Laparoscopic conversion in colorectal cancer surgery; is there any improvement over time at a population level?

Conversion of laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection has been associated with worse outcome, but this might have been related to a learning curve effect. This study aimed to evaluate incidence, predictive factors and outcomes of laparoscopic conversion after the implementation phase of laparoscopic surgery at a population level. Patients undergoing elective resection of non-locally advanced, non-metastatic colorectal cancer between 2011 and 2015 were included. Data were extracted from the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit. Patients were grouped as laparoscopic completed (LR), laparoscopic converted (CONV) with further specification of timing (within or after 30 min) as registered in the DSCA, and open resection (OR). Uni- and multi-variate analyses were used to determine predictors of conversion and outcome (complicated course and mortality), with evaluation of trends over time. A total of 23,044 patients with colon cancer and 11,324 with rectal cancer were included. Between 2011 and 2015, use of laparoscopy increased from 55 to 84% in colon cancer, and from 49 to 89% in rectal cancer. Conversion rates decreased from 11.8 to 8.6% and from 13 to 8.0%, respectively. Laparoscopic hospital volume was independently associated with conversion rate. Only for colon cancer, the rate of complicated course was significantly higher after CONV compared to OR (adjusted odds ratio 1.486; 95% CI 1.298-1.702), and significantly higher after late (> 30 min) compared to early conversion (adjusted odds ratio 1.341; 1.046-1.719). There was no impact of CONV on mortality in both colon and rectal cancer. The use of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery increased to more than 80% at a national level, accompanied by a decrease in conversion which is significantly related to the laparoscopic hospital volume. Conversion was only associated with complicated course in colon cancer, especially when the reason for conversion consisted of an intra-operative complication, without affecting mortalit

The rectosigmoid problem

The lack of consensus over the transition point for the end of the sigmoid and beginning of the rectum is a problem for the colorectal multidisciplinary team. In this review, we survey the wide number of landmarks for the rectosigmoid junction, and describe the theoretical and evidence-based strengths and weaknesses of each one. Without a reliable definition of the rectum, sigmoid and rectal cancers will be classified inconsistently. As the treatment strategies for sigmoid and rectal cancers are radically different, incorrect tumour localisation has a substantial impact on patient management, leading to under or over treatment. Inconsistent classification will confound investigation of metastatic patterns and treatment outcomes. Now that the rectosigmoid junction has been recognised as a distinct segment of colon by the International Classification of Diseases, further heterogeneity in management and outcomes could result to the detriment of patients and research. We describe a bespoke, anatomical and reliable landmark for the rectosigmoid junction; the sigmoid take-off

Postoperative Outcomes of Screen-Detected vs Non-Screen-Detected Colorectal Cancer in the Netherlands

