Extramural venous invasion is a potential imaging predictive biomarker of neoadjuvant treatment in rectal cancer

BACKGROUND: Extramural venous invasion (EMVI) is a poor prognostic factor in rectal cancer and identified on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (mrEMVI). The clinical relevance of improvement in mrEMVI following neoadjuvant therapy is unknown. This study aimed to demonstrate that regression of mrEMVI following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) results in improved outcomes and mrEMVI can be used as an imaging biomarker METHODS: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was conducted examining the staging and post-treatment MRIs of patients who had presented with EMVI-positive rectal cancer. All patients had undergone neoadjuvant CRT and curative surgery. Changes in mrEMVI were graded with a new MRI-based TRG scale–mr-vTRG; and related to disease-free survival (DFS). The study fulfilled Reporting Recommendations for Tumour Marker Prognostic Studies criteria for biomarkers. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were included. Thirty-five patients showed more than 50% fibrosis of mrEMVI (mr-vTRG 1-3); 3-year DFS 87.8% and 9% recurrence. Twenty-seven patients showed less than 50% fibrosis (mr-vTRG 4-5); 3-year DFS 45.8% with 44% recurrence – P<0.0001. On multivariate Cox-regression, only mr-vTRG 4-5 increased risk of disease recurrence – HR=5.748. CONCLUSION: Patients in whom there has been a significant response of EMVI to CRT show improved DFS. Those patients with poor response should be considered for intensive treatment. As an imaging biomarker in rectal cancer, mrEMVI can be used

Defining response to radiotherapy in rectal cancer using magnetic resonance imaging and histopathological scales

Aim: To define good and poor regression using pathology and MRI regression scales after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for rectal cancer. Methods: A systematic review of all studies up to December 2015, without language restriction that were identified from MEDLINE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (1960–2015), and EMBASE (1991–2015). Searches were performed of article bibliographies and conference abstracts. MeSH and text words, included “tumour regression”, “mrTRG”, “poor response” and “colorectal cancers”. Clinical studies using either MRI or histopathological TRG scales to define good and poor responders were included in relation to outcomes (local (LR), distant recurrence (DR), disease free (DFS), overall survival (OS)). There was no age restriction to included patients nor stage of cancer.Data was extracted by two authors independently using pre-defined outcome measures. Results: Quantitative data (prevalence) were extracted and analysed according to meta-analytical techniques using comprehensive meta-analysis. Qualitative data (LR, DR, DFS &OS) were presented as ranges. The overall proportion of poor responders after neo-adjuvant CRT was 37.7% (CI: 30.1 to 45.8). There were 19 different reported histopathological scales and one MRI regression scale (mrTRG). Clinical studies used nine and six histopathological scales for poor and good responders respectively. All studies using MRI to define good and poor response used one scale. The most common histopathological definition for good response was the Mandard grades 1&2 or Dworak grades 3&4; Mandard 3,4&5 and Dworak 0,1&2 were used for poor response. For histopathological grades, the 5-year outcomes for poor responders were LR 3.4-4.3%, DR 14.3-20.3%, DFS 61.7-68.1% and OS 60.7-69.1. Good pathological response 5-year outcomes were LR, 0-1.8%; DR, 0-11.6%; DFS, 78.4-86.7%; and, OS, 77.4-88.2%. A poor response on MRI (mrTRG 4,5) resulted in 5-year LR 4-29%, DR 9%, DFS 31-59% and OS 27-68%. The 5-year outcomes with a good response on MRI (mrTRG 1,2 & 3) was LR 1-14%, DR 3%, DFS 64-83% and OS 72-90%. Conclusions: For histopathology regression assessment Mandard1,2/Dworak3,4 should be used for good and Mandard3,4,5/Dworak0,1,2 for poor response. MRI indicates good and poor response by mrTRG1-3 and mrTRG4-5 respectively

Extended lymphadenectomy for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer

