BackgroundAs the survival of patients with rectal cancer has improved in recent decades, more and more patients have to live with the consequences of rectal cancer surgery. An influential factor in... Show moreBackgroundAs the survival of patients with rectal cancer has improved in recent decades, more and more patients have to live with the consequences of rectal cancer surgery. An influential factor in long-term Health-related Quality of Life (HRQoL) is the presence of a stoma. This study aimed to better understand the long-term consequences of a stoma and poor functional outcomes.MethodsPatients who underwent curative surgery for a primary tumor located in the rectosigmoid and rectum between 2013 and 2020 were identified from the nationwide Prospective Dutch Colorectal Cancer (PLCRC) cohort study. Patients received the following questionnaires: EORTC-QLQ-CR29, EORTC-QLQ-C30, and the LARS-score at 12 months, 24 months and 36 months after surgery.ResultsA total of 1,170 patients were included of whom 751 (64.2%) had no stoma, 122 (10.4%) had a stoma at primary surgery, 45 (3.8%) had a stoma at secondary surgery and 252 (21.5%) patients that underwent abdominoperineal resection (APR). Of all patients without a stoma, 41.4% reported major low-anterior resection syndrome (LARS). Patients without a stoma reported significantly better HRQoL. Moreover, patients without a stoma significantly reported an overall better HRQoL.ConclusionThe presence of a stoma and poor functional outcomes were both associated with reduced HRQoL. Patients with poor functional outcomes, defined as major LARS, reported a similar level of HRQoL compared to patients with a stoma. In addition, the HRQoL after rectal cancer surgery does not change significantly after the first year after surgery. Show less
Background Surgical resection is the mainstay of curative treatment for rectal cancer. Post-operative complications, low anterior resection syndrome (LARS), and the presence of a stoma may... Show moreBackground Surgical resection is the mainstay of curative treatment for rectal cancer. Post-operative complications, low anterior resection syndrome (LARS), and the presence of a stoma may influence the quality of life after surgery. This study aimed to gain more insights into the long-term trade-off between stoma and anastomosis. Methods All patients who underwent sphincter-sparing surgical resection for rectal cancer in the Leiden University Medical Center and the Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis between January 2012 and January 2016 were included. Patients received the following questionnaires: EORTC-QLQ-CR29, EORTC-QLQ-C30, EQ-5D-5L, and the LARS score. A comparison was made between patients with a stoma and without a stoma after follow-up. Results Some 210 patients were included of which 149 returned the questionnaires (70.9%), after a mean follow-up of 3.69 years. Overall quality of life was not significantly different in patients with and without stoma after follow-up using the EORTC-QLQ-C30 (p = 0.15) or EQ-5D-5L (p = 0.28). However, after multivariate analysis, a significant difference was found for the presence of a stoma on global health status (p = 0.01) and physical functioning (p < 0.01). Additionally, there was no difference detected in the quality of life between patients with major LARS or a stoma. Conclusion This study shows that after correction for possible confounders, a stoma is associated with lower global health status and physical functioning. However, no differences were found in health-related quality of life between patients with major LARS and patients with a stoma. This suggests that the choice between stoma and anastomosis is mainly preferential and that shared decision-making is required. Show less
Background: Complications after colorectal cancer surgery can worsen long-term survival. The aim of this nationwide study was to determine the impact of different types of complications on overall... Show moreBackground: Complications after colorectal cancer surgery can worsen long-term survival. The aim of this nationwide study was to determine the impact of different types of complications on overall survival (OS) and conditional survival if still alive one year postoperatively (CS-1) after colorectal cancer surgery.Materials and methods: All patients registered in the Dutch ColoRectal Audit after resection of primary colorectal cancer between 2011 and 2017 and with known survival status were included. