Background. Involved lateral lymph nodes (LLNs) have been associated with increased local recurrence (LR) and ipsi-lateral LR (LLR) rates. However, consensus regarding the indication and type of... Show moreBackground. Involved lateral lymph nodes (LLNs) have been associated with increased local recurrence (LR) and ipsi-lateral LR (LLR) rates. However, consensus regarding the indication and type of surgical treatment for suspicious LLNs is lacking. This study evaluated the surgical treatment of LLNs in an untrained setting at a national level.Methods. Patients who underwent additional LLN surgery were selected from a national cross-sectional cohort study regarding patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery in 69 Dutch hospitals in 2016. LLN surgery consisted of either 'node-picking' (the removal of an individual LLN) or 'partial regional node dissection' (PRND; an incomplete resection of the LLN area). For all patients with primarily enlarged (=7 mm) LLNs, those undergoing rectal surgery with an additional LLN procedure were compared to those undergoing only rectal resection.Results. Out of 3057 patients, 64 underwent additional LLN surgery, with 4-year LR and LLR rates of 26% and 15%, respectively. Forty-eight patients (75%) had enlarged LLNs, with corresponding recurrence rates of 26% and 19%, respectively. Node-picking (n = 40) resulted in a 20% 4-year LLR, and a 14% LLR after PRND (n = 8; p = 0.677). Multivariable analysis of 158 patients with enlarged LLNs undergoing additional LLN surgery (n = 48) or rectal resection alone (n = 110) showed no significant association of LLN surgery with 4-year LR or LLR, but suggested higher recurrence risks after LLN surgery (LR: hazard ratio [HR] 1.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.7-3.2, p = 0.264; LLR: HR 1.9, 95% CI 0.2-2.5, p = 0.874).Conclusion. Evaluation of Dutch practice in 2016 revealed that approximately one-third of patients with primarily enlarged LLNs underwent surgical treatment, mostly consisting of node-picking. Recurrence rates were not significantly affected by LLN surgery, but did suggest worse outcomes. Outcomes of LLN surgery after adequate training requires further research. Show less
Smits, L.J.H.; Lieshout, A.S. van; Bosker, R.J.I.; Crobach, S.; Graaf, E.J.R. de; Hage, M.; ... ; TESAR Res Grp 2023
Introduction: In early rectal cancer, organ sparing treatment strategies such as local excision have gained popularity. The necessity of radical surgery is based on the histopathological evaluation... Show moreIntroduction: In early rectal cancer, organ sparing treatment strategies such as local excision have gained popularity. The necessity of radical surgery is based on the histopathological evaluation of the local excision specimen. This study aimed to describe diagnostic variability between pathologists, and its impact on treatment allocation in patients with locally excised early rectal cancer. Materials and methods: Patients with locally excised pT1-2 rectal cancer were included in this prospective cohort study. Both quantitative measures and histopathological risk factors (i.e. poor differentiation, deep submucosal invasion, and lymphatic- or venous invasion) were evaluated. Interobserver variability was reported by both percentages and Fleiss' Kappa- (k) or intra-class correlation coefficients. Results: A total of 126 patients were included. Ninety-four percent of the original histopathological reports contained all required parameters. In 73 of the 126 (57.9%) patients, at least one discordant parameter was observed, which regarded histopathological risk factors for lymph node metastases in 36 patients (28.6%). Interobserver agreement among different variables varied between 74% and 95% or k 0.530-0.962. The assessment of lymphovascular invasion showed discordances in 26% (k 1/4 0.530, 95% CI 0.375-0.684) of the cases. In fourteen (11%) patients, discordances led to a change in treatment strategy. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that there is substantial interobserver variability between pathologists, especially in the assessment of lymphovascular invasion. Pathologists play a key role in treatment allocation after local excision of early rectal cancer, therefore interobserver variability needs to be reduced to decrease the number of patients that are over- or undertreated. & COPY; 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Show less
Background: The role of radiological staging and surveillance imaging is under debate for T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) as the risk of distant metastases is low and imaging may lead to the detection... Show moreBackground: The role of radiological staging and surveillance imaging is under debate for T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) as the risk of distant metastases is low and imaging may lead to the detection of incidental findings. