Search

This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer focuses on management of malignant polyps and resectable nonmetastatic rectal cancer because important updates have been made to these guidelines. These recent updates include redrawing the algorithms for stage II and III disease to reflect new data supporting the increasingly prominent role of total neoadjuvant therapy, expanded recommendations for short-course radiation therapy techniques, and new recommendations for a “watch-and-wait” nonoperative management technique for patients with cancer that shows a complete response to neoadjuvant therapy. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer, available online at NCCN.org, covers additional topics including risk assessment, pathology and staging, management of metastatic disease, posttreatment surveillance, treatment of recurrent disease, and survivorship.

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Colon Cancer focuses on systemic therapy options for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), because important updates have recently been made to this section. These updates include recommendations for first-line use of checkpoint inhibitors for mCRC, that is deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability-high, recommendations related to the use of biosimilars, and expanded recommendations for biomarker testing. The systemic therapy recommendations now include targeted therapy options for patients with mCRC that is HER2-amplified, or BRAF V600E mutation–positive. Treatment and management of nonmetastatic or resectable/ablatable metastatic disease are discussed in the complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer available at NCCN.org. Additional topics covered in the complete version include risk assessment, staging, pathology, posttreatment surveillance, and survivorship.

The NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up of patients with rectal cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel discussion behind recent important updates to the guidelines. These updates include clarifying the definition of rectum and differentiating the rectum from the sigmoid colon; the total neoadjuvant therapy approach for localized rectal cancer; and biomarker-targeted therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, with a focus on new treatment options for patients with BRAF V600E– or HER2 amplification–positive disease.

Small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA) is a rare malignancy of the gastrointestinal tract that has increased in incidence across recent years. Often diagnosed at an advanced stage, outcomes for SBA are worse on average than for other related malignancies, including colorectal cancer. Due to the rarity of this disease, few studies have been done to direct optimal treatment, although recent data have shown that SBA responds to treatment differently than colorectal cancer, necessitating a separate approach to treatment. The NCCN Guidelines for Small Bowel Adenocarcinoma were created to establish an evidence-based standard of care for patients with SBA. These guidelines provide recommendations on the workup of suspected SBA, primary treatment options, adjuvant treatment, surveillance, and systemic therapy for metastatic disease. Additionally, principles of imaging and endoscopy, pathologic review, surgery, radiation therapy, and survivorship are described.

The NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up of patients with rectal cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel discussion behind recent important updates to the guidelines. These updates include clarifying the definition of rectum and differentiating the rectum from the sigmoid colon; the total neoadjuvant therapy approach for localized rectal cancer; and biomarker-targeted therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, with a focus on new treatment options for patients with BRAF V600E- or HER2 amplification-positive disease.

Background:. Abdominoperineal resection (APR) and pelvic exenteration continue to be common procedures for the treatment of colorectal malignancy. The workhorse flap for reconstruction in these instances has been the vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap. The associated donor site morbidity, however, cannot be ignored. Here, we provide a review of the literature and present the senior author’s (A.M.) experience using the pedicled anterolateral thigh (ALT) flap for reconstruction of soft tissue defects following APR and pelvic exenteration. Methods:. Patients who underwent pelvic/perineal reconstruction with pedicled ALT flaps between 2017 and 2019 were included in the study. Parameters of interest included age, gender, body mass index, comorbidities, history of radiation, extent of ablative surgery, and postoperative complication rate. Results:. A total of 23 patients (16 men and 7 women) with a median age and body mass index of 66 years (inter-quartile range [IQR]: 49–71 years) and 24.9 kg/m2 (IQR: 24.2–26.7 kg/m2) were included in the study, respectively. Thirteen (56.5%) patients presented with rectal cancer, 5 (21.7%) with anal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), 4 (17.4%) with Crohn’s disease, and 1 (4.3%) with Paget’s disease. Nineteen patients (82.6%) received neoadjuvant radiation. Nine (39.1%) patients experienced 11 complications (2 major and 9 minor). The most common complication was partial perineal wound dehiscence (N = 6 [26.1%]). Stable soft tissue coverage was achieved in all but one patient. Conclusions:. The ALT flap allows for stable soft tissue coverage following APR and pelvic exenteration without being associated with abdominal donor site morbidity. Consideration to its use as a first-line reconstructive option should be given in pelvic/perineal reconstruction.

The NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer provide recommendations regarding diagnosis, pathologic staging, surgical management, perioperative treatment, surveillance, management of recurrent and metastatic disease, and survivorship. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the NCCN Colon Cancer Panel discussions for the 2018 update of the guidelines regarding risk stratification and adjuvant treatment for patients with stage III colon cancer, and treatment of BRAF V600E mutation-positive metastatic colorectal cancer with regimens containing vemurafenib.

Background Minimally invasive approaches have been shown to reduce surgical site complications without compromising oncologic outcomes. Objective The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the rates of successful oncologic resection and postoperative outcomes among laparoscopic, open, and robotic approaches to rectal cancer resection. Design This is a multicenter, quasiexperimental cohort study using propensity score weighting. Settings Interventions were performed in hospitals participating in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Patients Adult patients who underwent rectal cancer resection in 2016 were included. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was a composite variable indicating successful oncologic resection, defined as negative distal and radial margins with at least 12 lymph nodes evaluated. Results Among 1028 rectal cancer resections, 206 (20%) were approached laparoscopically, 192 (18.7%) were approached robotically, and 630 (61.3%) were open. After propensity score weighting, there were no significant sociodemographic or preoperative clinical differences among subcohorts. Compared to the laparoscopic approach, open and robotic approaches were associated with a decreased likelihood of successful oncologic resection (ORadj = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.43-0.94 and ORadj = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.97), and the open approach was associated with an increased likelihood of surgical site complications (ORadj = 2.53; 95% CI, 1.61-3.959). Compared to the laparoscopic approach, the open approach was associated with longer length of stay (6.8 vs 8.6 days, p = 0.002). Limitations This was an observational cohort study using a preexisting clinical data set. Despite adjusted propensity score methodology, unmeasured confounding may contribute to our findings. Conclusions Resections that were approached laparoscopically were more likely to achieve oncologic success. Minimally invasive approaches did not lengthen operative times and provided benefits of reduced surgical site complications and decreased postoperative length of stay. Further studies are needed to clarify clinical outcomes and factors that influence the choice of approach. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B70. RESULTADOS ONCOLOGICOS Y PERIOPERATORIOS DE LOS ABORDAJES LAPAROSCOPICOS, ABIERTOS Y ROBOTICOS PARA LA RESECCION DEL CANCER RECTAL: UN ESTUDIO DE COHORTE MULTICENTRICO Y PONDERADO DEL PUNTAJE DE PROPENSION: Se ha demostrado que los enfoques minimamente invasivos reducen las complicaciones del sitio quirurgico sin comprometer los resultados oncologicos.El objetivo principal de este estudio es evaluar las tasas de reseccion oncologica exitosa y los resultados postoperatorios entre los abordajes laparoscopico, abierto y robotico para la reseccion del cancer rectal.Este es un estudio de cohorte cuasi-experimental multicentrico que utiliza la ponderacion de puntaje de propension.Las intervenciones se realizaron en hospitales que participan en el Programa Nacional de Mejora de la Calidad Quirurgica del Colegio Americano de Cirujanos.Se incluyeron pacientes adultos que se sometieron a reseccion de cancer rectal en 2016.El resultado primario fue una variable compuesta que indicaba una reseccion oncologica exitosa, definida como margenes negativos distales y radiales con al menos 12 ganglios linfaticos evaluados.Entre 1,028 resecciones de cancer rectal, 206 (20%) fueron abordadas por via laparoscopica, 192 (18.7%) roboticamente y 630 (61.3%) abiertas. Despues de ponderar el puntaje de propension, no hubo diferencias sociodemograficas o clinicas preoperatorias significativas entre las subcohortes. En comparacion con el abordaje laparoscopico, los abordajes abiertos y roboticos se asociaron con una menor probabilidad de reseccion oncologica exitosa (ORadj = 0.64; IC 95%, 0.43-0.94 y ORadj = 0.60; IC 95%, 0.37-0.97), y el abordaje abierto se asocio con una mayor probabilidad de complicaciones del sitio quirurgico (ORadj = 2.53; IC 95%, 1.61-3.959). En comparacion con el abordaje laparoscopico, el abordaje abierto se asocio con una estadia mas prolongada (6.8 frente a 8.6 dias, p = 0.002).Este fue un estudio de cohorte observacional que utilizo un conjunto de datos clinicos preexistentes. A pesar de la metodologia de puntuacion de propension ajustada, la confusion no medida puede contribuir a nuestros hallazgos.Las resecciones que se abordaron por via laparoscopica tuvieron mas probabilidades de lograr el exito oncologico. Los enfoques minimamente invasivos no alargaron los tiempos quirurgicos y proporcionaron beneficios de la reduccion de las complicaciones del sitio quirurgico y la disminucion de la duracion de la estadia postoperatoria. Se necesitan mas estudios para aclarar los resultados clinicos y los factores que influyen en la eleccion del enfoque. Vea video resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B70.

