Adequate patient selection is crucial within the treatment of older patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). While previous studies report increased morbidity and mortality in older patients screened ...positive for frailty, improvements in the perioperative care and postoperative outcomes have raised the question of whether older patients screened positive for frailty still face worse outcomes. This study aimed to investigate the postoperative outcomes of older patients with CRC screened positive for frailty, and to evaluate changes in treatment after frailty screening and geriatric assessment.
Patients ≥70 years with primary CRC who underwent frailty screening between 1 January 2019 and 31 October 2021 were included. Frailty screening was performed by the Geriatric-8 (G8) screening tool. If the G8 indicated frailty (G8 ≤ 14), patients were referred for a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). Postoperative outcomes and changes in treatment based on frailty screening and CGA were evaluated.
A total of 170 patients were included, of whom 74 (43.5%) screened positive for frailty (G8 ≤ 14). Based on the CGA, the initially proposed treatment plan was altered to a less intensive regimen in five (8.9%) patients, and to a more intensive regimen in one (1.8%) patient. Surgery was performed in 87.8% of patients with G8 ≤ 14 and 96.9% of patients with G8 > 14 (p = 0.03). Overall postoperative complications were similar between patients with G8 ≤ 14 and G8 > 14 (46.2% vs. 47.3%, p = 0.89). Postoperative delirium was observed in 7.7% of patients with G8 ≤ 14 and 1.1% of patients with G8 > 14 (p = 0.08). No differences in 30-day mortality (1.1% vs. 1.5%, p > 0.99) or one-year and two-year survival rates were observed (log rank, p = 0.26).
Although patients screened positive for frailty underwent CRC surgery less often, those considered eligible for surgery can safely undergo CRC resection within current clinical care pathways, without increased morbidity and mortality. Efforts to optimise perioperative care and minimise the risk of postoperative complications, in particular delirium, seem warranted. A multidisciplinary onco-geriatric pathway may support tailored decision-making in patients at risk of frailty.
IntroductionCytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) has become standard of care for patients with peritoneal metastases of colorectal origin with a ...low/moderate abdominal disease load. In case of a peritoneal cancer index (PCI) score >20, CRS-HIPEC is not considered to be beneficial. Patients with a PCI >20 are currently offered palliative systemic chemotherapy. Previous studies have shown that systemic chemotherapy is less effective against peritoneal metastases than it is against haematogenous spread of colorectal cancer. It is suggested that patients with peritoneal metastases may benefit from the addition of intraperitoneal chemotherapy to systemic chemotherapy. Aim of this study is to establish the maximum tolerated dose of intraperitoneal irinotecan, added to standard of care systemic therapy for colorectal cancer. Secondary endpoints are to determine the safety and feasibility of this treatment and to establish the pharmacokinetic profile of intraperitoneally administered irinotecan.Methods and analysisThis phase I, ‘3+3’ dose-escalation, study is performed in two Dutch tertiary referral centres. The study population consists of adult patients with extensive peritoneal metastases of colorectal origin who have a good performance status and no extra-abdominal metastases. According to standard work-up for CRS-HIPEC, patients will undergo a diagnostic laparoscopy to score the PCI. In case of a PCI >20, a peritoneal access port will be placed in the abdomen of the patient. Through this port we will administer intraperitoneal irinotecan, in combination with standard systemic treatment consisting of 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin with oxaliplatin and the targeted agent bevacizumab. Therapy consists of a maximum of 12 cycles 2-weekly.Ethics and disseminationThis study protocol is approved by a research medical ethics committee (Rotterdam, Netherlands) and the Dutch Competent Authority (CCMO, The Hague, Netherlands). The results of this trial will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.Trail registration numberNL6988 and NL2018-000479-33; Pre-results.
Primary tumor location is an established prognostic factor in patients with (metastatic) colon cancer. Colon tumors can be divided into left‐sided and right‐sided tumors. The aim of this study was to ...determine the impact of primary tumor location on treatment and overall survival (OS) in patients with peritoneal metastases (PM) from colon cancer. This study is a retrospective, population‐based cohort study. Records of patients diagnosed with colon cancer and synchronous PM, from 1995 through 2016, were retrieved from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). Data on diagnosis, staging, and treatment were extracted from the medical records by specifically trained NCR personnel. Information on survival status was updated annually using a computerized link with the national civil registry. In total, 7930 patients were included in this study; 4555 (57.4%) had a right‐sided and 3375 (42.6%) had a left‐sided primary tumor. In multivariable analysis right‐sided primary tumor was associated with worse OS (HR: 1.11, 95% CI 1.03‐1.19, P = .007). Of all patients diagnosed with PM, 564 (7.1%) underwent cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS‐HIPEC). Patients with left‐sided primary tumors were more often candidates for CRS‐HIPEC (6.5% vs. 8.0%, P = .008). OS of patients with right‐ and left‐sided tumors who underwent CRS‐HIPEC did not significantly differ. In conclusion, primary right‐sided colon cancer was an independent prognostic factor for decreased OS in patients diagnosed with synchronous PM. In patients treated with CRS‐HIPEC location of the primary tumor did not influence survival.
