Surgical treatment for colorectal cancer: Analysis of the influence of an enhanced recovery programme on long-term oncological outcomes-a study protocol for a prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study

Introduction The evidence currently available from enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programmes concerns their benefits in the immediate postoperative period, but there is still very little evidence as to whether their correct implementation benefits patients in the long term. The working hypothesis here is that, due to the lower response to surgical aggression and lower rates of postoperative complications, ERAS protocols can reduce colorectal cancer-related mortality. The main objective of this study is to analyse the impact of an ERAS programme for colorectal cancer on 5-year survival. As secondary objectives, we propose to analyse the weight of each of the predefined items in the oncological results as well as the quality of life. Methods and analysis A multicentre prospective cohort study was conducted in patients older than 18 years of age who are scheduled to undergo surgery for colorectal cancer. The study involved 12 hospitals with an implemented enhanced recovery protocol according to the guidelines published by the Spanish National Health Service. The intervention group includes patients with a minimum implementation level of 70%, and the control group includes those who fail to reach this level. Compliance will be studied using 18 key performance indicators, and the results will be analysed using cancer survival indicators, including overall survival, cancer-specific survival and relapse-free survival. The time to recurrence, perioperative morbidity and mortality, hospital stay and quality of life will also be studied, the latter using the validated EuroQol Five questionnaire. The propensity index method will be used to create comparable treatment and control groups, and a multivariate regression will be used to study each variable. The Kaplan-Meier estimator will be used to estimate survival and the log-rank test to make comparisons. A p value of less than 0.05 (two-tailed) will be considered to be significant. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Aragon Ethical Committee (C.P.-C.I. PI20/086) on 4 March 2020. The findings of this study will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals (BMJ Open, JAMA Surgery, Annals of Surgery, British Journal of Surgery). Abstracts will be submitted to relevant national and international meetings. Trial registration number NCT04305314

Surgical treatment for colorectal cancer: Analysis of the influence of an enhanced recovery programme on long-term oncological outcomes-a study protocol for a prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study

Introduction The evidence currently available from enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programmes concerns their benefits in the immediate postoperative period, but there is still very little evidence as to whether their correct implementation benefits patients in the long term. The working hypothesis here is that, due to the lower response to surgical aggression and lower rates of postoperative complications, ERAS protocols can reduce colorectal cancer-related mortality. The main objective of this study is to analyse the impact of an ERAS programme for colorectal cancer on 5-year survival. As secondary objectives, we propose to analyse the weight of each of the predefined items in the oncological results as well as the quality of life. Methods and analysis A multicentre prospective cohort study was conducted in patients older than 18 years of age who are scheduled to undergo surgery for colorectal cancer. The study involved 12 hospitals with an implemented enhanced recovery protocol according to the guidelines published by the Spanish National Health Service. The intervention group includes patients with a minimum implementation level of 70%, and the control group includes those who fail to reach this level. Compliance will be studied using 18 key performance indicators, and the results will be analysed using cancer survival indicators, including overall survival, cancer-specific survival and relapse-free survival. The time to recurrence, perioperative morbidity and mortality, hospital stay and quality of life will also be studied, the latter using the validated EuroQol Five questionnaire. The propensity index method will be used to create comparable treatment and control groups, and a multivariate regression will be used to study each variable. The Kaplan-Meier estimator will be used to estimate survival and the log-rank test to make comparisons. A p value of less than 0.05 (two-tailed) will be considered to be significant. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Aragon Ethical Committee (C.P.-C.I. PI20/086) on 4 March 2020. The findings of this study will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals (BMJ Open, JAMA Surgery, Annals of Surgery, British Journal of Surgery). Abstracts will be submitted to relevant national and international meetings.The present research study was awarded a Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación health research project grant (PI19/00291) from the Carlos III Institute of the Spanish National Health Service as part of the 2019 call for Strategic Action in Health

Patients with Crohn's disease have longer post-operative in-hospital stay than patients with colon cancer but no difference in complications' rate