The NCCN Guidelines for Anal Carcinoma provide recommendations for the management of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal or perianal region. Primary treatment of anal cancer usually includes chemoradiation, although certain lesions can be treated with margin-negative local excision alone. Disease surveillance is recommended for all patients with anal carcinoma because additional curative-intent treatment is possible. A multidisciplinary approach including physicians from gastroenterology, medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, and radiology is essential for optimal patient care.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Rectal Cancer address diagnosis, staging, surgical management, perioperative treatment, management of recurrent and metastatic disease, disease surveillance, and survivorship in patients with rectal cancer. This portion of the guidelines focuses on the management of localized disease, which involves careful patient selection for curative-intent treatment options that sequence multimodality therapy usually comprised of chemotherapy, radiation, and surgical resection.

Vulvar cancer is a rare gynecologic malignancy. Ninety percent of vulvar cancers are predominantly squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs), which can arise through human papilloma virus (HPV)-dependent and HPV-independent pathways. The NCCN Vulvar Cancer panel is an interdisciplinary group of representatives from NCCN Member Institutions consisting of specialists in gynecological oncology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, and pathology. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Vulvar Cancer provide an evidence- and consensus-based approach for the management of patients with vulvar SCC. This manuscript discusses the recommendations outlined in the NCCN Guidelines for diagnosis, staging, treatment, and follow-up.

Background At Stanford, two surgical wards, E3 and F3, were responsible for 1/5 of hospital-acquired Clostridioides difficile infection (HO CDI) cases in the fiscal year 2018 (FY2018). We used a quality improvement framework with a goal to reduce yearly HO CDI episodes by 1/2 on these wards. Methods A multidisciplinary quality improvement team was created with frontline nursing leaders and representatives from colorectal surgery, gynecology oncology, antimicrobial stewardship (ASP), infection prevention, and pharmacy. Coaching and instruction on quality improvement were provided as part of Stanford’s “Realizing Improvement through Team Empowerment” (RITE) program. Using A3 problem solving, root cause analysis identified key drivers, and interventions were performed. Cumulative HO CDI cases in FY2019 and weekly antibiotic days of therapy (DOT) on E3/F3 were monitored. Results Review of FY2018 HO CDI cases (n = 14) revealed the most common key driver as inappropriate antibiotic prescribing (8 cases, 57%). Multiple interventions were instituted (Figure 1). Three ASP interventions began February 2019: nursing questioned antibiotic choice/duration on daily interdisciplinary rounds (Figure 2), automatic infectious disease consultation for > 72 hours of piperacillin/tazobactam on gynecology/oncology patients, and twice-weekly rounds between ASP and a colorectal attending. Data from ASP/colorectal rounds from March 19, 2019 to April 16, 2019 showed means of 18.2 minutes taken for chart review and 4.4 minutes for discussion. 25 charts reviewed led to 16 (64%) ASP recommendations and 14/16 (87.5%) of recommendations accepted. Common interventions included: appropriate duration of antibiotics, clarification of the team’s planned duration, and review of microbiology data to narrow therapy. Mean DOT decreased from 35.28 to 21.61 (39%) since July 2018 (Figure 3). Patient volume and case mix index remained stable throughout, suggesting no impact on DOT. Though CDI cases did not decrease, interventions were in place for only 2 months (Figure 4). Conclusion While too early to determine its impact on HO CDI rates, a multi-disciplinary team approach utilizing A3 problem solving was successful in implementing effective ASP measures including nursing-led ASP and structured antibiotic timeouts. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Background Despite significant risk for venous thromboembolism, severely injured trauma patients often are not candidates for prophylaxis or treatment with anticoagulation. Long-term inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are associated with increased risk of postphlebitic syndrome. Retrievable IVC filters potentially offer a better solution, but only if the filter is removed; our hypothesis is that the most of them are not. Methods This retrospective study queried a level I trauma registry for IVC filter insertion from September 1997 through June 2004. Results One IVC filter was placed before the availability of retrievable filters in 2001. Since 2001, 27 filters have been placed, indicating a change in practice patterns. Filters were placed for prophylaxis (n = 11) or for therapy in patients with pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis (n = 17). Of 23 temporary filters, only 8 (35%) were removed. Conclusions Surgeons must critically evaluate indications for IVC filter insertion, develop standard criteria for placement, and implement protocols to ensure timely removal of temporary IVC filters.