Search

Background: Hepatic artery infusion (HAI) is less frequently used in the adjuvant setting for resectable colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) due to concerns regarding toxicity. Our objective was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of establishing an adjuvant HAI program., Methods: Patients who underwent HAI pump placement between January 2019 and February 2023 for CRLM were identified. Complications and HAI delivery were compared between patients who received HAI in the unresectable and adjuvant settings., Results: Of 51 patients, 23 received HAI for unresectable CRLM and 28 in the adjuvant setting. Patients with unresectable CRLM more commonly had bilobar disease (n = 23/23 vs n = 18/28, p < 0.01) and more preoperative liver metastases (median 10 [IQR 6-15] vs 4 [IQR 3-7], p < 0.01). Biliary sclerosis was the most common complication (n = 2/23 vs n = 4/28); however, there were no differences in postoperative or HAI-specific complications. In the most recent two years, 0 patients in the unresectable group vs 2 patients in the adjuvant group developed biliary sclerosis. All patients were initiated on HAI with no difference in treatment times or dose reductions., Conclusion: Adjuvant HAI is safe and feasible for patients with resectable CRLM. HAI programs can carefully consider including patients with resectable CRLM if managed by an experienced multidisciplinary team with quality assurance controls in place., (Copyright © 2023 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in men and women (Siegel et al. in CA Cancer J Clin 72(1):7-33). Over one-half of newly diagnosed individuals will develop liver metastases. Among those with liver-only metastatic disease, only about one in five will be candidates for potentially curable resection., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Background: Hepatic artery infusion (HAI) is a liver-directed therapy that delivers high-dose chemotherapy to the liver through the hepatic arterial system for colorectal liver metastases and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Utilization of HAI is rapidly expanding worldwide., Objective and Methods: This review describes the conduct of HAI pump implantation, with focus on common technical pitfalls and their associated solutions. Perioperative identification and management of common postoperative complications is also described., Results: HAI therapy is most commonly performed with the surgical implantation of a subcutaneous pump, and placement of its catheter into the hepatic arterial system for inline flow of pump chemotherapy directly to the liver. Intraoperative challenges and abnormal hepatic perfusion can arise due to aberrant anatomy, vascular disease, technical or patient factors. However, solutions to prevent or overcome technical pitfalls are present for the majority of cases. Postoperative HAI-specific complications arise in 22% to 28% of patients in the form of pump pocket (8%-18%), catheter (10%-26%), vascular (5%-10%), or biliary (2%-8%) complications. The majority of patients can be rescued from these complications with early identification and aggressive intervention to continue to deliver safe and effective HAI therapy., Conclusions: This HAI toolkit provides the HAI team a reference to manage commonly encountered HAI-specific perioperative obstacles and complications. Overcoming these challenges is critical to ensure safe and effective pump implantation and delivery of HAI therapy, and key to successful implementation of new programs and expansion of HAI to patients who may benefit from such a highly specialized treatment strategy., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflict of interests., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

COVID-19 has resulted in significant disruptions in cancer care. The Illinois Cancer Collaborative (ILCC), a statewide multidisciplinary cancer collaborative, has developed expert recommendations for triage and management of colorectal cancer when disruptions occur in usual care. Such recommendations would be applicable to future outbreaks of COVID-19 or other large-scale disruptions in cancer care., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Hepatic artery infusion pump (HAIP) chemotherapy is an advanced cancer therapy for primary and secondary hepatic malignancies. The risk of concurrent hepatic and/or colorectal operations with HAIP placement is unknown. Our objective was to characterize the short-term outcomes of concurrent surgery with HAIP placement., Methods: The 2005-2017 ACS NSQIP dataset was queried for patients undergoing hepatic and colorectal operations with or without HAIP placement. Outcomes were compared for HAIP placement with different combined procedures. Patients who underwent procedures without HAIP placement were propensity score matched with those with HAIP placement. The primary outcome was 30-day death or serious morbidity (DSM). Secondary outcomes included infectious complications, wound complications, length of stay (LOS), and operative time., Results: Of 467 patients who underwent HAIP placement, 83.9% had concurrent surgery. The rate of DSM was 10.7% for HAIP placement alone, 19.2% with concurrent minor hepatic procedures, 22.1% with concurrent colorectal resection, 23.2% with concurrent minor hepatic plus colorectal procedures, 28.4% with concurrent major hepatic resection, and 41.7% with concurrent major hepatic plus colorectal resection. On matched analyses, there was no difference in DSM, infectious, or wound complications for procedures with HAIP placement compared with the additional procedure alone, but operative time (294.7 vs 239.8 min, difference 54.9, 95% CI 42.8-67.0) and LOS (6 vs 5, IRR 1.20, 95% CI 1.08-1.33) were increased., Conclusions: HAIP placement is not associated with additional morbidity when performed with hepatic and/or colorectal surgery. Decisions regarding HAIP placement should consider the risks of concurrent operations, and patient- and disease-specific factors.

