TAilored SToma policY after TME for rectal cancer: The TASTY approach.
Rectal cancer
anastomotic leak
defunctionning stoma
functional outcomes
quality of life
Journal
Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland
ISSN: 1463-1318
Titre abrégé: Colorectal Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100883611
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Jul 2024
19 Jul 2024
Historique:
revised:
04
06
2024
received:
09
08
2022
accepted:
17
06
2024
medline:
20
7
2024
pubmed:
20
7
2024
entrez:
20
7
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Diverting stomas are routinely used in restorative surgery following total mesorectal exicision (TME) for rectal cancer to mitigate the clinical risks of anastomotic leakage (AL). However, routine diverting stomas are associated with their own complication profile and may not be required in all patients. A tailored approach based on personalized risk of AL and selective use of diverting stoma may be more appropriate. The aim of the TAilored SToma policY (TASTY) project was to design and pilot a standardized, tailored approach to diverting stoma in low rectal cancer. A mixed-methods approach was employed. Phase I externally validated the anastomotic failure observed risk score (AFORS). We compared the observed rate of AL in our cohort to the theoretical, predicted risk of the AFORS score. To identify the subset of patients who would benefit from early closure of the diverting stoma using C-reactive protein (CRP) we calculated the Youden index. Phase II designed the TASTY approach based on the results of Phase I. This was evaluated within a second prospective cohort study in patients undergoing TME for rectal cancer between April 2018 and April 2020. A total of 80 patients undergoing TME surgery for rectal cancer between 2016 and 2018 participated in the external validation of the AFORS score. The overall observed AL rate in this cohort of patients was 17.5% (n = 14). There was a positive correlation between the predicted and observed rates of AL using the AFORS score. Using ROC curves, we calculated a CRP cutoff value of 115 mg/L on postoperative day 2 for AL with a sensitivity of 86% and a negative predictive value of 96%. The TASTY approach was designed to allocate patients with a low risk AFORS score to primary anastomosis with no diverting stoma and high risk AFORS score patients to a diverting stoma, with early closure at 8-14 days, if CRP values and postoperative CT were satisfactory. The TASTY approach was piloted in 122 patients, 48 (39%) were identified as low risk (AFORS score 0-1) and 74 (61%) were considered as high risk (AFORS score 2-6). The AL rate was 10% in the low-risk cohort of patient compared to 23% in the high-risk cohort of patients, p = 0.078 The grade of Clavien-Dindo morbidity was equivalent. The incidence of major LARS was lowest in the no stoma cohort at 3 months (p = 0.014). This study demonstrates the feasibility and safety of employing a selective approach to diverting stoma in patients with a low anastomosis following TME surgery for rectal cancer.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.
Références
Montedori A, Cirocchi R, Farinella E, Sciannameo F, Abraha I. Covering ileo‐ or colostomy in anterior resection for rectal carcinoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;5:Cd006878. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006878.pub2
Chude GG, Rayate NV, Patris V, Koshariya M, Jagad R, Kawamoto J, et al. Defunctioning loop ileostomy with low anterior resection for distal rectal cancer: should we make an ileostomy as a routine procedure? A prospective randomized study. Hepato‐Gastroenterology. 2008;55(86–87):1562–1567.
Gu WL, Wu SW. Meta‐analysis of defunctioning stoma in low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: evidence based on thirteen studies. World J Surg Oncol. 2015;13:9.
Chen J, Wang DR, Yu HF, Zhao ZK, Wang LH, Li YK. Defunctioning stoma in low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta‐ analysis of five recent studies. Hepato‐Gastroenterology. 2012;59(118):1828–1831.
Tan WS, Tang CL, Shi L, Eu KW. Meta‐analysis of defunctioning stomas in low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2009;96(5):462–472.
Ahmad NZ, Abbas MH, Khan SU, Parvaiz A. A meta‐analysis of the role of diverting ileostomy after rectal cancer surgery. Int J Color Dis. 2021;36(3):445–455.
Keane C, Sharma P, Yuan L, Bissett I, O'Grady G. Impact of temporary ileostomy on long‐term quality of life and bowel function: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. ANZ J Surg. 2020;90(5):687–692.
Croese AD, Lonie JM, Trollope AF, Vangaveti VN, Ho YH. A meta‐analysis of the prevalence of low anterior resection syndrome and systematic review of risk factors. Int J Surg. 2018;56:234–241.
Vogel I, Reeves N, Tanis PJ, Bemelman WA, Torkington J, Hompes R, et al. Impact of a defunctioning ileostomy and time to stoma closure on bowel function after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Tech Coloproctol. 2021;25(7):751–760.
