BackgroundLittle is known about colorectal cancer or colon and rectal cancer. Are they the same disease or different diseases?ObjectivesThe aim of this epidemiology study was to compare the features of colon and rectal cancer by using recent national cancer surveillance data.Design and settingData included colorectal cancer (1995–2008) from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) database. Only adenocarcinoma was included for analysis.PatientsA total of 372,130 patients with a median follow-up of 32 months were analyzed.Main outcome measuresMean survival of patients with the same stage of colon and rectal cancer was evaluated.ResultsAround 35% of patients had stage information. Among them, colon cancer patients had better survival than those with rectal cancer, by a margin of 4 months in stage IIB. In stage IIIC and stage IV, rectal cancer patients had better survival than colon cancer patients, by about 3 months. Stage IIB colorectal cancer patients had a poorer prognosis than those with stage IIIA and IIIB colorectal cancer. After adjustment of age, sex and race, colon cancer patients had better survival than rectal cancer of stage IIB, but in stage IIIC and IV, rectal cancer patients had better survival than colon cancer.LimitationsThe study is limited by its retrospective nature.ConclusionThis was a population-based study. The prognosis of rectal cancer was not worse than that of colon cancer. Local advanced colorectal cancer had a poorer prognosis than local regional lymph node metastasis. Stage IIB might require more aggressive chemotherapy, and no less than that for stage III.

We sought to determine if necrosectomy can be omitted for complicated acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP). Since 1996, we prospectively performed retroperitoneal drainage by introducing a sump drain to the pancreatic head area via a small left flank incision without debridement and irrigation on 19 consecutive complicated ANP patients. We purposely delayed surgery until liquefaction of retroperitoneal tissue reached the left flank. Our patients had a mean Ranson's and APACHE II score of 5.9 (range, 4-8) and 20.1(range, 4-45), respectively. Sixteen available CT showed retroperitoneal liquefaction after 21.3 days (range, 14-26). Operations were delayed for 4.7 weeks (range, 1.3-9.0). No patient succumbed during this period. The indications were infected necrosis in 16 and severe abdominal pain/food intolerance in 3 patients. Average skin incision was 4.0 cm (range, 3-9). Fungi or bacteria were cultured in 15 patients (80.0%). The recovery courses were surprisingly uneventful. Oral intake began within 2.4 days (range, 1-5) and mean hospital stay (16 survivals) was 23.2 days (range, 4-120) after operation. Drains were completely removed 120.6 days (range, 60-250) later from these outpatients. One gastric perforation and one minor duodenal leak were the only procedure-related complications (10.5%). Three patients died (15.8%), although one had a healed ANP. In conclusion, this delay-until-liquefaction strategy without necrosectomy is an easy and effective treatment method.

No abstract

Literature about the risk of secondary cancer after radiation therapy (RT) of prostate and rectal cancer reveals contradictory results. We conducted a meta-analysis to examine whether the RT induces secondary rectal or prostate cancer in patients, respectively, with prostate or rectal cancer. All studies published in Medline or Pubmed up to March 3, 2015, containing RT of primary rectal or prostate cancer, and providing risk estimates of secondary prostate or rectal cancer were considered as eligible. Relative risk (RR) and standardized incidence ratios (SIR) were calculated using the random-effects model. Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria. 12 of them were from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. For prostate cancer patients, pooled adjusted RRs or SIRs did not show an effect on the risk of secondary rectal cancer. However, notwithstanding the limitations of SEER-based studies, the subgroup of prostate cancer patients receiving external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) showed an increased risk of rectal cancer. For rectal cancer patients, pooled adjusted RR of prostate cancer was 1.12 (95 % CI, 0.44-2.8) and SIR was 0.40 (95 % CI, 0.29-0.55). All studies included in the SIR analysis of rectal cancer were derived from the SEER data source. Based on current evidence, RT for prostate cancer patients had no effect on rectal cancer incidence, except for patients who received EBRT therapy. However, compared with the general population, RT for rectal cancer is associated with a decreased prostate cancer risk as found in SEER-based studies.