BACKGROUNDRight hemicolectomy or ileocecal resection are used to treat benign conditions like Crohn's disease (CD) and malignant ones like colon cancer (CC).AIMTo investigate differences in pre- and peri-operative factors and their impact on post-operative outcome in patients with CC and CD.METHODSThis is a sub-group analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology's prospective, multi-centre snapshot audit. Adult patients with CC and CD undergoing right hemicolectomy or ileocecal resection were included. Primary outcome measure was 30-d post-operative complications. Secondary outcome measures were post-operative length of stay (LOS) at and readmission.RESULTSThree hundred and seventy-five patients with CD and 2,515 patients with CC were included. Patients with CD were younger (median = 37 years for CD and 71 years for CC (P < 0.01), had lower American Society of Anesthesiology score (ASA) grade (P < 0.01) and less comorbidity (P < 0.01), but were more likely to be current smokers (P < 0.01). Patients with CD were more frequently operated on by colorectal surgeons (P < 0.01) and frequently underwent ileocecal resection (P < 0.01) with higher rate of de-functioning/primary stoma construction (P < 0.01). Thirty-day post-operative mortality occurred exclusively in the CC group (66/2515, 2.3%). In multivariate analyses, the risk of post-operative complications was similar in the two groups (OR 0.80, 95%CI: 0.54-1.17; P = 0.25). Patients with CD had a significantly longer LOS (Geometric mean 0.87, 95%CI: 0.79-0.95; P < 0.01). There was no difference in re-admission rates. The audit did not collect data on post-operative enhanced recovery protocols that are implemented in the different participating centers.CONCLUSIONPatients with CD were younger, with lower ASA grade, less comorbidity, operated on by experienced surgeons and underwent less radical resection but had a longer LOS than patients with CC although complication's rate was not different between the two groups

Safety of primary anastomosis following emergency left sided colorectal resection: an international, multi-centre prospective audit.

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: group, T. E. S. o. C. c. (2018). "Safety of primary anastomosis following emergency left sided colorectal resection: an international, multi-centre prospective audit." Colorectal Disease 20(S6): 47-57., which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.1437. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived VersionsINTRODUCTION: Some evidence suggests that primary anastomosis following left sided colorectal resection in the emergency setting may be safe in selected patients, and confer favourable outcomes to permanent enterostomy. The aim of this study was to compare the major postoperative complication rate in patients undergoing end stoma vs primary anastomosis following emergency left sided colorectal resection. METHODS: A pre-planned analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology 2017 audit. Adult patients (> 16 years) who underwent emergency (unplanned, within 24 h of hospital admission) left sided colonic or rectal resection were included. The primary endpoint was the 30-day major complication rate (Clavien-Dindo grade 3 to 5). RESULTS: From 591 patients, 455 (77%) received an end stoma, 103 a primary anastomosis (17%) and 33 primary anastomosis with defunctioning stoma (6%). In multivariable models, anastomosis was associated with a similar major complication rate to end stoma (adjusted odds ratio for end stoma 1.52, 95%CI 0.83-2.79, P = 0.173). Although a defunctioning stoma was not associated with reduced anastomotic leak (12% defunctioned [4/33] vs 13% not defunctioned [13/97], adjusted odds ratio 2.19, 95%CI 0.43-11.02, P = 0.343), it was associated with less severe complications (75% [3/4] with defunctioning stoma, 86.7% anastomosis only [13/15]), a lower mortality rate (0% [0/4] vs 20% [3/15]), and fewer reoperations (50% [2/4] vs 73% [11/15]) when a leak did occur. CONCLUSIONS: Primary anastomosis in selected patients appears safe after left sided emergency colorectal resection. A defunctioning stoma might mitigate against risk of subsequent complications

The impact of conversion on the risk of major complication following laparoscopic colonic surgery: an international, multicentre prospective audit.

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: The and E. S. o. C. c. groups (2018). "The impact of conversion on the risk of major complication following laparoscopic colonic surgery: an international, multicentre prospective audit." Colorectal Disease 20(S6): 69-89., which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.14371. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions.BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy has now been implemented as a standard of care for elective colonic resection around the world. During the adoption period, studies showed that conversion may be detrimental to patients, with poorer outcomes than both laparoscopic completed or planned open surgery. The primary aim of this study was to determine whether laparoscopic conversion was associated with a higher major complication rate than planned open surgery in contemporary, international practice. METHODS: Combined analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology 2017 and 2015 audits. Patients were included if they underwent elective resection of a colonic segment from the caecum to the rectosigmoid junction with primary anastomosis. The primary outcome measure was the 30-day major complication rate, defined as Clavien-Dindo grade III-V. RESULTS: Of 3980 patients, 64% (2561/3980) underwent laparoscopic surgery and a laparoscopic conversion rate of 14% (359/2561). The major complication rate was highest after open surgery (laparoscopic 7.4%, converted 9.7%, open 11.6%, P < 0.001). After case mix adjustment in a multilevel model, only planned open (and not laparoscopic converted) surgery was associated with increased major complications in comparison to laparoscopic surgery (OR 1.64, 1.27-2.11, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate laparoscopic conversion should not be considered a treatment failure in modern practice. Conversion does not appear to place patients at increased risk of complications vs planned open surgery, supporting broadening of selection criteria for attempted laparoscopy in elective colonic resection

