No abstract

Introduction: Colonic pouches have been used for 20 years to provide reservoir function after reconstructive proctectomy for rectal cancer. More recently coloplasty has been advocated as an alternative to a colonic pouch. However there have been no longterm randomized, controlled trials to compare functional outcomes of coloplasty, colonic J-Pouch (JP), or a straight anastomosis (SA) after the treatment of low rectal cancer. Aim: To compare the complications, long-term functional outcome, and quality of life (QOL) of patients undergoing a coloplasty, JP, or an SA in reconstruction of the lower gastrointestinal tract after proctectomy for low rectal cancer. Methods: A multicenter study enrolled patients with low rectal cancer, who were randomized intraoperatively to coloplasty (CP-1) or SA if JP was not feasible, or JP or coloplasty (CP-2) if a JP was feasible. Patients were followed for 24 months with SF-36 surveys to evaluate the QOL. Bowel function was measured quantitatively and using Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI). Urinary function and sexual function were also assessed. Results: Three hundred sixty-four patients were randomized. All patients were evaluated for complications and recurrence. Mean age was 60 Ϯ12 years, 71% were male. Twenty-three (7.4%) died within 24 months of surgery. No significant difference was observed in the complications among the 4 groups. Two hundred ninety-seven of

No abstract

The association between venous invasion and prognosis was stage specific. Both mural venous invasion alone and extramural venous invasion independently predicted overall survival in patients with stage C tumors, but not in patients with stages A, B, or D tumors. Although mural invasion alone was rare, the separate reporting of both mural and extramural invasion in patients with stage C tumor is informative and desirable.

BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) survivors experience difficulty navigating complex care pathways. Sharing care between GPs and specialist services has been proposed to improve health outcomes in cancer survivors following hospital discharge. Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) groups are known to have poorer outcomes following cancer treatment but little is known about their perceptions of shared care following surgery for CRC. This study aimed to explore how non-English-speaking and English-speaking patients perceive care to be coordinated amongst various health practitioners.MethodsThis was a qualitative study using data from face to face semi-structured interviews and one focus group in a culturally diverse area of Sydney with non-English-speaking and English-speaking CRC survivors. Participants were recruited in community settings and were interviewed in English, Spanish or Vietnamese. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed by researchers fluent in those languages. Data were coded and analysed thematically.ResultsTwenty-two CRC survivors participated in the study. Participants from non-English-speaking and English-speaking groups described similar barriers to care, but non-English-speaking participants described additional communication difficulties and perceived discrimination. Non-English-speaking participants relied on family members and bilingual GPs for assistance with communication and care coordination. Factors that influenced the care pathways used by participants and how care was shared between the specialist and GP included patient and practitioner preference, accessibility, complexity of care needs, and requirements for assistance with understanding information and navigating the health system, that were particularly difficult for non-English-speaking CRC survivors.ConclusionsBoth non-English-speaking and English-speaking CRC survivors described a blend of specialist-led or GP-led care depending on the complexity of care required, informational needs, and how engaged and accessible they perceived the specialist or GP to be. Findings from this study highlight the role of the bilingual GP in assisting CALD participants to understand information and to navigate their care pathways following CRC surgery.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-018-0822-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background. Approximately half of all patients treated for colorectal carcinoma by bowel resection have neither lymph node metastases nor known residual tumor (clinicopathologic Stages A and B). The aim of this study was to compare the survival of these patients with that of the general population and to explain any significant difference. Methods. Prospectively collected data recorded for 910 patients from one institution during a period of 21.5 years were used in the analysis. Patient follow‐up ranged from 6 months to 21.5 years. The “Survival” procedure, developed by the Finnish Cancer Registry, was used to compare the observed survival of patients with their expected survival, based on age‐ and sex‐matched data from the population of New South Wales. Survival analysis was performed by the Kaplan‐Meier method. Multivariate models were examined using Cox proportional hazards regression. Results. Males with tumor spread beyond the muscularis propria (Stage B) was the only group with significantly poorer survival than expected. The reduced survival in this group was due to the effects of four clinical variables (cardiovascular complication, permanent stoma, urgent operation, respiratory complication) and one pathologic variable (direct spread involving a free serosal surface) acting independently. Conclusion. The survival of patients with clinicopathologic Stages A or B tumors closely matched their expected survival as predicted from the general population. Males with Stage B tumors were the only exception and their significantly reduced survival was largely due to clinical, as distinct from pathologic factors. These findings suggest that the risk of occult metastases is low for patients with Stages A and B tumors using this classification. Cancer 1995; 76:564–71.

Colonic and rectal cancers differ in their clinicopathologic features and treatment strategies. Molecular markers such as gene methylation, microsatellite instability and KRAS mutations, are becoming increasingly important in guiding treatment decisions in colorectal cancer. However, their association with clinicopathologic variables and utility in the management of rectal cancer is still poorly understood. We analyzed CDKN2A gene methylation, CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP), microsatellite instability and KRAS/BRAF mutations in a cohort of 381 rectal cancers with extensive clinical follow-up data. BRAF mutations (2%), CIMP-high (4%) and microsatellite instability-high (2%) were rare, whereas KRAS mutations (39%), CDKN2A methylation (20%) and CIMP-low (25%) were more common. Only CDKN2A methylation and KRAS mutations showed an association with poor overall survival but these did not remain significant when analyzed with other clinicopathologic factors. In contrast, this prognostic effect was strengthened by the joint presence of CDKN2A methylation and KRAS mutations, which independently predicted recurrence of cancer and was associated with poor overall and cancer-specific survival. This study has identified a subgroup of more aggressive rectal cancers that may arise through the KRAS-p16 pathway. It has been previously shown that an interaction of p16 deficiency and oncogenic KRAS promotes carcinogenesis in the mouse and is characterized by loss of oncogene-induced senescence. These findings may provide avenues for the discovery of new treatments in rectal cancer.

BackgroundBowel symptoms are considered indicators of the presence of colorectal cancer and other bowel diseases. Self administered questionnaires that elicit information about lower bowel symptoms have not been assessed for reliability, although this has been done for upper bowel symptoms. Our aim was to develop a self administered questionnaire for eliciting the presence, nature and severity of lower bowel symptoms potentially related to colorectal cancer, and assess its reliability.MethodsImmediately before consulting a gastroenterologist or colorectal surgeon, 263 patients likely to have a colonoscopy completed the questionnaire. Reliability was assessed in two ways: by assessing agreement between patient responses and (a) responses given by the doctor at the consultation; and (b) responses given by patients two weeks later.ResultsThere was more than 75% agreement for 78% of the questions for the patient-doctor comparison and for 92% of the questions for the patient-patient comparison. Agreement for the length of time a symptom was present, its severity, duration, frequency of occurrence and whether or not medical consultation had been sought, all had agreement of greater than 70%. Over all questions, the chance corrected agreement for the patient-doctor comparison had a median kappa of 65% (which represents substantial agreement), interquartile range 57–72%. The patient-patient comparison also showed substantial agreement with a median kappa of 75%, interquartile range 68–81%.ConclusionThis self administered questionnaire about lower bowel symptoms is a useful way of eliciting details of bowel symptoms. It is a reliable instrument that is acceptable to patients and easily completed. Its use could guide the clinical consultation, allowing a more efficient, comprehensive and useful interaction, ensuring that all symptoms are assessed. It will also be a useful tool in research studies on bowel symptoms and their predictive value for colorectal cancer and other diseases. Studies assessing whether bowel symptoms predict the presence of colorectal cancer should provide estimates of the reliability of the symptom elicitation.