Skip to main content
Download PDF

Feasibility and outcomes of ERAS protocol in elective cT4 colorectal cancer patients: results from a single-center retrospective cohort study

World Journal of Surgical Oncology volume 19, Article number: 196 (2021) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Programs of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery reduces morbidity and shorten recovery in patients undergoing colorectal resections for cancer. Patients presenting with more advanced disease such as T4 cancers are frequently excluded from undergoing ERAS programs due to the difficulty in applying established protocols. The primary aim of this investigation was to evaluate the possibility of applying a validated ERAS protocol in patients undergoing colorectal resection for T4 colon and rectal cancer and to evaluate the short-term outcome.

Methods

Single-center, retrospective cohort study. All patients with a clinical diagnosis of stage T4 colorectal cancer undergoing surgery between November 2016 and January 2020 were treated following the institutional fast track protocol without exclusion. Short-term postoperative outcomes were compared to those of a control group treated with conventional care and that underwent surgical resection for T4 colorectal cancer at the same institution from January 2010 to October 2016. Data from both groups were collected retrospectively from a prospectively maintained database.

Results

Eighty-two patients were diagnosed with T4 cancer, 49 patients were included in the ERAS cohort and 33 in the historical conventional care cohort. Both, the mean time of tolerance to solid food diet and postoperative length of stay were significantly shorter in the ERAS group than in the control group (3.14 ± 1.76 vs 4.8 ± 1.52; p < 0.0001 and 6.93 ± 3.76 vs 9.50 ± 4.83; p = 0.0084 respectively). No differences in perioperative complications were observed.

Conclusions

Results from this cohort study from a single-center registry support the thesis that the adoption of the ERAS protocol is effective and applicable in patients with colorectal cancer clinically staged T4, reducing significantly their length of stay and time of tolerance to solid food diet, without affecting surgical postoperative outcomes.

Background

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) was introduced in the late 1990s and consisted of a series of evidence-based guidelines covering the entire perioperative period. ERAS is applied by a multidisciplinary team in a hospital setting, with the aim of reducing surgical stress and maintaining postoperative physiological functions [1]. This approach has been shown to reduce morbidity, improve recovery, and shorten length of stay (LOS) after gastrointestinal surgery and specifically in colorectal patients [2,3,4,5,6]. Updates and changes in the guidelines are provided by the ERAS Society (www.erassociety.org); the latest consensus for colorectal surgery was published by Gustafsson et al. in 2018 [7].

Even though the benefits of an enhance recovery approach can be successfully applied in most instances to colon and rectal cancer surgery, patients diagnosed with T4 colorectal cancer represent a specific subgroup, frequently composed of fragile patients, whose advanced disease may require multiorgan resections and open surgery. This has historically made T4 colorectal cancer patients less suitable for ERAS protocols, due to an expected higher rate of intra and postoperative complications and reduced compliance, of both patients and caregivers. These characteristics, combined with the inapplicability of some of the ERAS principals such as no use of abdominal drains, early removal of urinary catheters, early feeding, and mobilization, are usually considered to be jeopardizing one of the principal outcomes of ERAS that is prompt discharge.

The impact of enhanced recovery programs on postoperative outcomes in this subset of patients has never been addressed in literature. The majority of studies on the topic either excluded T4 patients due to higher rates of complications or adopted a homogeneous patient sampling analyzing all stages together, with cT4 stages generally account for less than 15% of colorectal malignancies at diagnosis [8,9,10,11,12].

The aim of the study was to investigate the feasibility of an established ERAS protocol in patients with a diagnosis of T4 colorectal cancer and to compare in-hospital outcomes of patients who underwent the ERAS protocol with historic controls.

Materials and methods

Study design and population

Two groups of patients were included and analyzed.

  • Group A. Patients undergoing surgical resection with a clinical diagnosis of stage T4 colorectal cancer (defined as 8th Union of International Cancer Control (UICC) TNM classification of Malignant Tumor) between November 2016 to January 2020 at Minimally Invasive Surgery Unit of Tor Vergata University Hospital treated according to our newly established ERAS protocol, were included in the study group.