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to assess the association of complications with OS and CS-1, thereby calculating the Hazard Ratio (HR) with 95% Confidence Interval.Results: 43,908 colon and 16,955 rectal cancer patients were included. Median follow-up time was 66.1 and 66.5 months, respectively. Five-year OS after colon cancer resection was 73.2% without complications, and 65.4% with surgical, 52.9% with non-surgical and 51.8% with combined type of complications (p < 0.001). Corresponding 5-year OS for rectal cancer patients was 76.9%, 72.7%, 64.9%, and 63.2% (p < 0.001). In colon cancer, multivariable analyses revealed HR 1.198 (1.136-1.264) for surgical, HR 1.489 (1.423-1.558) for non-surgical and HR 1.590 (1.505-1.681) for combined type of complications. For rectal cancer, these HRs were 1.193 (1.097-1.2297), 1.456 (1.346-1.329), and 1.489 (1.357-1.633). Surgical complications were associated with worse CS-1 in rectal cancer (HR 1.140 (1.050-1.260), but not in colon cancer (HR 1.007 (0.943-1.075)).Conclusion: Non-surgical complications have higher impact on survival than surgical complications. The impact of surgical complications on survival was still measurable after surviving the first year in rectal cancer but not in colon cancer patients. (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd, BASO -The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved. Show less
Warps, A.K.; Saraste, D.; Westerterp, M.; Detering, R.; Sjovall, A.; Martling, A.; ... ; Swedish Colorectal Canc Registry 2022
Background: The timing and degree of implementation of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for colorectal cancer vary among countries. Insights in national differences regarding implementation of new... Show moreBackground: The timing and degree of implementation of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for colorectal cancer vary among countries. Insights in national differences regarding implementation of new surgical techniques and the effect on postoperative outcomes are important for quality assurance, can show potential areas for country-specific improvement, and might be illustrative and supportive for similar implementation programs in other countries. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate differences in patient selection, applied techniques, and results of minimal invasive surgery for colorectal cancer between the Netherlands and Sweden. Methods: Patients who underwent elective minimally invasive surgery for T1-3 colon or rectal cancer (2012-2018) registered in the Dutch ColoRectal Audit or Swedish ColoRectal Cancer Registry were included. Time trends in the application of MIS were determined. Outcomes were compared for time periods with a similar level of MIS implementation (Netherlands 2012-2013 versus Sweden 2017-2018). Multilevel analyses were performed to identify factors associated with adverse short-term outcomes.Results: A total of 46,095 Dutch and 8,819 Swedish patients undergoing MIS for colorectal cancer were included. In Sweden, MIS implementation was approximately 5 years later than in the Netherlands, with more robotic surgery and lower volumes per hospital. Although conversion rates were higher in Sweden, oncological and surgical outcomes were comparable. MIS in the Netherlands for the years 2012- 2013 resulted in a higher reoperation rate for colon cancer and a higher readmission rate but lower non- surgical complication rates for rectal cancer if compared with MIS in Sweden during 2017-2018.Conclusion: This study showed that the implementation of MIS for colorectal cancer occurred later in Sweden than the Netherlands, with comparable outcomes despite lower volumes. Our study demonstrates that new surgical techniques can be implemented at a national level in a controlled and safe way, with thorough quality assurance. Show less
Purpose Scarce data are available on differences among index colectomies for colon cancer regarding reoperation for anastomotic leakage (AL) and clinical consequences. Therefore, this nationwide... Show morePurpose Scarce data are available on differences among index colectomies for colon cancer regarding reoperation for anastomotic leakage (AL) and clinical consequences. Therefore, this nationwide observational study aimed to evaluate reoperations for AL after colon cancer surgery and short-term postoperative outcomes for the different index colectomies. Methods Patients who underwent resection with anastomosis for a first primary colon carcinoma between 2013 and 2019 and were registered in the Dutch ColoRectal Audit were included. Primary outcomes were mortality, ICU admission, and stoma creation. Results Among 39,565 patients, the overall AL rate was 4.8% and ranged between 4.0% (right hemicolectomy) and 15.4% (subtotal colectomy). AL was predominantly managed with reoperation, ranging from 81.2% after transversectomy to 92.4% after sigmoid resection (p < 0.001). Median time to reoperation differed significantly between index colectomies (range 4-8 days, p < 0.001), with longer and comparable intervals for non-surgical reinterventions (range 13-18 days, p = 0.747). After reoperation, the highest mortality rates were observed for index transversectomy (15.4%) and right hemicolectomy (14.4%) and lowest for index sigmoid resection (5.6%) and subtotal colectomy (5.9%) (p < 0.001). Reoperation with stoma construction was associated with a higher mortality risk than without stoma construction after index right hemicolectomy (17.7% vs. 8.5%, p = 0.001). ICU admission rate was 62.6% overall (range 56.7-69.2%), and stoma construction rate ranged between 65.5% (right hemicolectomy) and 93.0% (sigmoid resection). Conclusion Significant differences in AL rate, reoperation rate, time to reoperation, postoperative mortality after reoperation, and stoma construction for AL were found among the different index colectomies for colon cancer, with relevance for patient counseling and perioperative management. Show less