Importance: The nationwide fecal immunochemical test-based screening program has influenced surgical care for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) in the Netherlands, although these implications have not been studied in much detail so far. Objective: To compare surgical outcomes of patients diagnosed as having CRC through the fecal immunochemical test-based screening program (screen detected) and patients with non-screen-detected CRC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a population-based comparative cohort study using the Dutch ColoRectal Audit and analyzed all Dutch hospitals performing CRC resections. Patients who underwent elective resection for CRC between January 2011 to December 2016 were included. Interventions: Colorectal cancer surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: Postoperative nonsurgical complications, postoperative surgical complications, postoperative 30-day or in-hospital mortality, and complicated course (postoperative complication resulting in a hospital stay >14 days and/or a reintervention and/or mortality). A risk-stratified comparison was made for different postoperative outcomes based on screening status (screen detected vs not screen detected), cancer stage (I-IV), and for cancer stage I to III also on age (aged ≤70 years and >70 years) and American Society of Anesthesiologists score (I-II and III-IV). To determine any residual case-mix-corrected differences in outcomes between patients with screen-detected and non-screen-detected cancer, univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed. Results: In total, 36242 patients with colon cancer and 17416 patients with rectal cancer were included for analysis. Compared with patients with non-screen-detected CRC, screen-detected patients were younger (mean [SD] age, 68 [5] vs 70 [11] years), more often men (3777 [60%] vs 13506 [57%]), and had lower American Society of Anesthesiologists score (American Society of Anesthesiologists score III+: 838 [13%] vs 5529 [23%]). Patients with stage I to III colon cancer who were screen detected had a significantly lower mortality and complicated course rate compared with non-screen-detected patients. For patients with rectal cancer, only a significant difference was found in mortality rate in patients with a cancer stage IV disease, which was higher in the screen-detected group. Compared with non-screen-detected colon cancer, an independent association was found for screen-detected colon cancer on nonsurgical complications (adjusted odds ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.73-0.91), surgical complications (adjusted odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.72-0.89), and complicated course (adjusted odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.90). Screen-detected rectal cancer had significantly higher odds on mortality. Conclusions and Relevance: Postoperative outcomes were significantly better for patients with colon cancer referred through the fecal immunochemical test-based screening program compared with non-screen-detected patients. These differences were not found in patients with rectal cancer. The outcomes of patients with screen-detected colon cancer were still better after an extensive case-mix correction, implying additional underlying factors favoring patients referred for surgery through the screening program

Outcomes of surgical resections for benign colon polyps: A systematic review

Background Not all benign colonic polyps are suitable for endoscopic resection, although criteria for endoscopic non-resectability vary worldwide. Clinical decision-making largely depends on endoscopic treatment options, as well as postoperative risks after surgical resection. This systematic review aimed to determine postoperative outcomes and the characteristics of surgically resected benign colonic polyps. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies investigating the outcomes of surgical resection for benign colonic polyps since 1980. Studies were considered eligible when at least one postoperative outcome (morbidity and/or mortality) was reported. Meta-analyses were conducted for the primary outcome measures (morbidity and mortality) for studies that included patients only after the year 2000. Results Of the 4210 studies retrieved, 26 studies describing 139 897 patients were included. The most common indications for surgical resection were polyp location in the right-sided colon, non-pedunculated morphology, and large polyp size. The pooled 1-month complication and mortality rates of studies that included patients after the year 2000 were 24 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 15 % - 36 %) and 0.7 % (95 %CI 0.6 % - 0.8 %), respectively. Conclusion The postoperative morbidity and mortality after colonic resection for benign polyps are substantial. Referral to an advanced interventional endoscopist should be considered before referral for surgery to evaluate the possibilities for endoscopic treatment of large, non-pedunculated, and/or colonic polyps in difficult locations without suspicion of submucosal malignant invasion

Dutch Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Audit: automated extraction of colonoscopy data for quality assessment and improvement

Background and Aims: The importance of having quality assessment, assurance, and improvement tools in health care is increasingly recognized. However, the additional associated administration burden progressively interferes with the structural implementation and adoption of such tools, especially when it concerns high-volume procedures such as colonoscopies. The development of the Dutch Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Audit (DGEA), a registry with automated extraction of colonoscopy quality data, and its first results are described. Methods: In close cooperation with commercial endoscopy reporting systems and a national histopathology database, healthcare professionals performing colonoscopies initiated a quality registry that extracts data from its core hospital resource or histology database without manual interference of the healthcare providers. Data extracted consisted of patient age, gender, indication of the colonoscopy, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, Boston Bowel Preparation Score, and cecal intubation; for the colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test in the colorectal cancer screening program, other data were polyp detection rate, which was available for all 48 hospitals or endoscopy centers, and adenoma detection rate, which was available for 26 hospitals or endoscopy centers. Results: Between January 1, 2016 and March 31, 2019, 48 hospitals or endoscopy centers voluntarily participated in the DGEA, and 275,017 unique patients with 313,511 colonoscopies were registered. Overall missing values were limited to <1%. Conclusions: The results of this study demonstrate that it is feasible to deploy a quality registry collecting uniform data without additional administration burden for healthcare professionals

