Does Fragmentation of Care in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Increase Patient Mortality?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate health care fragmentation in patients with stage II and III rectal cancers. BACKGROUND: Fragmentation of care among multiple hospitals may worsen outcomes for cancer patients. METHODS: National Cancer Database was queried for adult patients who underwent radiation and surgery for locally advanced (stage II-III) rectal adenocarcinoma from 2006 to 2015. Fragmented care was defined as receiving radiation at a different hospital from surgery. Descriptive statistics characterized patients, and survival probability was plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method and a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: A total of 37,081 patients underwent surgery and radiation for stage II-III rectal cancer from 2006 to 2015 (24,102 integrated care vs. 12,979 fragmented care). Patients who received fragmented care (hazard ratio [HR] 1.105; 95% CI 1.045-1.169) had a higher risk of mortality. Patients who received at least surgery (HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.77-0.92) at academic hospitals had a lower risk of mortality. Academic hospitals had a higher proportion of patients with fragmented care (38.0 vs. comprehensive community 32.8% vs. community 33.8%, p < 0.001). Within academic hospitals, fragmented care portended worse survival (integrated academic 80.0% vs. fragmented academic 76.7%, p = 0.0002). Fragmented care at academic hospitals had increased survival over integrated care at community hospitals (fragmented academic 76.7 vs. integrated community 72.2%, p = 0.00039). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stage II-III rectal cancer, patients who have integrated care at academic hospitals or at least surgery at academic centers had better survival. All efforts should be made to reduce care fragmentation and surgery at academic centers should be prioritized.

Comparison of survival of stage I-III colon cancer by travel distance and hospital volume.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated improved outcomes at high-volume colorectal surgery centers; however, the benefit for patients who live far from such centers has not been assessed relative to local, low-volume facilities. METHODS: The 2010-2015 National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for patients with stage I-III colon adenocarcinoma undergoing treatment at a single center. A 'local, low-volume' cohort was constructed of 12,768 patients in the bottom quartile of travel distance at the bottom quartile of institution surgical volume and a 'travel, high-volume' cohort of 11,349 patients in the top quartile of travel distance at the top quartile of institution surgical volume. RESULTS: In unadjusted analysis, patients in the travel cohort had improved rates of positive resection margins (3.7% vs. 5.5%, p < 0.001), adequate lymph-node harvests (92% vs. 83.6%, p < 0.001), and 30- (2.2% vs. 3.9%, p < 0.001) and 90-day mortality (3.7% vs. 6.4%, p < 0.001). On multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusting for patient demographic, tumor, and facility characteristics, the cohorts demonstrated equivalent overall survival (HR: 0.972, p = 0.39), with improved secondary outcomes in the 'travel' cohort of adequate lymph-node harvesting (OR: 0.57, p < 0.001), and 30- (OR 0.79, p = 0.019) and 90-day mortality (OR 0.80, p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with stage I-III colon cancer, traveling to high-volume institutions compared to local, low-volume centers does not convey an overall survival benefit. However, given advantages including 30- and 90-day mortality and adequate lymph-node harvest, nuanced patient recommendations should consider both these differences and the unquantified benefits to local care, including cost, travel time, and support systems.

The side of the primary tumor affects overall survival in colon adenocarcinoma: an analysis of the national cancer database.

BACKGROUND: Due to conflicting study results on the effect of laterality on overall survival in primary colon cancers, we sought to examine the impact of left compared to right-sided primary tumors on overall survival for stage I-III colon cancer using the largest dataset to date. METHODS: The 2006-2013 NCDB was queried for patients with single primary, stage I-III colon adenocarcinoma and grouped by stage and tumor location. RESULTS: For stage I-II tumors, 114,839 patients had resection (62% right:38% left). After adjustment, patients with right-sided tumors had superior survival ([HR right as reference]: 1.13, 95% CI 1.09-1.17, p < 0.001). For stage III tumors, 71,024 patients had resection, (59% right:41% left). After adjustment, patients with left-sided tumors had superior survival with chemotherapy (HR 0.85, p < 0.001) and no difference in survival without chemotherapy (HR 0.97, p = 0.18). CONCLUSIONS: The side of the primary tumor impacts overall survival across stages for colon adenocarcinoma. Patients with right-sided tumors have superior survival for stage I-II disease while patients with left-sided stage III disease demonstrate a survival advantage, suggesting an opportunity for investigators to use sidedness as a surrogate for prognosis and chemoresponsiveness.

Disparities in colostomy reversal after Hartmann's procedure for diverticulitis.