Introduction: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and intraperitoneal chemotherapy (IPC) is an effective treatment option for selected patients with peritoneal metastases (PM), but national utilization patterns are poorly understood. The objectives of this study were to (1) describe population-based trends in national utilization of CRS/IPC; (2) define the most common indications for the procedure; and (3) characterize the types of hospitals performing the procedure., Methods: The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) was used to identify patients from 2006 to 2015 who underwent CRS/IPC, and to calculate national estimates of procedural frequency and oncologic indication. Hospitals performing CRS/IPC were classified based on size and teaching status., Results: The estimated annual number of CRS/IPC cases increased significantly from 189 to 1540 (p < 0.001). Overall, appendiceal cancer was the most common indication (25.7%), followed by ovarian cancer (23.3%), colorectal cancer (22.5%), and unspecified PM (15.0%). Remaining cases (13.5%) were performed for other indications. Most cases were performed in large teaching hospitals (65.9%), compared with smaller teaching hospitals (25.1%), large non-teaching hospitals (5.3%), or small non-teaching hospitals (3.2%). Patients were more likely to undergo CRS/IPC without a diagnosis based on level I evidence (appendiceal, ovarian, or colorectal) at large non-academic hospitals (odds ratio 2.00, 95% confidence interval 1.18-3.38, p = 0.010) compared with large academic hospitals., Conclusions: Utilization of CRS/IPC is increasing steadily in the US, is performed at many types of facilities, and often for a variety of indications that are not supported by high-level evidence. Given associated morbidity of CRS/IPC, a national registry dedicated to cases of IPC is necessary to further evaluate use and outcomes.

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the most common preventable cause of 30-day post-operative mortality, with many events occurring after hospital discharge. High-level evidence supports post-discharge VTE chemoprophylaxis following abdominal/pelvic cancer resection; however, some studies support a more tailored approach. Our objectives were to (1) identify risk factors associated with post-discharge VTE in a large cohort of patients undergoing colorectal cancer resection and (2) develop a post-discharge VTE risk calculator., Methods: Patients who underwent colorectal cancer resection from 2012 to 2016 were identified from ACS NSQIP colectomy and proctectomy procedure-targeted modules. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with post-discharge VTE. Incorporating pre-operative, intra-operative, and post-operative variables, a post-discharge VTE risk calculator was constructed and validated., Results: Of 51,139 patients, 387 (0.76%) developed post-discharge VTE. Pre-operative factors associated with post-discharge VTE included BMI (e.g., morbidly obese OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.65-3.12 vs. normal BMI), and thrombocytosis (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.03-1.92). Intra-operative factors included operative time (4-6 h OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.12-2.17; > 6 h, OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.21-2.84, vs. < 2 h), and type of operation (e.g., open partial colectomy OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.30-2.16 vs. laparoscopic partial colectomy). Post-operative factors included anastomotic leak (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.31-3.21) and post-operative ileus (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.07-1.79). Using the risk calculator, the predicted probability of post-discharge VTE ranged from 0.04 to 10.29%. On a 10-fold cross validation, the calculator's mean C-Statistic was 0.65., Conclusions: Patient-specific factors are associated with varying rates of post-discharge VTE. We present the first post-discharge VTE risk calculator designed for use at the time of discharge following colorectal cancer resection.