Nationwide analysis of hospital variation in preoperative radiotherapy use for rectal cancer following guideline revision

Introduction: The revised Dutch colorectal cancer guideline (2014), led to an overall decrease in preoperative radiotherapy (RT) use. This study evaluates hospital variation in RT use for resectable rectal cancer and the influence of guideline revision, including the nationwide impact of changing RT application on short term outcomes. Methods: Data of surgically resected rectal cancer patients registered in the Dutch ColoRectal Audit were extracted between 2011 and 2017. Patients were divided into groups based on time of guideline revision (<2014 and ≥ 2014). Primary outcome was guideline adherence at hospital level regarding RT application, stratified for three stage groups. Secondary outcomes included positive circumferential resection (CRM+) and 30-day complicated postoperative course. Results: The groups consisted of 7364 and 12,057 patients, respectively. In total, 6772 patients did not receive RT (17.6% (<2014) vs. 45.7% (≥2014), p < 0.001). The largest increase of surgery alone was observed for cT1-2N0 stage rectal cancer (35.1% vs. 91.8%, p < 0.001), with a substantial decrease in hospital variation (IQR 22.2–50.0% vs. IQR 87.6–98.0%). For cT1-3N1MRF- stage rectal cancer, a substantial amount of hospital variation in short course RT remained after guideline revision (IQR 26.8–54.1% vs. IQR 26.2–50.0%). A significant decrease in CRM+ (5.8% vs. 4.2%, p < 0.001) and complicated course (22.5% vs. 18.5%, p < 0.001) was observed. Conclusions: Radiotherapy for early-stage rectal cancer was uniformly abandoned after guideline revision, while substantial hospital variation remained for intermediate risk resectable rectal cancer in the Netherlands. The substantial nationwide decrease in the use of RT for rectal cancer treatment did not negatively impact CRM involvement

Risk factors for adverse outcomes during mechanical ventilation of 1152 COVID-19 patients: a multicenter machine learning study with highly granular data from the Dutch Data Warehouse

Background: The identification of risk factors for adverse outcomes and prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) stay in COVID-19 patients is essential for prognostication, determining treatment intensity, and resource allocation. Previous studies have determined risk factors on admission only, and included a limited number of predictors. Therefore, using data from the highly granular and multicenter Dutch Data Warehouse, we developed machine learning models to identify risk factors for ICU mortality, ventilator-free days and ICU-free days during the course of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in COVID-19 patients. Methods: The DDW is a growing electronic health record database of critically ill COVID-19 patients in the Netherlands. All adult ICU patients on IMV were eligible for inclusion. Transfers, patients admitted for less than 24 h, and patients still admitted at time of data extraction were excluded. Predictors were selected based on the literature, and included medication dosage and fluid balance. Multiple algorithms were trained and validated on up to three sets of observations per patient on day 1, 7, and 14 using fivefold nested cross-validation, keeping observations from an individual patient in the same split. Results: A total of 1152 patients were included in the model. XGBoost models performed best for all outcomes and were used to calculate predictor importance. Using Shapley additive explanations (SHAP), age was the most important demographic risk factor for the outcomes upon start of IMV and throughout its course. The relative probability of death across age values is visualized in Partial Dependence Plots (PDPs), with an increase starting at 54 years. Besides age, acidaemia, low P/F-ratios and high driving pressures demonstrated a higher probability of death. The PDP for driving pressure showed a relative probability increase starting at 12 cmH2O. Conclusion: Age is the most important demographic risk factor of ICU mortality, ICU-free days and ventilator-free days throughout the course of invasive mechanical ventilation in critically ill COVID-19 patients. pH, P/F ratio, and driving pressure should be monitored closely over the course of mechanical ventilation as risk factors predictive of these outcomes