BACKGROUND: Hartmann's procedure for diverticulitis is a common procedure, with highly variable rates and timing of colostomy reversal. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of race and insurance coverage on reversal within 2 years of Hartmann's procedure for diverticulitis. METHODS: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) State Inpatient Database of five states (2007-2010) was queried for patients who had Hartmann's procedure in the setting of diverticulitis. Patients were grouped by race and insurance status, and multivariable adjustment was performed to evaluate rate and timing of colostomy takedown at 2 years. RESULTS: Among 11,019 patients who had Hartmann's procedure for diverticulitis, 6900 (69%) patients had colostomy reversal by 2 years, with a median time to reversal of 19 weeks. Compared to white patients with private insurance, combinations of black race and non-private insurance significantly reduced likelihood of colostomy reversal at 2 years across all combinations. Black patients without insurance had the lowest likelihood of reversal at 2 years (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.14-0.51, p < 0.001). For patients who had colostomy reversal within 2 years, black patients without insurance had a significant delay in time to reversal (11 weeks, 95% CI 6-16, p < 0.001) compared to white patients with private insurance, and delays persisted across all other groups. CONCLUSIONS: Black patients and those without private insurance experienced significantly lower rates of, and delayed time to, colostomy reversal compared to white patients with private insurance. These disparities must be considered for allocation of resources in marginalized communities.

With widespread adoption of MIS colectomy for colon cancer, does hospital type matter?

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown that hospital type impacts patient outcomes, but no studies have examined hospital differences in outcomes for patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for segmental colectomies. METHODS: The 2010-2014 National Cancer Data Base was queried for patients undergoing segmental colectomy for non-metastatic colon adenocarcinoma. Descriptive statistics characterized MIS utilization by hospital type. Multivariable models were used to examine the effect of hospital type on outcomes after MIS. Survival probability was plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: 80,922 patients underwent MIS segmental colectomy for colon cancer from 2010 to 2014. From 2010 to 2014, the number of MIS segmental colectomies increased by 157% at academic hospitals, 151% at comprehensive hospitals, and 153% at community hospitals. Compared to academic hospitals, community and comprehensive hospitals had greater adjusted odds of positive margins (Community OR 1.525, 95% Confidence Interval 1.233-1.885; Comprehensive OR 1.216, 95% CI 1.041-1.42), incomplete number of lymph nodes analyzed (< 12 LNs) from surgery (Community OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.98-2.32; Comprehensive OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.34-1.51), and greater 30-day mortality (Community OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.14-1.78; Comprehensive OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.17-1.59). Patient survival probability was higher at academic hospitals at 5 years (Academic 69% vs. Comprehensive 66% vs. Community 63%, p < 0.001). Community hospitals and comprehensive hospitals had significantly higher risk of adjusted long-term mortality (Community HR 1.28; 95% CI 1.19-1.37; p < 0.001; Comprehensive HR 1.14; 95% CI 1.09-1.20; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite widespread use of laparoscopic oncologic surgery, short- and long-term outcomes from MIS for segmental colectomy are superior at academic hospitals. This difference may be due to superior perioperative oncologic technique and surgical outcomes at academic hospitals. Our data provide important information for patients, referring physicians, and surgeons about the significance of hospital type in management of colon cancer.

Association between neoadjuvant chemoradiation and survival for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

AIM: To examine the overall survival differences for the following neoadjuvant therapy modalities - no therapy, chemotherapy alone, radiation alone and chemoradiation - in a large cohort of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. METHOD: Adults with clinical Stage II and III rectal adenocarcinoma were selected from the National Cancer Database and grouped by type of neoadjuvant therapy received: no therapy, chemotherapy only, radiotherapy only or chemoradiation. Multivariable regression methods were used to compare adjusted differences in perioperative outcomes and overall survival. RESULTS: Among 32 978 patients included, 9714 (29.5%) received no neoadjuvant therapy, 890 (2.7%) chemotherapy only, 1170 (3.5%) radiotherapy only and 21 204 (64.3%) chemoradiation. Compared with no therapy, chemotherapy or radiotherapy alone were not associated with any adjusted differences in surgical margin positivity, permanent colostomy rate or overall survival (all P > 0.05). With adjustment, neoadjuvant chemoradiation vs no therapy was associated with a lower likelihood of surgical margin positivity (OR 0.74, P < 0.001), decreased rate of permanent colostomy (OR 0.77, P < 0.001) and overall survival [hazard ratio (HR) 0.79, P < 0.001]. When compared with chemotherapy or radiotherapy alone, chemoradiation remained associated with improved overall survival (vs chemotherapy alone HR 0.83, P = 0.04; vs radiotherapy alone HR 0.83, P < 0.019). CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation, not chemotherapy or radiotherapy alone, is important for sphincter preservation, R0 resection and survival for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Despite this finding, one-third of patients in the United States with locally advanced rectal cancer fail to receive stage-appropriate chemoradiation.

A simple scoring system for risk-stratifying rectal cancer patients prior to radical resection.