ABSTRACTBackground: Textbook outcome is a composite measure of combined outcome indicators, which has been suggested to be of additional value over single outcome parameters in clinical auditing of... Show moreABSTRACTBackground: Textbook outcome is a composite measure of combined outcome indicators, which has been suggested to be of additional value over single outcome parameters in clinical auditing of surgical treatment. This study aimed to assess textbook outcome after rectal cancer surgery as short-term marker for quality of care.Methods: Patients who underwent elective rectal cancer surgery between 2012 and 2019 and registered in the Dutch ColoRectal Audit were included when the following criteria were met: 30-day and primary hospital admission survival, no reintervention, tumor-free margins, no postoperative complications, a hospital stay of less than 14 days and no readmission. Hospital variation was evaluated in case-mix corrected funnel-plots. A multilevel logistic regression analysis was performed to identify associated factors with textbook outcome.Results: The study population consisted of 20,521 patients who underwent primary rectal cancer surgery, of whom 56.3% achieved textbook outcome. Postoperative complications were the main contributor to not achieving textbook outcome. Case-mix corrected funnel plots demonstrated that underperforming hospitals in 2012-2015 were no underperformers in 2016-2019 anymore. Female sex, laparoscopic surgery, and rectal resection without defunctioning stoma creation were positively associated with textbook outcome.Conclusion: Textbook outcome after rectal cancer resection is mainly driven by postoperative complications. Although textbook outcome showed some discriminating value for identifying underperforming hospitals, it does not fit the plan-do-check-act cycle of clinical auditing. In our opinion, textbook outcome has little added value to the current outcome indicators for rectal cancer surgery.KEYWORDS: Rectal cancer - Surgery - Textbook outcome - Clinical auditing - Hospital variation - Outcome indicator Show less
Background Synchronous colorectal cancer (CRC) has been associated with higher postoperative morbidity and mortality rates compared to solitary CRC. The influence of improved CRC care and... Show moreBackground Synchronous colorectal cancer (CRC) has been associated with higher postoperative morbidity and mortality rates compared to solitary CRC. The influence of improved CRC care and introduction of screening on these outcomes remains unknown. This study aimed to evaluate time trends in incidence, population characteristics, and short-term outcomes of synchronous CRC patients at the population level over a 10-year time period. Methods Data of all patients that underwent resection for primary CRC were extracted from the Dutch ColoRectal Audit (2010-2019). Analyses were stratified for solitary and synchronous colon and rectal cancer. Multilevel logistic regression analyses were used to determine factors associated with pathological and surgical outcomes. Results Among 100,474 patients, 3.1% underwent surgery for synchronous CRC. A screening-related decrease for surgically treated left-sided solitary and synchronous colon cancer and a temporary increase for exclusively right-sided colon cancer were observed. Synchronous CRC patients had higher rates of complicated postoperative course, failure to rescue, and mortality. Bilateral synchronous colon cancer was more often treated with subtotal colectomy (25.4%) and demonstrated higher rates of surgical complications, reinterventions, prolonged hospital stay, and mortality than other synchronous tumor locations. Discussion National bowel screening resulted in contradictory effects on surgical resections for synchronous CRCs depending on sidedness. Bilateral synchronous colon cancer required more often extended resection resulting in significantly worse outcomes than other synchronous tumor locations. Identification of low volume, high complex CRC subpopulations is relevant for individualized care and has implications for case-mix correction and benchmarking in clinical auditing. Show less
Bosch, T. van den; Warps, A.L.K.; Babberich, M.P.M.D.T.; Stamm, C.; Geerts, B.F.; Vermeulen, L.; ... ; Dutch ColoRectal Audit 2021