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the yield of radiological staging and surveillance imaging for T1 CRC. Methods: In this retrospective multicenter cohort study, all patients of 10 Dutch hospitals with histologically proven T1 CRC who underwent radiological staging in the period 2000-2014 were included. Clinical characteristics, pathological, endoscopic, surgical and imaging reports at baseline and during follow-up were recorded and analyzed. Patients were classified as high-risk T1 CRC if at least one of the histological risk factors (lymphovascular invasion, poor tumor differentiation, deep submucosal invasion or positive resection margins) was present and as low-risk when all risk factors were absent. Results: Of the 628 included patients, 3 (0.5%) had synchronous distant metastases, 13 (2.1%) malignant incidental findings and 129 (20.5%) benign incidental findings at baseline staging. Radiological surveillance was performed among 336 (53.5%) patients. The 5-year cumulative incidence of distant recurrence, malignant and benign incidental findings were 2.4% (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1%-5.4%), 2.5% (95% CI: 0.6%-10.4%) and 18.3% (95% CI: 13.4%-24.7%), respectively. No distant metastatic events occurred among low-risk T1 CRC patients. Conclusion: The risk of synchronous distant metastases and distant recurrence in T1 CRC is low, while there is a substantial risk of detecting incidental findings. Radiological staging seems unnecessary prior to local excision of suspected T1 CRC and after local excision of low-risk T1 CRC. Radiological surveillance should not be performed in patients with low-risk T1 CRC. Show less
BackgroundThe role of radiological staging and surveillance imaging is under debate for T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) as the risk of distant metastases is low and imaging may lead to the detection of... Show moreBackgroundThe role of radiological staging and surveillance imaging is under debate for T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) as the risk of distant metastases is low and imaging may lead to the detection of incidental findings.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the yield of radiological staging and surveillance imaging for T1 CRC.MethodsIn this retrospective multicenter cohort study, all patients of 10 Dutch hospitals with histologically proven T1 CRC who underwent radiological staging in the period 2000–2014 were included. Clinical characteristics, pathological, endoscopic, surgical and imaging reports at baseline and during follow-up were recorded and analyzed. Patients were classified as high-risk T1 CRC if at least one of the histological risk factors (lymphovascular invasion, poor tumor differentiation, deep submucosal invasion or positive resection margins) was present and as low-risk when all risk factors were absent.ResultsOf the 628 included patients, 3 (0.5%) had synchronous distant metastases, 13 (2.1%) malignant incidental findings and 129 (20.5%) benign incidental findings at baseline staging. Radiological surveillance was performed among 336 (53.5%) patients. The 5-year cumulative incidence of distant recurrence, malignant and benign incidental findings were 2.4% (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1%–5.4%), 2.5% (95% CI: 0.6%–10.4%) and 18.3% (95% CI: 13.4%–24.7%), respectively. No distant metastatic events occurred among low-risk T1 CRC patients.ConclusionThe risk of synchronous distant metastases and distant recurrence in T1 CRC is low, while there is a substantial risk of detecting incidental findings. Radiological staging seems unnecessary prior to local excision of suspected T1 CRC and after local excision of low-risk T1 CRC. Radiological surveillance should not be performed in patients with low-risk T1 CRC. Show less
Introduction: In patients with left-sided obstructive colon cancer (LSOCC), a stoma is often constructed as part of primary treatment, but with a considerable risk of becoming a permanent stoma (PS... Show moreIntroduction: In patients with left-sided obstructive colon cancer (LSOCC), a stoma is often constructed as part of primary treatment, but with a considerable risk of becoming a permanent stoma (PS). The aim of this retrospective multicentre cohort is to identify risk factors for a PS in LSOCC and to develop a pre-and postoperative prediction model for PS. Materials and methods: Data was retrospectively obtained from 75 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients who had curative resection of LSOCC between January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2016 were included with a minimum follow-up of 6 months after resection. The interventions analysed were emergency resection, decompressing stoma or stent as bridge-to-elective resection. Main outcome measure was presence of PS at the end of follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for PS at primary presentation (T0) and after resection, in patients having a stoma in situ (T1). These risk factors were used to construct a web-based prediction tool. Results: Of 2099 patients included in the study (T0), 779 had a PS (37%). A total of 1275 patients had a stoma in situ directly after resection (T1), of whom 674 had a PS (53%). Median follow-up was 34 months. Multivariable analysis showed that older patients, female sex, high ASA-score and open approach were independent predictors for PS in both the T0 and T1 population. Other predictors at T0 were sigmoid location, low Hb, high CRP, cM1 stage, and emergency resection. At T1, subtotal colectomy, no primary anastomosis, not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy and high pTNM stage were additional predictors. Two predictive models were built, with an AUC of 0.74 for T0 and an AUC of 0.81 for T1. Conclusions: PS is seen in 37% of the patients who have resection of LSOCC. In patients with a stoma in situ directly after resection, 53% PS are seen due to non-reversal. Not only baseline characteristics, but also treatment strategies determine the risk of a PS in patients with LSOCC. The developed predictive models will give physicians insight in the role of the individual variables on the risk of a PS and help in informing the patient about the probability of a PS. (c) 2022 Elsevier Ltd, BASO -The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved. Show less