Purpose The purpose of this study is to assess the value of extended (lateral) lymphadenectomy (EL) in the operative management of locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer. Methods Patients that underwent exenterative surgery for locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer between 2006 and 2009 were included in the study. A decision for EL was taken at the local multidisciplinary meeting based on the radiological findings. Perioperative and oncological outcomes were assessed and compared between the EL and non-EL group prospectively. Results Forty-one consecutive patients were included in the study (EL = 17). The median age was 57 (40–71) for EL and 66 (39–81) years for non-EL. Of patients, 27 (EL = 13) and 14 (EL = 4) underwent pelvic exenteration and abdominosacral resection, respectively. Twelve (EL = 7) patients were diagnosed with locally advanced primary rectal cancer. Thirty-one (EL = 12) patients received neoadjuvant radiotherapy. The median intraoperative time, blood loss and hospital stay were 9 h (3–13), 1.5 l (0.3–7) and 14 days (12–72), respectively, for the EL group, and 8 h (4–15), 1.6 l (0.25–17) and 14 days (10–86), respectively, for the non-EL (p ≥ 0.394). Morbidity was similar between the two groups (EL = 4, non-EL = 9; p = 0.344). Complete tumour resection (R0) was achieved in 30 (73.17%) patients, 12 (70.58%) in the EL group and 18 (75%) in the non-EL group (p = 0.649). There was no significant difference in 5-year survival (EL = 60.7%, non-EL = 75.2%; p = 0.447), local recurrence (EL = 53.6%, non-EL = 65.4%; p = 0.489) and disease-free survival (EL = 53.6%, non-EL = 51.4%; p = 0.814). Conclusions The present study demonstrated that EL does not provide a statistically significant advantage in survival or recurrence rates, for patients with locally advanced primary or recurrent rectal cancer

Predictors of short-term readmission after beyond total mesorectal excision for primary locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer

Unplanned readmissions heavily affect the cost of health care and are used as an indicator of performance. No clear data are available regarding beyond-total mesorectal excision (bTME) procedure. Aim of the study is to identify patient-related and surgery-related factors influencing the 30-day readmissions after bTME. Retrospective data were collected from 220 patients who underwent bTME procedures at single centre between 2006 and 2016. Patient-related and operative factors were assessed, including body mass index (BMI), age, gender, American Society of Anaesthesiologists’ (ASA) score, preoperative stage, neo-adjuvant therapy, primary tumour vs recurrence, the extent of surgery. The readmission rate was 8.18%. No statistically significant association was found with BMI, ASA score, length of stay and stay in the intensive care unit, primary vs recurrent tumour or blood transfusions. Not quite statistically significant was the association with pelvic side wall dissection (OR 3.32, p = 0.054). Statistically significant factors included preoperative stage > IIIb (OR: 4.77, p = 0.002), neo-adjuvant therapy (OR: 0.13, p = 0.0006), age over 65 years (OR: 5.96, p = 0.0005), any re-intervention during the first admission (OR: 7.4, p = 0.0001), and any post-operative complication (OR: 9.01, p = 0.004). The readmission rate after beyond-TME procedure is influenced by patient-related factors as well as post-operative morbidity

Predictive Value of POSSUM and ACPGBI Scoring in Mortality and Morbidity of Colorectal Resection: A Case–Control Study

Contains fulltext : 97239.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Preoperative risk prediction to assess mortality and morbidity may be helpful to surgical decision making. The aim of this study was to compare mortality and morbidity of colorectal resections performed in a tertiary referral center with mortality and morbidity as predicted with physiological and operative score for enumeration of mortality and morbidity (POSSUM), Portsmouth POSSUM (P-POSSUM), and colorectal POSSUM (CR-POSSUM). The second aim of this study was to analyze the accuracy of different POSSUM scores in surgery performed for malignancy, inflammatory bowel diseases, and diverticulitis. POSSUM scoring was also evaluated in colorectal resection in acute vs. elective setting. In procedures performed for malignancy, the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) score was assessed in the same way for comparison. METHODS: POSSUM, P-POSSUM, and CR-POSSUM predictor equations for mortality were applied in a retrospective case-control study to 734 patients who had undergone colorectal resection. The total group was assessed first. Second, the predictive value of outcome after surgery was assessed for malignancy (n = 386), inflammatory bowel diseases (n = 113), diverticulitis (n = 91), and other indications, e.g., trauma, endometriosis, volvulus, or ischemia (n = 144). Third, all subgroups were assessed in relation to the setting in which surgery was performed: acute or elective. In patients with malignancy, the ACPGBI score was calculated as well. In all groups, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed. RESULTS: POSSUM, P-POSSUM, and CR-POSSUM have a significant predictive value for outcome after colorectal surgery. Within the total population as well as in all four subgroups, there is no difference in the area under the curve between the POSSUM, P-POSSUM, and CR-POSSUM scores. In the subgroup analysis, smallest areas under the ROC curve are seen in operations performed for malignancy, which is significantly worse than for diverticulitis and in operations performed for other indications. For elective procedures, P-POSSUM and CR-POSSUM predict outcome significantly worse in patients operated for carcinoma than in patients with diverticulitis. In acute surgical interventions, CR-POSSUM predicts mortality better in diverticulitis than in patients operated for other indications. The ACPGBI score has a larger area under the curve than any of the POSSUM scores. Morbidity as predicted by POSSUM is most accurate in procedures for diverticulitis and worst when the indication is malignancy. CONCLUSION: The POSSUM scores predict outcome significantly better than can be expected by chance alone. Regarding the indication for surgery, each POSSUM score predicts outcome in patients operated for diverticulitis or other indications more accurately than for malignancy. The ACPGBI score is found to be superior to the various POSSUM scores in patients who have (elective) resection of colorectal malignancy