An international multicentre prospective audit of elective rectal cancer surgery; operative approach versus outcome, including transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME)

IntroductionTransanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has rapidly emerged as a novel approach for rectal cancer surgery. Safety profiles are still emerging and more comparative data is urgently needed. This study aimed to compare indications and short-term outcomes of TaTME, open, laparoscopic, and robotic TME internationally.MethodsA pre-planned analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) 2017 audit was performed. Patients undergoing elective total mesorectal excision (TME) for malignancy between 1 January 2017 and 15 March 2017 by any operative approach were included. The primary outcome measure was anastomotic leak.ResultsOf 2579 included patients, 76.2% (1966/2579) underwent TME with restorative anastomosis of which 19.9% (312/1966) had a minimally invasive approach (laparoscopic or robotic) which included a transanal component (TaTME). Overall, 9.0% (175/1951, 15 missing outcome data) of patients suffered an anastomotic leak. On univariate analysis both laparoscopic TaTME (OR 1.61, 1.02-2.48, P=0.04) and robotic TaTME (OR 3.05, 1.10-7.34, P=0.02) were associated with a higher risk of anastomotic leak than non-transanal laparoscopic TME. However this association was lost in the mixed-effects model controlling for patient and disease factors (OR 1.23, 0.77-1.97, P=0.39 and OR 2.11, 0.79-5.62, P=0.14 respectively), whilst low rectal anastomosis (OR 2.72, 1.55-4.77, P<0.001) and male gender (OR 2.29, 1.52-3.44, P<0.001) remained strongly associated. The overall positive circumferential margin resection rate was 4.0%, which varied between operative approaches: laparoscopic 3.2%, transanal 3.8%, open 4.7%, robotic 1%.ConclusionThis contemporaneous international snapshot shows that uptake of the TaTME approach is widespread and is associated with surgically and pathologically acceptable results

Evaluating the incidence of pathological complete response in current international rectal cancer practice: the barriers to widespread safe deferral of surgery

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: , which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.14361. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions."Colorectal Disease © 2018 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland Introduction: The mainstay of management for locally advanced rectal cancer is chemoradiotherapy followed by surgical resection. Following chemoradiotherapy, a complete response may be detected clinically and radiologically (cCR) prior to surgery or pathologically after surgery (pCR). We aim to report the overall complete pathological response (pCR) rate and the reliability of detecting a cCR by conventional pre-operative imaging. Methods: A pre-planned analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) 2017 audit was performed. Patients treated by elective rectal resection were included. A pCR was defined as a ypT0 N0 EMVI negative primary tumour; a partial response represented any regression from baseline staging following chemoradiotherapy. The primary endpoint was the pCR rate. The secondary endpoint was agreement between post-treatment MRI restaging (yMRI) and final pathological staging. Results: Of 2572 patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery in 277 participating centres across 44 countries, 673 (26.2%) underwent chemoradiotherapy and surgery. The pCR rate was 10.3% (67/649), with a partial response in 35.9% (233/649) patients. Comparison of AJCC stage determined by post-treatment yMRI with final pathology showed understaging in 13% (55/429) and overstaging in 34% (148/429). Agreement between yMRI and final pathology for T-stage, N-stage, or AJCC status were each graded as ‘fair’ only (n = 429, Kappa 0.25, 0.26 and 0.35 respectively). Conclusion: The reported pCR rate of 10% highlights the potential for non-operative management in selected cases. The limited strength of agreement between basic conventional post-chemoradiotherapy imaging assessment techniques and pathology suggest alternative markers of response should be considered, in the context of controlled clinical trials