BACKGROUND: Various predictors of perioperative risk for patients with rectal cancer undergoing radical resection have been well described, but no simple scoring system for surgeons to estimate this risk currently exists. The objective of this study was to develop a system for more accurate preoperative evaluations of competing risks and more informed shared decision-making with patients diagnosed with rectal cancer. METHODS: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program-Participant Use Data File for 2005-2011 was used to retrospectively identify patients undergoing radical resection for rectal cancer. A forward-stepwise multivariable logistic regression model was used to create a dynamic scoring system to preoperatively estimate a patient's risk of major complications. RESULTS: A total of 6,847 patients met study inclusion criteria. Thirteen risk factors were identified, and using these predictive variables, a scoring system was derived to stratify major complication risk after radical resection. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of a major complication after radical resection for rectal cancer is dependent on multiple preoperative variables. This study provides surgeons with a simple but effective tool for estimating major complication risk in rectal cancer patients prior to radical resection. This risk-stratification score serves as a patient-centered resource for discussing perioperative risks and assisting with the shared decision-making of operative planning.

Intraoperative pelvic brachytherapy for treatment of locally advanced or recurrent colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and morbidity of intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) for advanced colorectal cancer. METHODS: All patients undergoing IORT for locally advanced rectal cancer from 2001-2009 were reviewed for cancer recurrence, survival, and procedure-related morbidity. Cumulative event rates were estimated using the method of Kaplan and Meier. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients with locally advanced (n = 8) or recurrent (n = 21) rectal cancers were treated with IORT and resection. Surgical interventions included low anterior resection, abdominoperineal resection, pelvic exenteration, and a variety of non-anatomic resections of pelvic recurrences. R(0) resections were achieved in 16 patients, while R(1) resections were achieved in 10, and margins were grossly positive in 3 patients. IORT was delivered to all patients over a median area of 48 (42-72) cm(2) at a median dose of 12 (12-15) Gy. Local and overall recurrence rates were 24 % (locally advanced group) and 45 % (recurrent group). Median disease-free and overall survival were 25 and 40 months respectively at a median follow-up of 26 (18-42) months. The short-term (≤30 days) complication rate was 45 %. Eight patients developed local wound complications, 5 of which required operative intervention. Four patients developed intra-abdominal abscesses requiring drainage. Long-term (>30 days) complications were identified in 11 patients (38 %) and included long-term wound complications (n = 3), ureteral obstruction requiring stenting (n = 1), neurogenic bladder (n = 3), enteric fistulae (n = 2), small bowel obstruction (n = 1), and neuropathic pain (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative brachytherapy is a viable IORT option during pelvic surgery for locally advanced or recurrent colorectal cancer but is associated with high postoperative morbidity. Whether intraoperative brachytherapy can improve local recurrence rates for locally advanced or recurrent colorectal cancer will require further prospective investigation.

Minimally invasive surgery for diverticulitis.

The realm of minimally invasive surgery now encompasses the majority of abdominal operations in the field of colorectal surgery. Diverticulitis, a common pathology seen in most colorectal practices, poses unique challenges to surgeons implementing laparoscopic surgery in their practices due to the presence of an inflammatory phlegmon and distorted anatomical planes, which increase the difficulty of the operation. Although the majority of colon resections for diverticulitis are still performed through a standard laparotomy incision, laparoscopic techniques are becoming increasingly common. A large body of literature now supports laparoscopic surgery to be safe and effective as well as to provide significant advantages over open surgery for diverticular disease. Here, we review the most current literature supporting laparoscopic surgery for elective and emergent treatment of diverticulitis.

Perioperative morbidity and mortality in combined vs. staged approaches to carotid and coronary revascularization.

Between 1986 and 1994 we identified 57 patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) during the same hospitalization. Simultaneous CABG and CEA was performed in 28 patients (mean age 70.5 years, 58% male). Indications for CABG in these patients were myocardial infarction in two crescendo angina in 19, congestive heart failure in two and left main or triple-vessel coronary artery disease noted during carotid preoperative evaluation in five. Indications for CEA were transient ischemic attack (TIA) in 12, crescendo TIA in six, cerebrovascular accident (CVA) in five, and asymptomatic stenosis in five. There were no postoperative myocardial infarctions or perioperative deaths. Two patients developed atrial fibrillation, and four patients had CVAs (two were ipsilateral to the side of CEA). Twenty-nine patients underwent staged procedures (i.e., not performed concomitantly but during the same hospitalization). Indications for CABG and CEA were comparable to those in the group undergoing simultaneous procedures. In 17 patients CEA was performed before CABG. There was a single CVA, the result of an intracerebral hemorrhage. Five of the 17 patients had a myocardial infarction and two died; one patient had first-degree heart block requiring a pacemaker. Four additional patients developed atrial fibrillation, one of whom required cardioversion. The remaining 12 patients had CABG followed by CEA. There were no CVAs, myocardial infarctions, arrhythmias, or deaths in this subgroup. These data demonstrate that the performance of simultaneous CABG and CEA procedures is associated with increased neurologic morbidity (14.3%), both ipsilateral and contralateral to the side of carotid surgery in contrast to staged CABG and CEA (3.4%). In addition, when staged carotid surgery preceded coronary revascularization in those with severe coronary artery disease, the combined cardiac complication and mortality rate was significantly higher than when coronary revascularization preceded CEA. This evidence suggests that when CABG and CEA must be performed during the same hospitalization, the procedures should be staged with CABG preceding CEA.