Background: Although self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement as bridge to surgery (BTS) in patients with left-sided obstructing colonic cancer has shown promising short-term results, it is... Show moreBackground: Although self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement as bridge to surgery (BTS) in patients with left-sided obstructing colonic cancer has shown promising short-term results, it is used infrequently owing to uncertainty about its oncological safety. This population study compared long-term oncological outcomes between emergency resection and SEMS placement as BTS.Methods: Through a national collaborative research project, long-term outcome data were collected for all patients who underwent resection for left-sided obstructing colonic cancer between 2009 and 2016 in 75 Dutch hospitals. Patients were identified from the Dutch Colorectal Audit database. SEMS as BTS was compared with emergency resection in the curative setting after 1: 2 propensity score matching.Results: Some 222 patients who had a stent placed were matched to 444 who underwent emergency resection. The overall SEMS-related perforation rate was 7.7 per cent (17 of 222). Three-year locoregional recurrence rates after SEMS insertion and emergency resection were 11-4 and 13.6 per cent (P= 0-457), disease-free survival rates were 58-8 and 52.6 per cent (P= 0-175), and overall survival rates were 74-0 and 68-3 per cent (P= 0.231), respectively. SEMS placement resulted in significantly fewer permanent stomas (23.9 versus 45.3 per cent; P < 0-001), especially in elderly patients (29.0 versus 57.9 per cent; P < 0-001). For patients in the SEMS group with or without perforation, 3-year locoregional recurrence rates were 18 and 11.0 per cent (P= 0.432), disease-free survival rates were 49 and 59.6 per cent (P= 0-717), and overall survival rates 61 and 75.1 per cent (P= 0.529), respectively.Conclusion: Overall, SEMS as BTS seems an oncologically safe alternative to emergency resection with fewer permanent stomas. Nevertheless, the risk of SEMS-related perforation, as well as permanent stoma, might influence shared decision-making for individual patients. Show less
Background. The time interval between CRT and surgery in rectal cancer patients is still the subject of debate. The aim of this study was to first evaluate the nationwide use of restaging magnetic... Show moreBackground. The time interval between CRT and surgery in rectal cancer patients is still the subject of debate. The aim of this study was to first evaluate the nationwide use of restaging magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and its impact on timing of surgery, and, second, to evaluate the impact of timing of surgery after chemoradiotherapy (CRT) on short- and long-term outcomes.Methods. Patients were selected from a collaborative rectal cancer research project including 71 Dutch centres, and were subdivided into two groups according to time interval from the start of preoperative CRT to surgery (< 14 and ae14 weeks).Results. From 2095 registered patients, 475 patients received preoperative CRT. MRI restaging was performed in 79.4% of patients, with a median CRT-MRI interval of 10 weeks (interquartile range [IQR] 8-11) and a median MRI-surgery interval of 4 weeks (IQR 2-5). The CRT-surgery interval groups consisted of 224 (< 14 weeks) and 251 patients (>= 14 weeks), and the long-interval group included a higher proportion of cT4 stage and multivisceral resection patients. Pathological complete response rate (n = 34 [15.2%] vs. n = 47 [18.7%], p = 0.305) and CRM involvement (9.7% vs. 15.9%, p = 0.145) did not significantly differ. Thirty-day surgical complications were similar (20.1% vs. 23.1%, p = 0.943), however no significant differences were found for local and distant recurrence rates, disease-free survival, and overall survival.Conclusions. These real-life data, reflecting routine daily practice in The Netherlands, showed substantial variability in the use and timing of restaging MRI after preoperative CRT for rectal cancer, as well as time interval to surgery. Surgery before or after 14 weeks from the start of CRT resulted in similar short- and long-term outcomes. Show less
Raaff, C.A.L. de; Gorter-Stam, M.A.W.; Vries, N. de; Sinha, A.C.; Bonjer, H.J.; Chung, F.; ... ; Wagensveld, B.A. van 2017
Aim A Snapshot study design eliminates changes in treatment and outcome over time. This population based Snapshot study aimed to determine current practice and outcome of rectal cancer treatment... Show moreAim A Snapshot study design eliminates changes in treatment and outcome over time. This population based Snapshot study aimed to determine current practice and outcome of rectal cancer treatment with published landmark randomized controlled trials as a benchmark.Method In this collaborative research project, the dataset of the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit was extended with additional treatment and long-term outcome data. All registered patients who underwent resection for rectal cancer in 2011 were eligible. Baseline characteristics and outcome were evaluated against the results of the Dutch TME trial and the COLOR II trial from which the original datasets were obtained.Results A total of 71 hospitals participated, and data were completed for 2102 out of the potential 2633 patients (79.8%). Median follow-up was 41 (interquartile range 25-47) months. Overall circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement was 9.3% in the Snapshot cohort and 18.5% in the Dutch TME trial. CRM positivity after laparoscopic resection was 7.8% in the Snapshot and 9.5% in the COLOR II trial. Three-year overall local recurrence rate in the Snapshot was 5.9%, with a disease-free survival of 67.1% and overall survival of 79.5%. Benchmarking with the randomized controlled trials revealed an overall favourable long-term outcome of the Snapshot cohort.Conclusion This study showed that current rectal cancer care in a large unselected Dutch population is of high quality, with less positive CRM since the TME trial and oncologically safe implementation of minimally invasive surgery after the COLOR II trial. Show less
Brouwer, C.N.M.; Halsema, E.E. van; Reiber, B.M.M.; Mioduszewska, K.; Woensel, J.B.M. van 2016