Question Can big-data analysis of clinical audits help to find new risk factors and predict adverse events associated with colorectal cancer surgery? Findings This cohort study found that machine... Show moreQuestion Can big-data analysis of clinical audits help to find new risk factors and predict adverse events associated with colorectal cancer surgery? Findings This cohort study found that machine learning applied to a clinical audit containing 62 501 records and 103 preoperative variables of surgically treated patients with colorectal cancer outperformed conventional scores in predicting 30-day postoperative mortality but with similar performance as a preexisting case-mix model. New risk factors for several other adverse events may be identified. Meaning This study suggests that machine learning methods may be of additional value in analyzing quality indicators in colorectal cancer surgery, thereby providing directions to optimize case-mix corrections for benchmarking in clinical auditing.Importance Quality improvement programs for colorectal cancer surgery have been introduced with benchmarking based on quality indicators, such as mortality. Detailed (pre)operative characteristics may offer relevant information for proper case-mix correction. Objective To investigate the added value of machine learning to predict quality indicators for colorectal cancer surgery and identify previously unrecognized predictors of 30-day mortality based on a large, nationwide colorectal cancer registry that collected extensive data on comorbidities. Design, Setting, and Participants All patients who underwent resection for primary colorectal cancer registered in the Dutch ColoRectal Audit between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2016, were included. Multiple machine learning models (multivariable logistic regression, elastic net regression, support vector machine, random forest, and gradient boosting) were made to predict quality indicators. Model performance was compared with conventionally used scores. Risk factors were identified by logistic regression analyses and Shapley additive explanations (ie, SHAP values). Statistical analysis was performed between March 1 and September 30, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome of this cohort study was 30-day mortality. Prediction models were trained on a training set by performing 5-fold cross-validation, and outcomes were measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve on the test set. Machine learning was further used to identify risk factors, measured by odds ratios and SHAP values. Results This cohort study included 62 501 records, most patients were male (35 116 [56.2%]), were aged 61 to 80 years (41 560 [66.5%]), and had an American Society of Anesthesiology score of II (35 679 [57.1%]). A 30-day mortality rate of 2.7% (n = 1693) was found. The area under the curve of the best machine learning model for 30-day mortality (0.82; 95% CI, 0.79-0.85) was significantly higher than the American Society of Anesthesiology score (0.74; 95% CI, 0.71-0.77; P < .001), Charlson Comorbidity Index (0.66; 95% CI, 0.63-0.70; P < .001), and preoperative score to predict postoperative mortality (0.73; 95% CI, 0.70-0.77; P < .001). Hypertension, myocardial infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and asthma were comorbidities with a high risk for increased mortality. Machine learning identified specific risk factors for a complicated course, intensive care unit admission, prolonged hospital stay, and readmission. Laparoscopic surgery was associated with a decreased risk for all adverse outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance This study found that machine learning methods outperformed conventional scores to predict 30-day mortality after colorectal cancer surgery, identified specific patient groups at risk for adverse outcomes, and provided directions to optimize benchmarking in clinical audits.This cohort study investigates the ability of machine learning to predict quality indicators for colorectal cancer surgery and identify previously unrecognized predictors of 30-day mortality based on a large nationwide colorectal cancer registry that collected extensive data on comorbidities. Show less
Purpose Interhospital referral is a consequence of centralization of complex oncological care but might negatively impact waiting time, a quality indicator in the Netherlands. This study aims to... Show morePurpose Interhospital referral is a consequence of centralization of complex oncological care but might negatively impact waiting time, a quality indicator in the Netherlands. This study aims to evaluate characteristics and waiting times of patients with primary colorectal cancer who are referred between hospitals. Methods Data were extracted from the Dutch ColoRectal Audit (2015-2019). Waiting time between first tumor-positive biopsy until first treatment was compared between subgroups stratified for referral status, disease stage, and type of hospital. Results In total, 46,561 patients were included. Patients treated for colon or rectal cancer in secondary care hospitals were referred in 12.2% and 14.7%, respectively. In tertiary care hospitals, corresponding referral rates were 43.8% and 66.4%. Referred patients in tertiary care hospitals were younger, but had a more advanced disease stage, and underwent more often