performed to determine the adjusted effect of a simultaneous surgical approach on total cost of care. RESULTS: Fifty-three cases were identified; 27 in the staged approach, and 26 in the simultaneous group. Age (P = 0.49), sex (P = 0.20), BMI (P = 0.74), and ASA class (P = 0.44) were comparable between groups. Total cost ($20297 vs $27522), OR ($6830 vs $10376), PACU ($675 vs $1182), ward ($7586 vs $11603) and pharmacy costs ($728 vs $1075) were significantly less for the simultaneous group (P < 0.05). The adjusted rate ratio for total cost of care in the staged group compared to simultaneous group was 1.51 (95%CI: 1.16-1.97, P < 0.05). The groups had comparable Clavien-Dindo scores (P = 0.89), 30-day readmissions (P = 0.44), morbidity (P = 0.50) and mortality (P = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that a simultaneous approach is associated with a significantly lower total cost while maintaining comparable short-term outcomes.

Diagnostic utility of staging abdominal computerized tomography and repeat endoscopy in detecting localization errors at initial endoscopy in colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy has a reported localization error rate as high as 21% in detecting colorectal neoplasms. Preoperative repeat endoscopy has been shown to be protective against localization errors. There is a paucity of literature assessing the utility of staging computerized tomography (CT) and repeat endoscopy as diagnostic tools for detecting localization errors following initial endoscopy. The objective of this study is to determine the diagnostic characteristics of staging CT and repeat endoscopy in correcting localization errors at initial endoscopy. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a large tertiary academic center between January 2006 and August 2014. All patients undergoing surgical resection for CRC were identified. Group comparisons were conducted between (1) patients that underwent only staging CT (staging CT group), and (2) patients that underwent staging CT and repeat endoscopy (repeat endoscopy group). The primary outcome was localization error correction rate for errors at initial endoscopy. RESULTS: 594 patients were identified, 196 (33.0%) in the repeat endoscopy group, and 398 (77.0%) patients in the staging CT group. Error rates for each modality were as follows: initial endoscopy 8.8% (95% CI 6.5-11.0), staging CT 9.3% (95% CI 6.5-11.0), and repeat endoscopy 2.6% (95% CI 0.3-4.7); p < 0.01. Repeat endoscopy was superior to staging CT in correcting localization errors for left-sided / rectal lesions (81.2% vs. 33.3%; p < 0.01), right-sided lesions (80.0% vs. 54.5%; p = 0.21), and overall lesions (80.8% vs. 42.3%; p < 0.01). Repeat endoscopy compared to staging CT demonstrated relative risk reduction of 66.7% (95% CI 22-86%), absolute risk reduction of 38.5% (95% CI 14.2-62.8%), and odds ratio of 0.18 (95% CI 0.05-0.61) for correcting errors at initial endoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Repeat endoscopy in colorectal cancer is superior to staging CT as a diagnostic tool for correcting localization-based errors at initial endoscopy.

The safety and feasibility of early discharge following ileostomy reversal: a National Surgical Quality Improvement Program analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare 30-day clinical outcomes following routine ileostomy reversal between patients that underwent early discharge (<24 h) and standard discharge (postoperative day [POD] 2 or 3). METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted between 2005 and 2014 using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data set. All patients undergoing ileostomy reversal who were discharged on POD 0 or 1 (early discharge group [EDG]) versus POD 2 or 3 (standard discharge group [SDG]) were identified. The primary outcome was the 30-day adverse event rate. The secondary outcome was the 30-day readmission rate. A multivariate analysis was performed to determine the adjusted effect of early discharge as well as the predictors of adverse events and readmissions. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 355 and 5805 patients in the EDG and SDG, respectively. There were 19 (5.4%) 30-day adverse events in the EDG and 341 (5.8%) in the SDG. The EDG had 17 (4.8%) 30-day readmissions and the SDG had 294 (5.1%). The adjusted odds ratio for 30-day adverse events in the EDG was 0.95 (P = 0.83), and for 30-day readmissions, it was 1.01 (P = 0.96). Higher BMI, longer operative time, ASA ≥3, chronic steroid use along with a history of bleeding disorder were significant predictors for adverse events and readmissions. CONCLUSIONS: Select patients discharged within 24 h of ileostomy reversal did not have a significantly higher rate of adverse events or readmissions compared to patients discharged on POD 2 or 3 following uncomplicated surgery. Predictors of adverse events and readmissions can guide the selection of patients suitable for early discharge.