Funnel plots, performance variation and the Myocardial Infarction National Audit Project 2003–2004

BACKGROUND: Clinical governance requires health care professionals to improve standards of care and has resulted in comparison of clinical performance data. The Myocardial Infarction National Audit Project (a UK cardiology dataset) tabulates its performance. However funnel plots are the display method of choice for institutional comparison. We aimed to demonstrate that funnel plots may be derived from MINAP data and allow more meaningful interpretation of data. METHODS: We examined the attainment of National Service Framework standards for all hospitals (n = 230) and all patients (n = 99,133) in the MINAP database between 1(st )April 2003 and 31(st )March 2004. We generated funnel plots (with control limits at 3 sigma) of Door to Needle and Call to Needle thrombolysis times, and the use of aspirin, beta-blockers and statins post myocardial infarction. RESULTS: Only 87,427 patients fulfilled criteria for analysis of the use of secondary prevention drugs and 15,111 patients for analysis by Door to Needle and Call to Needle times (163 hospitals achieved the standards for Door to Needle times and 215 were within or above their control limits). One hundred and sixteen hospitals fell outside the 'within 25%' and 'more than 25%' standards for Call to Needle times, but 28 were below the lower control limits. Sixteen hospitals failed to reach the standards for aspirin usage post AMI and 24 remained below the lower control limits. Thirty hospitals were below the lower CL for beta-blocker usage and 49 outside the standard. Statin use was comparable. CONCLUSION: Funnel plots may be applied to a complex dataset and allow visual comparison of data derived from multiple health-care units. Variation is readily identified permitting units to appraise their practices so that effective quality improvement may take place

The Procedural Index for Mortality Risk (PIMR): an index calculated using administrative data to quantify the independent influence of procedures on risk of hospital death

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Surgeries and other procedures can influence the risk of death in hospital. All published scales that predict post-operative death risk require clinical data and cannot be measured using administrative data alone. This study derived and internally validated an index that can be calculated using administrative data to quantify the independent risk of hospital death after a procedure.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>For all patients admitted to a single academic centre between 2004 and 2009, we estimated the risk of all-cause death using the Kaiser Permanente Inpatient Risk Adjustment Methodology (KP-IRAM). We determined whether each patient underwent one of 503 commonly performed therapeutic procedures using Canadian Classification of Interventions codes and whether each procedure was emergent or elective. Multivariate logistic regression modeling was used to measure the association of each procedure-urgency combination with death in hospital independent of the KP-IRAM risk of death. The final model was modified into a scoring system to quantify the independent influence each procedure had on the risk of death in hospital.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>275 460 hospitalizations were included (137,730 derivation, 137,730 validation). In the derivation group, the median expected risk of death was 0.1% (IQR 0.01%-1.4%) with 4013 (2.9%) dying during the hospitalization. 56 distinct procedure-urgency combinations entered our final model resulting in a Procedural Index for Mortality Rating (PIMR) score values ranging from -7 to +11. In the validation group, the PIMR score significantly predicted the risk of death by itself (c-statistic 67.3%, 95% CI 66.6-68.0%) and when added to the KP-IRAM model (c-index improved significantly from 0.929 to 0.938).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We derived and internally validated an index that uses administrative data to quantify the independent association of a broad range of therapeutic procedures with risk of death in hospital. This scale will improve risk adjustment when administrative data are used for analyses.</p