multivisceral resection and simultaneous metastasectomy than non-referred patients in secondary care hospitals (p<0.001). Referred patients were more often treated within national quality standards for waiting time compared to non-referred patients (p<0.001). For referred patients, longer waiting times prior to MDT were observed compared to non-referred patients within each hospital type, although most time was spent post-MDT. Conclusion A large proportion of colorectal cancer patients that are treated in tertiary care hospitals are referred from another hospital but mostly treated within standards for waiting time. These patients are younger but often have a more advanced disease. This suggests that these patients are willing to travel more but also reflects successful centralization of complex oncological patients in the Netherlands. Show less
Background: Complications after colorectal cancer surgery can worsen long-term survival. The aim of this nationwide study was to determine the impact of different types of complications on overall... Show moreBackground: Complications after colorectal cancer surgery can worsen long-term survival. The aim of this nationwide study was to determine the impact of different types of complications on overall survival (OS) and conditional survival if still alive one year postoperative (CS-1) after colorectal cancer surgery .Materials and methods: All patients registered in the Dutch ColoRectal Audit after resection of primary colorectal cancer between 2011 and 2017 and with known survival status were included. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to assess the association of complications with OS and CS-1, thereby calculating the Hazard Ratio (HR) with 95% Confidence Interval.Results: 43,908 colon and 16,955 rectal cancer patients were included. Median follow-up was 66.1 and 66.5 months, respectively. Five-year OS after colon cancer resection was 73.2% without complications, and 65.4% with surgical, 52.9% with non-surgical and 51.8% with combined type of complications (p<0.001). Corresponding 5-year OS for rectal cancer patients was 76.9%, 72.7%, 64.9%, and 63.2% (p<0.001). In colon cancer, multivariable analyses revealed HR 1.198 (1.136-1.264) for surgical, HR 1.489 (1.423-1.558) for non-surgical and HR 1.590 (1.505-1.681) for combined type of complications. For rectal cancer, these HRs were 1.193 (1.097-1.2297), 1.456 (1.346-1.329), and 1.489 (1.357-1.633). Surgical complications were associated with worse CS-1 in rectal cancer (HR 1.140 (1.050-1.260), but not in colon cancer (HR 1.007 (0.943-1.075)).Conclusion: Non-surgical complications have higher impact on survival than surgical complications. The impact of surgical complications on survival was still measurable after surviving the first year in rectal cancer but not in colon cancer patients. Show less
Objective: To compare actual 90-day hospital costs between elective open and laparoscopic colon and rectal cancer resection in a daily practice multicenter setting stratified for operative risk.... Show moreObjective: To compare actual 90-day hospital costs between elective open and laparoscopic colon and rectal cancer resection in a daily practice multicenter setting stratified for operative risk. Background: Laparoscopic resection has developed as a commonly accepted surgical procedure for colorectal cancer. There are conflicting data on the influence of laparoscopy on hospital costs, without separate analyses based on operative risk. Methods: Retrospective analyses using a population-based database (Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit). All elective resections for a T1-3N0-2M0 stage colorectal cancer were included between 2010 and 2012 in 29 Dutch hospitals. Operative risk was stratified for age (<75 years or 75 years) and ASA status (I-II/III-IV). Ninety-day hospital costs were measured uniformly in all hospitals based on time-driven activity-based costing. Results: Total 90-day hospital costs ranged from s10474 to s20865 in the predefined subgroups. For colon cancer surgery (N.4202), laparoscopic resection was less expensive than open resection in all subgroups, savings because of laparoscopy ranged from s409 (<75 years ASA I-II) to s1932 (75 years ASA I-II). In patients 75 years and ASA I-II, laparoscopic resection was associated with 46% less mortality (P . 0.05), 41% less severe complications (P < 0.001), 25% less hospital stay (P . 0.013), and 65% less ICU stay (P < 0.001). For rectal cancer surgery (N.2328), all laparoscopic subgroups had significantly higher total hospital costs, ranging from s501 (<75 years ASA I-II) to s2515 ( 75 years ASA III-IV). Conclusions: Laparoscopic resection resulted in the largest cost reduction in patients over 75 years with ASA I-II undergoing colonic resection, and the largest cost increase in patients over 75 years with ASA III-IV undergoing rectal resection as compared with an open approach. Keywords: colorectal cancer, hospital costs, laparoscopy, population based registry, resection, tumor Show less
