Changes in rectal cancer treatment after the introduction of a national screening program: Increasing use of less invasive strategies within a national cohort

Aim: Organ preserving treatment strategies and the introduction of a colorectal cancer-screening program have likely influenced the resection rates of rectal cancer. The aim of this study is to assess the influence of these developments on rectal cancer treatment and resection rates in the Netherlands. Methods: Patients diagnosed with non-metastatic rectal cancer between 2013 and 2018, were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. The distribution of surgical and neo-adjuvant treatment and resection rates were analyzed and compared over time. Results: Between 2013 and 2018 22640 patients were diagnosed with non-metastatic rectal cancer. The incidence of early stage (cT1) disease increased from 141 (4%) in 2013 to 448 (12%) in 2018. The use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy and chemo-radiotherapy dropped from 39% to 21% and 34%–25%, respectively. A decrease in surgical resection rates (including TEM) was observed from 85% to 73%. The proportion of patients who underwent endoscopic resections increased from 3% to 10%. The decrease in surgical resection rates was larger in patients treated with neo-adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy. Conclusion: An increase in stage I disease is noted after the introduction of the screening program. Surgical resection rates for rectal cancer have fallen over time. Endoscopic resections due to more early-stage disease probably accounts for a large part of this decline. Furthermore, a watch and wait approach after neo-adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy may play an important role as well

Relief of Obstruction in Left-Sided Obstructive Colon Cancer:Nationwide Analysis of Applied Treatment in the Palliative Setting

Background:For relief of bowel obstruction in left-sided obstructive colon cancer (LSOCC), a self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) or decompressing stoma (DS) can be placed. In a curative setting, these two strategies have been extensively studied as a bridge to elective resection. Guidelines recommend SEMS as the preferred option in the palliative setting, but adherence in daily practice is unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to gain more insight into patients with LSOCC who received palliative treatment with SEMS or DS at a national level. Methods: A retrospective population-based cohort study was conducted in the Netherlands. Data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) on all patients with LSOCC treated with DS or SEMS not followed by resection of the primary tumour between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019, were analysed. Type of treatment (DS or SEMS) for different clinical scenarios, was the main outcome of this study, and was also evaluated over the years (2015–2019). Results: Palliative treatment with SEMS or DS for LSOCC was performed in 1077 patients, of whom 79.2% had metastatic disease (M1). Patients without metastatic disease (M0) were older (≥ 80 years M0 67.4%, M1 25.3%, P &lt; 0.001), had a worse clinical condition (ASA III 51.4% versus 36.37%, ASA IV-V 13.3% versus 4.0% P &lt; 0.001) and presented with higher tumour stage (cT4 55.4% versus 33.5%, % P &lt; 0.001). DS was performed in 91.5% of the patients and SEMS in 8.5%. The proportion of DS did not significantly differ between patients with M1 and M0 (91.8% vs. 90.2% respectively, P = 0.525). No increase in SEMS application was observed over the years, with a stable overall proportion of DS of 91–92% per year. In the multivariable analyses, ninety-day mortality and overall survival were not significantly different between SEMS and DS. Conclusions: This study revealed that DS was the primary treatment modality for palliative management of LSOCC in the Netherlands between 2015 and 2019, while the guidelines recommended SEMS as preferred treatment. For patients with LSOCC eligible for stenting in the palliative setting, SEMS placement should become more available and accessible as the preferred treatment option, to avoid a stoma in the terminal phase of life.</p

MRI cT1–2 rectal cancer staging accuracy: a population-based study

Background: Adequate MRI-based staging of early rectal cancers is essential for decision-making in an era of organ-conserving treatment approaches. The aim of this population-based study was to determine the accuracy of routine daily MRI staging of early rectal cancer, whether or not combined with endorectal ultrasonography (ERUS). Methods: Patients with cT1–2 rectal cancer who underwent local excision or total mesorectal excision (TME) without downsizing (chemo)radiotherapy between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2018 were selected from the Dutch ColoRectal Audit. The accuracy of imaging was expressed as sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value. Results: Of 7382 registered patients with cT1–2 rectal cancer, 5539 were included (5288 MRI alone, 251 MRI and ERUS; 1059 cT1 and 4480 cT2). Among patients with pT1 tumours, 54·7 per cent (792 of 1448) were overstaged by MRI alone, and 31·0 per cent (36 of 116) by MRI and ERUS. Understaging of pT2 disease occurred in 8·2 per cent (197 of 2388) and 27·9 per cent (31 of 111) respectively. MRI alone overstaged pN0 in 17·3 per cent (570 of 3303) and the PPV for assignment of cN0 category was 76·3 per cent (2733 of 3583). Of 834 patients with pT1 N0 disease, potentially suitable for local excision, tumours in 253 patients (30·3 per cent) were staged correctly as cT1 N0, whereas 484 (58·0 per cent) and 97 (11·6 per cent) were overstaged as cT2 N0 and cT1–2 N1 respectively. Conclusion: This Dutch population-based analysis of patients who underwent local excision or TME surgery for cT1–2 rectal cancer based on preoperative MRI staging revealed substantial overstaging, indicating the weaknesses of MRI and missed opportunities for organ preservation strategies

Predictive value of selected geriatric parameters for postoperative outcomes in older patients with rectal cancer:A multicenter cohort study

