Background Frailty is associated with advancing age and may result in adverse postoperative outcomes. A suspected growing elderly population needing emergency colorectal surgery stimulated this study of the prevalence and impact of frailty. Methods Elderly patients (defined as aged at least 65 years by Medicare and the United States Census Bureau) who underwent emergency colorectal resection between 2012 and 2016 were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program population database. The five‐item modified frailty index (mFI‐5) score was calculated, and patients stratified into groups 0, 1 or 2 + . Main outcome measures were the prevalence of frailty, and its impact on 30‐day postoperative morbidity, mortality, reoperation, duration of hospital stay (LOS), discharge destination and readmission. Results A total of 10 025 patients were identified with a median age 75 years, of whom 41·8 per cent were men. The majority (87·7 per cent) had an ASA fitness grade of III or greater and 3129 (31·2 per cent) were frail (mFI‐5 group 2+). Major morbidity occurred in one‐third of patients and the postoperative mortality rate was 15·9 per cent. Some 52·0 per cent of patients had a prolonged hospital stay and 11·0 per cent were readmitted. Although most patients (88·0 per cent) lived independently before surgery, only 45·4 per cent were discharged home directly. Frailty (mFI‐5 2+) predicted mortality, overall and major morbidity, reoperation, prolonged LOS, discharge to an institution and readmission, but frailty was independent of sex. Conclusion Frailty is associated with morbidity, mortality and loss of independence in elderly patients needing emergency colorectal surgery.

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Positive circumferential resection margin is a predictor of local recurrence and worse survival in rectal cancer. National programs aimed to improve rectal cancer outcomes were first created in 2011 and continue to evolve. The impact on circumferential resection margin during this time frame has not been fully evaluated in the United States. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence and predictors of positive circumferential resection margin after rectal cancer resection, across patient, provider, and tumor characteristics. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: The study was conducted using the National Cancer Database, 2011–2016. PATIENTS: Adults who underwent proctectomy for pathologic stage I to III rectal adenocarcinoma were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate and predictors of positive circumferential resection margin, defined as resection margin ≤1 mm, were measured. RESULTS: Of 52,620 cases, circumferential resection margin status was reported in 90% (n = 47,331) and positive in 18.4% (n = 8719). Unadjusted analysis showed that patients with positive circumferential resection margin were more often men, had public insurance and shorter travel, underwent total proctectomy via open and robotic approaches, and were treated in Southern and Western regions at integrated cancer networks (all p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis noted that positive proximal and/or distal margin on resected specimen had the strongest association with positive circumferential resection margin (OR = 15.6 (95% CI, 13.6–18.1); p < 0.001). Perineural invasion, total proctectomy, robotic approach, neoadjuvant chemoradiation, integrated cancer network, advanced tumor size and grade, and Black race had increased risk of positive circumferential resection margin (all p < 0.050). Laparoscopic approach, surgery in North, South, and Midwest regions, greater hospital volume and travel distance, lower T-stage, and higher income were associated with decreased risk (all p < 0.028). LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective cohort study with limited variables available for analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Despite creation of national initiatives, positive circumferential resection margin rate remains an alarming 18.4%. The persistently high rate with predictors of positive circumferential resection margin identified calls for additional education, targeted quality improvement assessments, and publicized auditing to improve rectal cancer care in the United States. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B584. PREDICTORES PARA UN MARGEN POSITIVO DE RESECCIÓN CIRCUNFERENCIAL EN EL CÁNCER DE RECTO: UNA AUDITORÍA VIGENTE DE LA BASE DE DATOS NACIONAL DE CANCER ANTECEDENTES: El margen positivo de resección circunferencial es un predictor de recurrencia local y peor sobrevida en el cáncer de recto. Los programas nacionales destinados a mejorar los resultados del cáncer de recto se crearon por primera vez en 2011 y continúan evolucionando. La repercusión del margen de resección circunferencial durante este período de tiempo no se ha evaluado completamente en los Estados Unidos. OBJETIVO: Determinar la incidencia y los predictores para un margen positivo de resección circunferencial posterior a la resección del cáncer de recto, según las características del paciente, el proveedor y el tumor. DISEÑO: Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo. AMBITO: Base de datos nacional de cáncer, 2011-2016. PACIENTES: Adultos que se sometieron a proctectomía por adenocarcinoma de recto con un estadío por patología I-III. PRINCIPALES VARIABLES EVALUADAS: Tasa y predictores para un margen positivo de resección circunferencial, definido como margen de resección ≤ 1 mm. RESULTADOS: De 52,620 casos, la condición del margen de resección circunferencial se informó en el 90% (n = 47,331) y positivo en el 18.4% (n = 8,719). El análisis no ajustado mostró que los pacientes con margen positivo de resección circunferencial se presentó con mayor frecuencia en hombres, tenían un seguro social y viajes más cortos, se operaron de proctectomía total abierta y robótica, y fueron tratados en las regiones del sur y el oeste en redes integradas de cáncer (todos p <0,001). El análisis multivariado destacó que el margen proximal y / o distal positivo de la pieza resecada tenía la asociación más fuerte con el margen postivo de resección circunferencial (OR 15,6; IC del 95%: 13,6-18,1, p <0,001). La invasión perineural, la proctectomía total, el abordaje robótico, la quimioradioterapia neoadyuvante, la red de cáncer integrada, el tamaño y grado del tumor avanzado y la raza afroamericana tenían un mayor riesgo de un margen de una resección positiva circunferencial (todos p <0,050). El abordaje laparoscópico, la cirugía en las regiones Norte, Sur y Medio Oeste, un mayor volumen hospitalario y distancia de viaje, estadio T más bajo y mayores ingresos se asociaron con una disminución del riesgo (todos p <0,028). LIMITACIONES: Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo con variables limitadas disponibles para análisis. CONCLUSIONES: A pesar del establecimiento de iniciativas nacionales, la tasa de margen positivo de resección circunferencial continúa siendo alarmante, 18,4%. El índice continuamente elevado junto a los predictores de un margen positivo de resección circunferencial hace un llamado para una mayor educación, evaluaciones específicas de mejora de la calidad y difusión de las auditorías para mejorar la atención del cáncer de recto en los Estados Unidos. Vea el resumen de video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B584. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B584.

No abstract

Aim: Stage II colon cancers are a heterogeneous category, with controversy over use of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC). Patients with high-risk features may benefit from AC to improve overall survival (OS). Current guidelines do not routinely recommend AC in low-risk cases, but the actual use and benefit on OS in this cohort have not been fully examined on a national scale. We aimed to evaluate the use and impact of AC on OS in low-risk Stage II colon cancer. Methods:The national cancer database was reviewed for Stage II colon cancers undergoing curative resection (2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015). Cases with preoperative radio-chemotherapy or high-risk features were excluded. Cases were stratified into 'AC' and 'no AC' cohorts, and then propensity score matched. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysed OS. The main outcome measures were the incidence and impact of AC on OS in low-risk Stage II colon cancer. Results:Of 39 926 patients evaluated, 8.2% (n = 3275) received AC. Matching resulted in 3275 cases per cohort. AC significantly improved 1-, 3-and 5-year OS versus no AC (P = 0.0017). The 5-year absolute risk reduction was 2.6%, relative risk reduction 12%, with a number needed to treat of 38. In the Cox model, AC remained significantly associated with increased OS (hazard ratio 0.816; 95% CI 0.713-0.934; P < 0.003).Conclusions: From this dataset, AC was associated with improved OS in low-risk Stage II disease. These findings from a large-scale sample question current guidelines and the need for better risk stratification. Further study with more robust variables is warranted to determine AC best practices.