Primary tumor location is an established prognostic factor for patients with colon cancer. Little is known about the impact of tumor location on the outcomes of patients with peritoneal metastases. In a population‐based study in the Netherlands, primary right‐sided colon cancer was an independent prognostic factor for decreased survival in patients with synchronous peritoneal metastases. In patients with synchronous peritoneal metastases treated with CRS‐HIPEC, location of the primary tumor did not influence survival.
IntroductionMalignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPM) is an uncommon but aggressive neoplasm and has a strong association with asbestos exposure. MPM has low survival rates of approximately 1 year even ...after (palliative) surgery and/or systemic chemotherapy. Recent advances in treatment strategies focusing on cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) have resulted in improved median survival of 53 months and a 5 year survival of 47%. However, recurrence rates are high. Current systemic chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting is of limited efficacy, while immunotherapy with dendritic cell based immunotherapy (DCBI) has yielded promising results in murine models with peritoneal mesothelioma and in patients with pleural mesothelioma.Methods and analysisThe MESOPEC trial is an open-label single centre phase II study. The study population are adult patients with histological/cytological confirmed diagnosis of epithelioid malignant peritoneal mesothelioma. Intervention: 4 to 6 weeks before CRS-HIPEC a leukapheresis is performed of which the monocytes are used for differentiation to dendritic cells (DCs). Autologous DCs pulsed with allogeneic tumour associated antigens (MesoPher) are re-injected 8 to 10 weeks after surgery, three times biweekly. Additional booster vaccinations are given at 3 and 6 months.Primary objective is to determine the feasibility of administering DCBI after CRS-HIPEC in patients with malignant peritoneal mesothelioma. Secondary objectives are to assess safety of DCBI in patients with peritoneal mesothelioma and determine whether a specific immunological response against the tumour occurs as a result of this adjuvant immunotherapy.Ethics and disseminationPermission to carry out this study protocol has been granted by the Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (CCMO in Dutch) and the Research Ethics Committee (METC in Dutch). The results of this trial will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberNTR7060. EudraCT: 2017-000897-12; Pre-Results.
Primary perineal wound closure after conventional abdominoperineal resection (cAPR) for rectal cancer has been the standard of care for many years. Since the introduction of neo-adjuvant radiotherapy ...and the extralevator APR (eAPR), oncological outcome has been improved, but at the cost of increased rates of perineal wound healing problems and perineal hernia. This has progressively increased the use of biological meshes, although not supported by sufficient evidence. The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of pelvic floor reconstruction using a biological mesh after standardized eAPR with neo-adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy compared to primary perineal wound closure.
In this multicentre randomized controlled trial, patients with a clinical diagnosis of primary rectal cancer who are scheduled for eAPR after neo-adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy will be considered eligible. Exclusion criteria are prior radiotherapy, sacral resection above S4/S5, allergy to pig products or polysorbate, collagen disorders, and severe systemic diseases affecting wound healing, except for diabetes. After informed consent, 104 patients will be randomized between standard care using primary wound closure of the perineum and the experimental arm consisting of suturing a biological mesh derived from porcine dermis in the pelvic floor defect, followed by perineal closure similar to the control arm. Patients will be followed for one year after the intervention and outcome assessors and patients will be blinded for the study treatment. The primary endpoint is the percentage of uncomplicated perineal wound healing, defined as a Southampton wound score of less than II on day 30. Secondary endpoints are hospital stay, incidence of perineal hernia, quality of life, and costs.
The BIOPEX-study is the first randomized controlled multicentre study to determine the additive value of using a biological mesh for perineal wound closure after eAPR with neo-adjuvant radiotherapy compared to primary perineal wound closure with regard to perineal wound healing and the occurrence of perineal hernia.
NCT01927497 (Clinicaltrial.gov).
It has been suggested that early development of the incisional hernia is caused by perioperative factors, such as surgical technique and wound infection. Late development may implicate other factors, ...such as connective tissue disorders. Our objective was to establish whether incisional hernia develops early after abdominal surgery (i.e., during the first postoperative month). Patients who underwent a midline laparotomy between 1995 and 2001 and had had a computed tomography (CT) scan of the abdomen during the first postoperative month were identified retrospectively. The distance between the two rectus abdominis muscles was measured on these CT scans, after which several parameters were calculated to predict incisional hernia development. Hernia development was established clinically through chart review or, if the chart review was inconclusive, by an outpatient clinic visit. The average and maximum distances between the left and right rectus abdominis muscles were significantly larger in patients with subsequent incisional hernia development than in those without an incisional hernia (P < 0.0001). Altogether, 92% (23/25) of incisional hernia patients had a maximum distance of more than 25 mm compared to only 18% (5/28) of patients without an incisional hernia (P < 0.0001). Incisional hernia occurrence can thus be predicted by measuring the distance between the rectus abdominis muscles on a postoperative CT scan. Although an incisional hernia develops within weeks of surgery, its clinical manifestation may take years. Our results indicate perioperative factors as the main cause of incisional hernias. Therefore, incisional hernia prevention should focus on perioperative factors.