Introduction: Older patients have a higher risk for complications after rectal cancer surgery. Although screening for geriatric impairments may improve risk prediction in this group, it has not been studied previously. Methods: We retrospectively investigated patients ≥70 years with elective surgery for non-metastatic rectal cancer between 2014 and 2018 in nine Dutch hospitals. The predictive value of six geriatric parameters in combination with standard preoperative predictors was studied for postoperative complications, delirium, and length of stay (LOS) using logistic regression analyses. The geriatric parameters included the four VMS-questionnaire items pertaining to functional impairment, fall risk, delirium risk, and malnutrition, as well as mobility problems and polypharmacy. Standard predictors included age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA)-classification, comorbidities, tumor stage, and neoadjuvant therapy. Changes in model performance were evaluated by comparing Area Under the Curve (AUC) of the regression models with and without geriatric parameters. Results: We included 575 patients (median age 75 years; 32% female). None of the geriatric parameters improved risk prediction for complications or LOS. The addition of delirium risk to the standard preoperative prediction model improved model performance for predicting postoperative delirium (AUC 0.75 vs 0.65, p = 0.03). Conclusions: Geriatric parameters did not improve risk prediction for postoperative complications or LOS in older patients with rectal cancer. Delirium risk screening using the VMS-questionnaire improved risk prediction for delirium. Older patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery are a pre-selected group with few impairments. Geriatric screening may have additional value earlier in the care pathway before treatment decisions are made

2 days versus 5 days of postoperative antibiotics for complex appendicitis: a pragmatic, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority randomised trial

Background: The appropriate duration of postoperative antibiotics for complex appendicitis is unclear. The increasing global threat of antimicrobial resistance warrants restrictive antibiotic use, which could also reduce side-effects, length of hospital stay, and costs. Methods: In this pragmatic, open-label, non-inferiority trial in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands, patients with complex appendicitis (aged ≥8 years) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 2 days or 5 days of intravenous antibiotics after appendicectomy. Randomisation was stratified by centre, and treating physicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was a composite endpoint of infectious complications and mortality within 90 days. The main outcome was the absolute risk difference (95% CI) in the primary endpoint, adjusted for age and severity of appendicitis, with a non-inferiority margin of 7·5%. Outcome assessment was based on electronic patient records and a telephone consultation 90 days after appendicectomy. Efficacy was analysed in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. Safety outcomes were analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial was registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NL5946. Findings: Between April 12, 2017, and June 3, 2021, 13 267 patients were screened and 1066 were randomly assigned, 533 to each group. 31 were excluded from intention-to-treat analysis of the 2-day group and 30 from the 5-day group owing to errors in recruitment or consent. Appendicectomy was done laparoscopically in 955 (95%) of 1005 patients. The telephone follow-up was completed in 664 (66%) of 1005 patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 51 (10%) of 502 patients analysed in the 2-day group and 41 (8%) of 503 patients analysed in the 5-day group (adjusted absolute risk difference 2·0%, 95% CI −1·6 to 5·6). Rates of complications and re-interventions were similar between trial groups. Fewer patients had adverse effects of antibiotics in the 2-day group (45 [9%] of 502 patients) than in the 5-day group (112 [22%] of 503 patients; odds ratio [OR] 0·344, 95% CI 0·237 to 0·498). Re-admission to hospital was more frequent in the 2-day group (58 [12%] of 502 patients) than in the 5-day group (29 [6%] of 503 patients; OR 2·135, 1·342 to 3·396). There were no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation: 2 days of postoperative intravenous antibiotics for complex appendicitis is non-inferior to 5 days in terms of infectious complications and mortality within 90 days, based on a non-inferiority margin of 7·5%. These findings apply to laparoscopic appendicectomy conducted in a well resourced health-care setting. Adopting this strategy will reduce adverse effects of antibiotics and length of hospital stay. Funding: The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development

Oncological Safety and Potential Cost Savings of Routine vs Selective Histopathological Examination After Appendectomy: Results of the Multicenter, Prospective, Cross-Sectional FANCY Study

Objective: To investigate the oncological safety and potential cost savings of selective histopathological examination after appendectomy. Background: The necessity of routine histopathological examination after appendectomy has been questioned, but prospective studies investigating the safety of a selective policy are lacking. Methods: In this multicenter, prospective, cross-sectional study, inspection and palpation of the (meso)appendix was performed by the surgeon in patients with suspected appendicitis. The surgeon's opinion on additional value of histopathological examination was reported before sending all specimens to the pathologist. Main outcomes were the number of hypothetically missed appendiceal neoplasms with clinical consequences benefiting the patient (upper limit two-sided 95% confidence interval below 3:1000 considered oncologically safe) and potential cost savings after selective histopathological examination. Results: Seven thousand three hundred thirty-nine patients were included. After a selective policy, 4966/7339 (67.7%) specimens would have been refrained from histopathological examination. Appendiceal neoplasms with clinical consequences would have been missed in 22/4966 patients. In 5/22, residual disease was completely resected during additional surgery. Hence, an appendiceal neoplasm with clinical consequences benefiting the patient would have been missed in 1.01:1000 patients (upper limit 95% confidence interval 1.61:1000). In contrast, twice as many patients (10/22) would not have been exposed to potential harm due to re-resections without clear benefit, whereas consequences were neither beneficial nor harmful in the remaining seven. Estimated cost savings established by replacing routine for selective histopathological examination were 725,400 per 10,000 patients. Conclusions: Selective histopathological examination after appendectomy for suspected appendicitis is oncologically safe and will likely result in a reduction of pathologists' workload, less costs, and fewer re-resections without clear benefit