Danielsen AK, Park J, Jansen JE, Bock D, Skullman S, Wedin A, et al. Early closure of a temporary ileostomy in patients with rectal cancer: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2017;265(2):284–290.
Guo Y, Luo Y, Zhao H, Bai L, Li J, Li L. Early versus routine stoma closure in patients with colorectal resection: a meta‐analysis of 7 randomized controlled trials. Surg Innov. 2020;27(3):291–298.
Penna M, Hompes R, Arnold S, Wynn G, Austin R, Warusavitarne J, et al. Incidence and risk factors for anastomotic failure in 1594 patients treated by Transanal Total Mesorectal excision: results from the international TaTME registry. Ann Surg. 2019;269(4):700–711.
group ESoCEc. An international multicentre prospective audit of elective rectal cancer surgery; operative approach versus outcome, including transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME). Color Dis. 2018;20(Suppl 6):33–46.
group ESoCEc. Safety of primary anastomosis following emergency left sided colorectal resection: an international, multi‐centre prospective audit. Color Dis. 2018;20(Suppl 6):47–57.
Rahbari NN, Weitz J, Hohenberger W, Heald RJ, Moran B, Ulrich A, et al. Definition and grading of anastomotic leakage following anterior resection of the rectum: a proposal by the international study Group of Rectal Cancer. Surgery. 2010;147(3):339–351.
Baeza‐Murcia M, Valero‐Navarro G, Pellicer‐Franco E, Soria‐Aledo V, Mengual‐Ballester M, Garcia‐Marin JA, et al. Early diagnosis of anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery: prospective observational study of the utility of inflammatory markers and determination of pathological levels. Updat Surg. 2021;73(6):2103–2111.
Blok RD, Stam R, Westerduin E, Borstlap WAA, Hompes R, Bemelman WA, et al. Impact of an institutional change from routine to highly selective diversion of a low anastomosis after TME for rectal cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018;44(8):1220–1225.
Rouanet P, Selvy M, Jarlier M, Bugnon C, Carrier G, Mourregot A, et al. Tailored management with highly‐selective diversion for low colorectal anastomosis: biochemical postoperative follow‐up and long‐term results from a single‐institution cohort. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022;29(4):2514–2524.
Su'a B, Milne T, Jaung R, Jin JZ, Svirskis D, Bissett IP, et al. Detection of anastomotic leakage following elective colonic surgery: results of the prospective biomarkers and anastomotic leakage (BALL) study. J Surg Res. 2022;273:85–92.
Singh PP, Zeng IS, Srinivasa S, Lemanu DP, Connolly AB, Hill AG. Systematic review and meta‐analysis of use of serum C‐reactive protein levels to predict anastomotic leak after colorectal surgery. Br J Surg. 2014;101(4):339–346.
Yeung DE, Peterknecht E, Hajibandeh S, Torrance AW. C‐reactive protein can predict anastomotic leak in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Int J Color Dis. 2021;36(6):1147–1162.
Hoek VT, Sparreboom CL, Wolthuis AM, Menon AG, Kleinrensink GJ, D'Hoore A, et al. C‐reactive protein (CRP) trajectory as a predictor of anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer resection: a multicentre cohort study. Color Dis. 2022;24(2):220–227.
Wrenn SM, Cepeda‐Benito A, Ramos‐Valadez DI, Cataldo PA. Patient perceptions and quality of life after colon and Rectal surgery: what do patients really want? Dis Colon Rectum. 2018;61(8):971–978.
Podda M, Coccolini F, Gerardi C, Castellini G, Wilson MSJ, Sartelli M, et al. Early versus delayed defunctioning ileostomy closure after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta‐analysis and trial sequential analysis of safety and functional outcomes. Int J Color Dis. 2022;37(4):737–756.
Keane C, Park J, Öberg S, Wedin A, Bock D, O'Grady G, et al. Functional outcomes from a randomized trial of early closure of temporary ileostomy after rectal excision for cancer. Br J Surg. 2019;106(5):645–652.
Collard MK, Rullier E, Tuech JJ, Sabbagh C, Souadka A, Loriau J, et al. Is delaying a Coloanal anastomosis the ideal solution for rectal surgery?: analysis of a multicentric cohort of 564 patients from the GRECCAR. Ann Surg. 2023;278(5):781–789.
Portale G, Popesc GO, Parotto M, Cavallin F. Delayed Colo‐anal anastomosis for rectal cancer: pelvic morbidity, functional results and oncological outcomes: a systematic review. World J Surg. 2019;43(5):1360–1369.
Harji D, Fernandez B, Boissieras L, Berger A, Capdepont M, Zerbib F, et al. A novel bowel rehabilitation programme after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: the BOREAL pilot study. Color Dis. 2021;23:2619–2626.