Aim
Most new ostomy patients are not able to manage ostomy self‐care when they are discharged and rely on visiting nurse services for ostomy care. The aim of this study was to determine if a ...perioperative ostomy educational pathway increases the level of independence and decreases the need for visiting nurse services in new ostomy patients.
Method
A prospective longitudinal study was conducted between July 2018 and February 2020. Patients who received a colostomy or ileostomy and were treated on the surgery ward were included. Patients who followed a perioperative ostomy educational pathway were compared to a historical control group. The primary outcome measure was the level of independence in ostomy care and the need for visiting nurse services.
Results
After discharge, 67.6% of patients in the intervention group (n = 244) were able to independently perform ostomy care and were therefore not relying on visiting nurse services, compared to 15.2% of the patients in the control group (n = 33). The need for visiting nurse services was higher in patients aged ≥70 years (OR 3.20, P < 0.001), those who did not attend the preoperative practice session (OR 3.02, P = 0.002), those with a history of transient ischaemic attack (OR 10.22, P = 0.045) and those with mild cognitive impairment (OR 28.98, P = 0.002).
Conclusion
A perioperative ostomy educational pathway effectively increased the level of independence and decreased the need for visiting nurse services in new ostomy patients.
Background
Standard treatment for localized soft tissue sarcoma (STS) is resection plus adjuvant radiotherapy (RTx). In approximately 10% of cases, resection would cause severe loss of function or ...even require amputation because of the extent of disease. Isolated limb perfusion (ILP) with tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) and melphalan can achieve regression of the tumor, facilitating limb-saving resection. RTx improves local control but may lead to increased morbidity.
Methods
In our database of over 500 ILPs, 122 patients with unifocal STS were treated by ILP followed by limb-sparing surgery. All included patients were candidates for amputation.
Results
Surgery resulted in 69 R0 resections (57%), and in 53 specimens (43%) resection margins contained microscopic evidence of tumor (R1). Histopathological examination revealed >50% ILP-induced tumor necrosis in 59 cases (48%). RTx was administered in 73 patients (60%). Local recurrence rate was 21% after median follow-up of 31 months (2–182 months). Recurrence was significantly less in patients with >50% ILP-induced necrosis versus ≤50% necrosis (7% vs. 33%,
P
= 0.001). A similar significant correlation was observed for R0 versus R1 resections (15% vs. 28%,
P
= 0.04). In 36 patients with R0 resection and >50% necrosis, of whom 21 were spared RTx, no recurrences were observed during follow-up.
Conclusions
In patients with locally advanced primary STS, treated with ILP followed by R0 resection, and with >50% ILP-induced necrosis in the resected specimen, RTx is of no further benefit.
Purpose Intra-operative radiotherapy (IORT) has been used as a tool to provide a high-dose radiation boost to a limited volume of patients with fixed tumors with a likelihood of microscopically ...involved resection margins, in order to improve local control. Two main techniques to deliver IORT include high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy, termed ‘intra-operative brachytherapy’ (IOBT), and electrons, termed ‘intra-operative electron radiotherapy’ (IOERT), both having very different dose distributions. A recent paper described an improved local recurrence-free survival favoring IOBT over IOERT for patients with locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer and microscopically irradical resections. Although several factors may have contributed to this result, an important difference between the two techniques was the higher surface dose delivered by IOBT. This article described an adaptation of IOERT technique to achieve a comparable surface dose as dose delivered by IOBT Material and methods Two steps were taken to increase the surface dose for IOERT: 1. Introducing a bolus to achieve a maximum dose on the surface, and 2. Re-normalizing to allow for the same prescribed dose at reference depth Conclusions We describe and propose an adaptation of IOERT technique to increase surface dose, decreasing the differences between these two techniques, with the aim of further improving local control. In addition, an alternative method of dose prescription is suggested, to consider improved comparison with other techniques in the future.
Background
There is no evidence regarding restaging of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer after a long course of neoadjuvant radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy. This study evaluated ...the value of restaging with chest and abdominal computed tomographic (CT) scan after radiotherapy.
Methods
Between January 2000 and December 2010, all newly diagnosed patients in our tertiary referral hospital, who underwent a long course of radiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer, were analyzed. Patients were only included if they had chest and abdominal imaging before and after radiotherapy treatment.
Results
A total of 153 patients who met the inclusion criteria and were treated with curative intent were included. A change in treatment strategy due to new findings on the CT scan after radiotherapy was observed in 18 (12 %) of 153 patients. Twelve patients (8 %) were spared rectal surgery due to progressive metastatic disease.
Conclusions
Restaging with a chest and abdominal CT scan after radiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer is advisable because additional findings may alter the treatment strategy.
PDF
