No abstract

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest better oncological results after open versus laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer. The external validity of these results has not been tested on a nationwide basis. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify risk factors for positive circumferential resection margin in patients undergoing surgery for rectal cancer with special emphasis on surgical approach. DESIGN: This database study was based on the Danish nationwide colorectal cancer database. To identify risk factors for positive circumferential resection margin, we performed uni- and multivariate logistic regression analyses. To assess the role of surgical approach, a propensity score-matched analysis was performed. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at public hospitals across Denmark. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing elective rectal resection from October 2009 through December 2013 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measured was the risk of a positive circumferential resection margin. RESULTS: Included in the final analyses were 2721 cases (745 operated on by an open approach; 1976 by laparoscopy). On direct comparison, positive circumferential resection margin occurred more often after open resection (6.3% vs 4.7%; p = 0.047). After multivariate analyses, tumors located low in the rectum, neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy, increasing T and N stage, tumor fixated in the pelvis, and dissection in the muscularis plane increased the risk of a positive circumferential resection margin. In the propensity score-matched sample (541 exact matched pairs), the laparoscopic approach did not influence the risk of a positive circumferential resection margin (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.6–1.5; p = 0.77). LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data, and thereby contained possible selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this nationwide database study, and after multivariate and propensity score-matched analyses, there was no increased risk of positive circumferential resection margin after laparoscopic vs open rectal resection. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A996. MARGEN DE RESECCIÓN CIRCUNFERENCIAL DESPUÉS DE LA RESECCIÓN RECTAL LAPAROSCÓPICA Y ABIERTA: UN ESTUDIO DE COHORTE DE PUNTUACIÓN DE PROPENSIÓN A NIVEL NACIONAL ANTECEDENTES: Estudios recientes sugieren mejores resultados oncológicos después de la resección rectal abierta versus laparoscópica. La validez de estos resultados no se ha probado a nivel nacional. OBJETIVO: Identificar los factores de riesgo del margen de resección circunferencial positivo en pacientes sometidos a cirugía por cáncer de recto con especial énfasis en el abordaje quirúrgico. DISEÑO: Estudio de la base de datos nacional de Dinamarca de cáncer colorrectal. Para identificar los factores de riesgo del margen de resección circunferencial positivo, realizamos análisis de regresión logística uni y multivariable. Para evaluar el papel del abordaje quirúrgico, se realizó un análisis emparejado de puntuación de propensión. AJUSTES: Hospitales públicos en toda Dinamarca. PACIENTES: Pacientes sometidos a resección rectal electiva en el período comprendido entre octubre de 2009 y diciembre de 2013. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADOS: Riesgo del margen de resección circunferencial positivo. RESULTADOS: 2721 casos (745 operados por abordaje abierto; 1976 por laparoscopia) se incluyeron en el análisis final. En la comparación directa, el margen de resección circunferencial positivo ocurrió más a frecuentemente, después de la resección abierta (6.3 vs 4.7%; p = 0.047). Posterior a los análisis multivariados, tumores localizados en el recto bajo, quimioterapia con radioterapia neoadyuvante, incremento de etapas T y la N, tumor fijo en pelvis y la disección en el plano muscular, aumentaron el riesgo del margen de resección circunferencial positivo. En la muestra emparejada del puntaje de propensión (541 pares coincidentes exactos), el abordaje laparoscópico no influyó en el riesgo del margen de resección circunferencial positivo (razón de probabilidades (IC 95%) 0.9 (0.6–1.5); p = 0.77). LIMITACIONES: Revisión retrospectiva de los datos recopilados prospectivamente y por lo tanto, posible sesgo de selección. CONCLUSIONES: El estudio de la base de datos a nivel nacional y después de los análisis emparejados multivariados y de puntuación de propensión, no hubo un mayor riesgo del margen de resección circunferencial positivo después de la resección laparoscópica versus resección abierta. Vea el Resumen del video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/A996.

Background Personalized risk assessment provides opportunities for tailoring treatment, optimizing healthcare resources and improving outcome. The aim of this study was to develop a 90-day mortality-risk prediction model for identification of high- and low-risk patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer. Methods This was a nationwide cohort study using records from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group database that included all patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2015. A least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic regression prediction model was developed using 121 pre- and intraoperative variables and internally validated in a hold-out test data set. The accuracy of the model was assessed in terms of discrimination and calibration. Results In total, 49 607 patients were registered in the database. After exclusion of 16 680 individuals, 32 927 patients were included in the analysis. Overall, 1754 (5.3 per cent) deaths were recorded. Targeting high-risk individuals, the model identified 5.5 per cent of all patients facing a risk of 90-day mortality exceeding 35 per cent, corresponding to a 6.7 times greater risk than the average population. Targeting low-risk individuals, the model identified 20.9 per cent of patients facing a risk less than 0.3 per cent, corresponding to a 17.7 times lower risk compared with the average population. The model exhibited discriminatory power with an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 85.3 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 83.6 to 87.0) and excellent calibration with a Brier score of 0.04 and 32 per cent average precision. Conclusion Pre- and intraoperative data, as captured in national health registries, can be used to predict 90-day mortality accurately after colorectal cancer surgery.

Aim The aim of this study was to describe the dynamic changes in blood work following individual adjusted dosage of intravenously administered iron(III) isomaltoside in a 4‐week period prior to surgery in patients with colorectal cancer. Methods This was a single‐centre, observational cohort study with prospectively collected data, including patients with colorectal cancer receiving preoperative treatment with iron(III) isomaltoside. Blood samples were taken at baseline, 1 week, 2 weeks and 4 weeks after initial treatment. Sixty‐two patients were included in the study. Results Sixty‐two patients were included for final analysis. The mean increase in haemoglobin was 0.77 g/dl (95% CI 0.52–1.03 g/dl, P < 0.0001) at week 1, 1.5 g/dl (95% CI 1.21–1.80 g/dl, P < 0.0001) at week 2 and 2.13 g/dl (95% CI 1.71–2.55 g/dl, P < 0.0001) at week 4. Patients with severe anaemia (<9.02 g/dl) showed the largest increase in haemoglobin during the treatment course (2.92 g/dl, 95% CI 2.27–3.58 g/dl, P < 0.0001). Patients with mild anaemia (>10.31 g/dl) did not show a significant increase (0.66 g/dl, 95% CI −0.29–1.61 g/dl, P = 0.17). The mean of transferrin saturation after 4 weeks was 8% (95% CI 6%–10%, P < 0.0001). Conclusions After intravenously administered iron, patients with severe anaemia had the most substantial increase in haemoglobin, and the increase was largest after 4 weeks. Patients with mild anaemia did not have an increase in haemoglobin during the treatment course. The vast majority of patients still had iron deficiency at surgery 4 weeks after the initial treatment.