During the COVID-19 pandemic, a 13.6 per cent reduction in the number of surgical procedures performed was observed in 2020. Despite great pressure on healthcare, the COVID-19 pandemic did not... Show moreDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, a 13.6 per cent reduction in the number of surgical procedures performed was observed in 2020. Despite great pressure on healthcare, the COVID-19 pandemic did not cause an increase in adverse surgical outcomes, and oncological surgery-related duration of hospital and ICU stay were significantly shorter.Background The COVID-19 pandemic caused disruption of regular healthcare leading to reduced hospital attendances, repurposing of surgical facilities, and cancellation of cancer screening programmes. This study aimed to determine the impact of COVID-19 on surgical care in the Netherlands. Methods A nationwide study was conducted in collaboration with the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing. Eight surgical audits were expanded with items regarding alterations in scheduling and treatment plans. Data on procedures performed in 2020 were compared with those from a historical cohort (2018-2019). Endpoints included total numbers of procedures performed and altered treatment plans. Secondary endpoints included complication, readmission, and mortality rates. Results Some 12 154 procedures were performed in participating hospitals in 2020, representing a decrease of 13.6 per cent compared with 2018-2019. The largest reduction (29.2 per cent) was for non-cancer procedures during the first COVID-19 wave. Surgical treatment was postponed for 9.6 per cent of patients. Alterations in surgical treatment plans were observed in 1.7 per cent. Time from diagnosis to surgery decreased (to 28 days in 2020, from 34 days in 2019 and 36 days in 2018; P < 0.001). For cancer-related procedures, duration of hospital stay decreased (5 versus 6 days; P < 0.001). Audit-specific complications, readmission, and mortality rates were unchanged, but ICU admissions decreased (16.5 versus 16.8 per cent; P < 0.001). Conclusion The reduction in the number of surgical operations was greatest for those without cancer. Where surgery was undertaken, it appeared to be delivered safely, with similar complication and mortality rates, fewer admissions to ICU, and a shorter hospital stay.Lay Summary COVID-19 has had a significant impact on healthcare worldwide. Hospital visits were reduced, operating facilities were used for COVID-19 care, and cancer screening programmes were cancelled. This study describes the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Dutch surgical healthcare in 2020. Patterns of care in terms of changed or delayed treatment are described for patients who had surgery in 2020, compared with those who had surgery in 2018-2019. The study found that mainly non-cancer surgical treatments were cancelled during months with high COVID-19 rates. Outcomes for patients undergoing surgery were similar but with fewer ICU admissions and shorter hospital stay. These data provide no insight into the burden endured by patients who had postponed or cancelled operations. Show less
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a modified CAL-WR. Summary Background Data: The use of segmental colectomy in patients with endoscopically unresectable... Show moreObjective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a modified CAL-WR. Summary Background Data: The use of segmental colectomy in patients with endoscopically unresectable colonic lesions results in significant morbidity and mortality. CAL-WR is an alternative procedure that may reduce morbidity. Methods: This prospective multicenter study was performed in 13 Dutch hospitals between January 2017 and December 2019. Inclusion criteria were (1) colonic lesions inaccessible using current endoscopic resection techniques (judged by an expert panel), (2) non-lifting residual/recurrent adenomatous tissue after previous polypectomy or (3) an undetermined resection margin after endoscopic removal of a low-risk pathological T1 (pT1) colon carcinoma. Thirty-day morbidity, technical success rate and radicality were evaluated. Results: Of the 118 patients included (56% male, mean age 66 years, standard deviation +/- 8 years), 66 (56%) had complex lesions unsuitable for endoscopic removal, 34 (29%) had non-lifting residual/recurrent adenoma after previous polypectomy and 18 (15%) had uncertain resection margins after polypectomy of a pT1 colon carcinoma. CAL-WR was technically successful in 93% and R-0 resection was achieved in 91% of patients. Minor complications (Clavien-Dindo i-ii) were noted in 7 patients (6%) and an additional oncologic segmental resection was performed in 12 cases (11%). Residual tissue at the scar was observed in 5% of patients during endoscopic follow-up. Conclusions: CAL-WR is an effective, organ-preserving approach that results in minor complications and circumvents the need for major surgery. CAL-WR, therefore, deserves consideration when endoscopic excision of circumscribed lesions is impossible or incomplete. Show less
