Julie M L Sijmons, Jan Willem T Dekker, Jurriaan B Tuynman, Femke J Amelung, Esther C J Consten, Henderik L van Westreenen, Johannes H W de Wilt, Rob A E M Tollenaar, Pieter J Tanis
{"title":"Evolution in the Management of Left-Sided Obstructive Colon Cancer in the Netherlands During a 9-Year Period.","authors":"Julie M L Sijmons, Jan Willem T Dekker, Jurriaan B Tuynman, Femke J Amelung, Esther C J Consten, Henderik L van Westreenen, Johannes H W de Wilt, Rob A E M Tollenaar, Pieter J Tanis","doi":"10.6004/jnccn.2024.7057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Data of patients undergoing resection for LSOCC between 2012 and 2020 were extracted from the Dutch ColoRectal Audit.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":17483,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network","volume":"22 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":14.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2024.7057","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.
期刊介绍:
JNCCN—Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network is a peer-reviewed medical journal read by over 25,000 oncologists and cancer care professionals nationwide. This indexed publication delivers the latest insights into best clinical practices, oncology health services research, and translational medicine. Notably, JNCCN provides updates on the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology® (NCCN Guidelines®), review articles elaborating on guideline recommendations, health services research, and case reports that spotlight molecular insights in patient care.
Guided by its vision, JNCCN seeks to advance the mission of NCCN by serving as the primary resource for information on NCCN Guidelines®, innovation in translational medicine, and scientific studies related to oncology health services research. This encompasses quality care and value, bioethics, comparative and cost effectiveness, public policy, and interventional research on supportive care and survivorship.
JNCCN boasts indexing by prominent databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed, Chemical Abstracts, Embase, EmCare, and Scopus, reinforcing its standing as a reputable source for comprehensive information in the field of oncology.