The liver is the second leading site of colorectal cancer metastases, following the lymph nodes. Although metastatic resection for colorectal cancer liver metastases has been shown to improve survival, many patients cannot undergo surgery. Several nonsurgical therapies are available in these situations, however high-quality evidence comparing the effectiveness of these therapies is sparse. Here, we review the currently available evidence in support of nonresectional regional therapies for colorectal metastases to the liver., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objectives: To assess national adherence with extended venous thromboembolism (VTE) chemoprophylaxis guideline recommendations after colorectal cancer surgery., Background: Postoperative VTE remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality after abdominal cancer surgery. On the basis of the results from randomized controlled trials, since 2007, national guidelines have suggested that these patients be discharged on VTE chemoprophylaxis., Methods: Medicare beneficiaries undergoing open colorectal cancer resections in 2008-2009 were identified using the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review data and limited to those who were enrolled and used Part D for their postoperative prescriptions. Postdischarge use of low-molecular-weight-heparin and other anticoagulants was assessed., Results: A total of 5078 patients underwent open colorectal cancer surgery and met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 77% underwent colectomy and 23% underwent proctectomy. A prescription for an anticoagulant was filled immediately after discharge for 77 (1.5%) patients, and a low-molecular-weight-heparin for 60 (1.2%) patients. On multivariable analysis, patients were more likely to receive postdischarge VTE chemoprophylaxis if undergoing rectal cancer surgery [incidence rate ratio (IRR), 1.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-3.12; vs colon], if higher educational status (IRR, 2.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-3.95; vs low education), or if they had a higher Elixhauser comorbidity index (IRR, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.25; vs lower index)., Conclusions: Although VTE remains a major issue after abdominal cancer surgery, only 1.5% of Medicare beneficiaries undergoing colorectal cancer surgery received care consistent with established guidelines for postdischarge VTE chemoprophylaxis. Barriers to adherence must be elucidated to improve the quality of care for abdominal and pelvic cancer surgery patients.

Purpose: Timeliness of cancer treatment is an important aspect of health care quality. Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs) are expected to treat a growing number of patients with cancer. Our objectives were to examine treatment times from diagnosis to first-course therapy for patients with colon and rectal cancers and assess factors associated with prolonged wait times., Methods: From the VA Central Cancer Registry, patients who underwent colon or rectal resection for cancer from 1998 to 2008 were identified. Time from diagnosis to definitive cancer-directed therapy was measured, and multivariable regression methods were used to determine predictors of prolonged wait times for colon (≥ 45 days) and rectal (≥ 60 days) cancers., Results: From 124 VAMCs, 14,097 patients underwent colectomy, and 3,390 underwent rectal resection for cancer. For colon cancer, the median time to treatment increased by 68% over time (P < .001). From 2007 to 2008, the median time to colectomy was 32 days. Predictors of prolonged wait times included age ≥ 55 years (v < 55 years), time period (2007 to 2008 v 1998 to 2000), black race (v white), marriage status (married v unmarried), high-volume center status (v low volume), and treatment at a different hospital (v same hospital as initial diagnosis; all P < .05). For rectal cancer, the overall median time to first-course treatment increased by 74% (P < .001). From 2007 to 2008, the median time to proctectomy was 47 days. Similar predictors of prolonged wait times were identified for rectal cancer., Conclusion: Time to first treatment has increased for patients with colon and rectal cancers at VAMCs. Patient, tumor, and hospital factors are associated with prolonged time to treatment.

Background: The American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) generally has not collected cancer-specific variables. Because increasing numbers of studies are using ACS NSQIP data to study cancer surgery, the objectives of the current study were 1) to examine differences between existing ACS NSQIP variables and cancer registry variables, and 2) to determine whether the addition of cancer-specific variables improves modeling of short-term outcomes., Methods: Data from patients in the ACS NSQIP and National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) who underwent colorectal resection for cancer were linked (2006-2008). By using regression methods, the relative importance of cancer staging and neoadjuvant therapy variables were assessed along with their effects on morbidity, serious morbidity, and mortality., Results: From 146 hospitals, 11,405 patients were identified who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer (colon, 85%; rectum, 15%). The NCDB metastatic cancer variable and the ACS NSQIP disseminated cancer variables agreed marginally (Cohen kappa coefficient, 0.454). For mortality, only the ACS NSQIP disseminated cancer variable and the NCDB stage IV variable were identified as important predictors; whereas the variables stage I through III, tumor (T)-classification, and lymph node (N)-classification were not selected. Cancer stage variables were inconsistently important for serious morbidity (stage IV, T-classification), superficial surgical site infection (N-classification), venous thromboembolism (metastatic cancer), and pneumonia (T-classification). With respect to neoadjuvant therapy, ACS NSQIP and NCDB variables agreed moderately (kappa, 0.570) and predicted superficial surgical site infection, serious morbidity, and organ space surgical site infection. The model fit was similar regardless of the inclusion of stage and neoadjuvant therapy variables., Conclusions: Although advanced disease stage and neoadjuvant therapy variables were predictors of short-term outcomes, their inclusion did not improve the models., (Copyright © 2012 American Cancer Society.)