Aim: Controversies on therapeutic strategy for large bowel obstruction by primary colorectal cancer mainly concern acute conditions, being essentially different from subacute obstruction. Clearly... Show moreAim: Controversies on therapeutic strategy for large bowel obstruction by primary colorectal cancer mainly concern acute conditions, being essentially different from subacute obstruction. Clearly defining acute obstruction is important for design and interpretation of studies as well as for guidelines and daily practice. This systematic review aimed to evaluate definitions of obstruction by colorectal cancer in prospective studies.Method: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Eligibility criteria included randomized or prospective observational design, publication between 2000 and 2019, and the inclusion of patients with an obstruction caused by colorectal cancer. Provided definitions of obstruction were extracted with assessment of common elements.Results: A total of 16 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 99 prospective observational studies were included. Obstruction was specified as acute in 28 studies, complete/emergency in five, (sub)acute or similar terms in four and unspecified in 78. Five of 16 RCTs (31%) and 37 of 99 cohort studies (37%) provided a definition. The definitions included any combination of clinical symptoms, physical signs, endoscopic features and radiological imaging findings in 25 studies. The definition was only based on clinical symptoms in 11 and radiological imaging in six studies. Definitions included a radiological component in 100% of evaluable RCTs (5/5) vs. 54% of prospective observational studies (20/37, P = 0.07).Conclusion: In this systematic review, the majority of prospective studies did not define obstruction by colorectal cancer and its urgency, whereas provided definitions varied hugely. Radiological confirmation seems to be an essential component in defining acute obstruction. Show less
Background The optimal timing of resection after decompression of left-sided obstructive colon cancer is unknown. Revised expert-based guideline recommendations have shifted from an interval of 5... Show moreBackground The optimal timing of resection after decompression of left-sided obstructive colon cancer is unknown. Revised expert-based guideline recommendations have shifted from an interval of 5-10 days to approximately 2 weeks following self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement, and recommendations after decompressing stoma are lacking. We aimed to evaluate the recommended bridging intervals after SEMS and explore the timing of resection after decompressing stoma.Methods This nationwide study included patients registered between 2009 and 2016 in the prospective, mandatory Dutch ColoRectal Audit. Additional data were collected through patient records in 75 hospitals. Only patients who underwent either SEMS placement or decompressing stoma as a bridge to surgery were selected. Technical SEMS failure and unsuccessful decompression within 48 hours were exclusion criteria.Results 510 patients were included (182 SEMS, 328 decompressing stoma). Median bridging interval was 23 days (interquartile range [IQR] 13-31) for SEMS and 36 days (IQR 22-65) for decompressing stoma. Following SEMS placement, no significant differences in post-resection complications, hospital stay, or laparoscopic resections were observed with resection after 11-17 days compared with 5-10 days. Of SEMS-related complications, 48% occurred in patients operated on beyond 17 days. Compared with resection within 14 days, an interval of 14-28 days following decompressing stoma resulted in significantly more laparoscopic resections, more primary anastomoses, and shorter hospital stays. No impact of bridging interval on mortality, disease-free survival, or overall survival was demonstrated.Conclusions Based on an overview of the data with balancing of surgical outcomes and timing of adverse events, a bridging interval of approximately 2 weeks seems appropriate after SEMS placement, while waiting 2-4 weeks after decompressing stoma further optimizes surgical conditions for laparoscopic resection with restoration of bowel continuity. Show less
Aim Implementation of the Dutch national bowel screening programme in 2014 led to an increased rate of detection of polyps. In general, polyps should be removed endoscopically. However, if the size... Show moreAim Implementation of the Dutch national bowel screening programme in 2014 led to an increased rate of detection of polyps. In general, polyps should be removed endoscopically. However, if the size and location of the polyp make endoscopic removal technically difficult, or if there is a suspicion for early (T1) cancer, surgery is the preferred method for removal. An increasing number of these patients are being treated with minimally invasive surgical procedures instead of segmental resection. The aim of this study was to assess the number of referrals for surgery and the type of surgery for polyps since the introduction of the Dutch national bowel screening programme.Method A retrospective cohort study was performed. Patients who underwent surgery for colorectal polyps between January 2012 and December 2017 were included. Patients with histologically proven carcinoma prior to surgery were excluded. Primary outcomes were the number and type of surgical procedures for polyps.Results A total of 164 patients were included. An annual increase in procedures for colorectal polyps was observed, from 18 patients in 2012 to 36 patients in 2017. All the procedures before implementation of the screening programme were segmental resections, and 58.8% of the patients underwent organ-preserving surgery after implementation of the screening. The overall complication rate of organ-preserving surgery was 16.3%, compared with 44.3% for segmental resections (P = 0.001). Overall, invasive colorectal cancer was encountered in 23.8% of cases.Conclusion The number of referrals for surgical resection of colorectal polyps has doubled since the introduction of the Dutch national bowel screening programme with a substantial shift towards organ-preserving techniques. Show less
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
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
