Search

Background Colorectal cancer screening programmes have led to a shift towards early-stage colorectal cancer, which, in selected cases, can be treated using local excision. However, local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision (two-stage approach) may be associated with less favourable outcomes than primary total mesorectal excision (one-stage approach). The aim of this population study was to determine the distribution of treatment strategies for early rectal cancer in the Netherlands and to compare the short-term outcomes of primary total mesorectal excision with those of local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision. Methods Short-term data for patients with cT1–2 N0xM0 rectal cancer who underwent local excision only, primary total mesorectal excision, or local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision between 2012 and 2020 in the Netherlands were collected from the Dutch Colorectal Audit. Patients were categorized according to treatment groups and logistic regressions were performed after multiple imputation and propensity score matching. The primary outcome was the end-ostomy rate. Results From 2015 to 2020, the proportion for the two-stage approach increased from 22.3% to 43.9%. After matching, 1062 patients were included. The end-ostomy rate was 16.8% for the primary total mesorectal excision group versus 29.6% for the local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision group (P < 0.001). The primary total mesorectal excision group had a higher re-intervention rate than the local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision group (16.7% versus 11.8%; P = 0.048). No differences were observed with regard to complications, conversion, diverting ostomies, radical resections, readmissions, and death. Conclusion This study shows that, over time, cT1–2 rectal cancer has increasingly been treated using the two-stage approach. However, local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision seems to be associated with an elevated end-ostomy rate. It is important that clinicians and patients are aware of this risk during shared decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is growing evidence that bridge to surgery with stent or decompressing stoma for left-sided obstructive colon cancer (LSOCC) is better than emergency resection (ER), especially in elderly patients (age ≥70 years). This was already incorporated in Dutch guideline recommendations in 2014. The aim of this study was to evaluate time trends and interhospital variability in treatment approaches for LSOCC, and to compare short-term outcomes between approaches., Patients and Methods: Data of patients undergoing resection for LSOCC between 2012 and 2020 were extracted from the Dutch ColoRectal Audit., Results: A total of 4,535 patients were included (3,155 ER, 573 semielective resection [SER], 807 resection after stent or stoma [RSS]). A decrease in ER over time was observed (79.7% in 2012-2014, 68.8% in 2015-2017, and 54.7% in 2018-2020) in favor of RSS (9.2%, 17.9%, and 31.2%, respectively). Compared with SER and RSS, ER was associated with higher 30-day mortality (6.2% ER, 2.8% SER, and 1.0% RSS; P<.001) and complication rates (45.4%, 31.2%, 31.5%, respectively; P<.001). There were still 19 hospitals with >75% ER in 2018-2020. For hospitals with >75% ER, mortality was significantly higher compared with hospitals mainly performing SER and RSS (5.6% vs 4.2%; P=.038). The proportion of ER in patients (age ≥70 years) decreased from 80.7% in 2012-2014 to 54.3% in 2018-2020 (P<.001). Mortality in patients aged ≥70 years was significantly lower after RSS than after ER (1.6% vs 9.5%; P<.001)., Conclusions: A significant decrease in ER for LSOCC at a national level was observed, although with a variable degree of adherence to revised guidelines among hospitals. The high risk of mortality after ER, especially in elderly patients, strongly supports the guideline recommendations to perform bridge to surgery in these patients.

Background: Colorectal cancer screening programmes have led to a shift towards early-stage colorectal cancer, which, in selected cases, can be treated using local excision. However, local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision (two-stage approach) may be associated with less favourable outcomes than primary total mesorectal excision (one-stage approach). The aim of this population study was to determine the distribution of treatment strategies for early rectal cancer in the Netherlands and to compare the short-term outcomes of primary total mesorectal excision with those of local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision., Methods: Short-term data for patients with cT1-2 N0xM0 rectal cancer who underwent local excision only, primary total mesorectal excision, or local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision between 2012 and 2020 in the Netherlands were collected from the Dutch Colorectal Audit. Patients were categorized according to treatment groups and logistic regressions were performed after multiple imputation and propensity score matching. The primary outcome was the end-ostomy rate., Results: From 2015 to 2020, the proportion for the two-stage approach increased from 22.3% to 43.9%. After matching, 1062 patients were included. The end-ostomy rate was 16.8% for the primary total mesorectal excision group versus 29.6% for the local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision group (P < 0.001). The primary total mesorectal excision group had a higher re-intervention rate than the local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision group (16.7% versus 11.8%; P = 0.048). No differences were observed with regard to complications, conversion, diverting ostomies, radical resections, readmissions, and death., Conclusion: This study shows that, over time, cT1-2 rectal cancer has increasingly been treated using the two-stage approach. However, local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision seems to be associated with an elevated end-ostomy rate. It is important that clinicians and patients are aware of this risk during shared decision-making., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Foundation Ltd.)

Importance: The development of colorectal cancer outcome registries internationally has been organic, with differing datasets, data definitions and infrastructure across registries which has limited data pooling and international comparison. Currently there is no comprehensive data dictionary identified as a standard. This study is part of an international collaboration that aims to identify areas of data capture and usage which may be optimised to improve understanding of colorectal cancer outcomes., Objective: This study aimed to compare and identify commonalities and areas of difference across major colorectal cancer registries. We sought to establish datasets comprising of mutually collected common fields, and a combined comprehensive dataset of all collected fields across major registries to aid in establishing a future colorectal cancer registry database standard., Design and Methods: This mixed qualitative and quantitative study compared data dictionaries from three major colorectal cancer outcome registries: Bowel Cancer Outcomes Registry (BCOR) (Australia and New Zealand), National Bowel Cancer Audit (NBOCA) (United Kingdom) and Dutch ColoRectal Audit (DCRA) (Netherlands). Registries were compared and analysed thematically, and a common dataset and combined comprehensive dataset were developed. These generated datasets were compared to data dictionaries from Sweden (SCRCR), Denmark (DCCG), Argentina (BNCCR-A) and the USA (NAACCR and ACS NSQIP). Fields were assessed against prominent quality indicator metrics from the literature and current case-use., Results: We developed a combined comprehensive dataset of 225 fields under seven domains: demographic, pre-operative, operative, post-operative, pathology, neoadjuvant therapy, adjuvant therapy, and follow up/recurrence. A common dataset was developed comprising 38 overlapping fields, showing a low degree of mutually collected data, especially in preoperative, post operative and adjuvant therapy domains. The BNCCR-A, SCRCR and DCCG databases all contained a high percentage of common dataset fields. Fields were poorly comparable when viewed form current quality indicator metrics., Conclusion: This study mapped data dictionaries of prominent colorectal cancer registries and highlighted areas of commonality and difference The developed common field dataset provides a foundation for registries to benchmark themselves and work towards harmonisation of data dictionaries. This has the potential to enable meaningful large-scale international outcomes research., (© 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd.)