  • Group B. Patients that had colorectal resections for T4 cancers and that underwent standard perioperative care in the same academic tertiary care institution from January 2010 to October 2016 were included in the historical control group.

All patients > 18 years old with diagnosis of T4 adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum were included.

Exclusion criteria were the presence of synchronous cancers, failure to perform colonic or rectal resection and emergency surgery setting.

The decision to exclude patients who underwent resection in emergency setting was made based on inapplicability of preoperative ERAS items and lack of patients counseling.

Data of both cohorts were collected retrospectively from a prospectively maintained database. Feasibility of the ERAS protocol in the group A was recorded for each of the adopted items. ERAS items are compared to the perioperative measures adopted in the conventional care group in Table 1. ERAS items were those of the guidelines available in 2016, published in 2012 by Gustafsson et al.

Table 1 ERAS items compared to the perioperative measures adopted in the conventional care
Full size table

Since the indication on bowel preparation has undergone several changes during the study period that was analyzed, this ERAS item was not included in the analysis.

The study was conducted in accordance with STROBE criteria (http://strobe-statement.org/) and registered under ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04466696.

Endpoints

The primary endpoint was postoperative length of stay (LOS), defined as the number of postoperative days (POD) of in-hospital recovery. Secondary endpoints were prolonged LOS (PLOS), defined as discharge after the eighth POD, time to postoperative solid oral intake, defined as tolerance of solid diet and the time of first bowel movement and first flatus. Other endpoints were overall morbidity (according to the Clavien-Dindo Classification), reoperation rates, and 30-day readmission and mortality rates. Compliance to the single items of the protocol in the ERAS group was also analyzed.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistical methods were used to characterize the sample. Data are presented as median, range, and standard deviation (DS). We used the chi-squared test to compare discrete variables. An independent sample t-test was used for continuous, normally distributed data. A p value of < .05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (version 23, IBM Corp, Armonk, NY).

Compliance with ethical standards

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the prospective portion of the study. The ethical committee of our institution (CEI-TV) under protocol no. 410/20 gave approval of use of patients’ information for this study.

Results

Study population

From January 2010 to January 2020, 595 patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer underwent surgical resection at Minimally Invasive Unit of Tor Vergata Hospital, of which 105 were diagnosis with cT4 colorectal cancer. Eighty-two cT4 patients treated electively are included in the study analysis, while 23 cT4 patients that were operated on in emergency are excluded. Thirty-three cT4 elective patients that were operated on between January 2010 and October 2016 were treated with conventional care, thus included in the control group, while 49 patients operated on between November 2016 and January 2020 were treated with ERAS protocol and included in the ERAS group.

Patient’s demographics are summarized in Table 2. The two groups were comparable with respect to age, gender, BMI, ASA score, comorbidities (including diabetes, hypertension, heart and respiratory diseases), surgical approach, surgical procedures, and need of multi-visceral resection.

Table 2 Patients demographics
Full size table

ERAS compliance in group A

ERAS protocol compliance to each item is shown in Table 3. For half of the items, the overall compliance was 80%. For the rest of the items, the level of compliance was lower: pre-anesthetic medication with midazolam (67%), intraoperative fluid management (69%), minimally invasive surgical approach (T4a = 50%, T4b = 7%), no use of peritoneal drainage (10%), postoperative analgesia (47%), early urinary catheter removal (55%), postoperative nutritional care (69%), and early mobilization (61%).

Table 3 ERAS protocol compliance
Full size table

Postoperative outcomes

Postoperative outcomes of the two groups are displayed in Table 4. Concerning the primary outcome, LOS was shown to be significantly lower in the ERAS cohort, with a mean of 6.93 ± 3.76 in the ERAS group compared to 9.50 ± 4.83 in the conventional care cohort (p = 0.0084). As secondary outcomes, mean time to postoperative solid oral intake tolerance was significantly shorter in the ERAS cohort compared with the conventional cohort (3.14 ± 1.76 vs 4.8 ± 1.52; p < 0.0001). The remaining recorded postoperative outcomes did not show any significant differences between the two cohorts; complications rates were similar.

Table 4 Postoperative outcomes
Full size table

Discussions

The results of this study support the thesis that the adoption of the ERAS protocol is effective and applicable in patients with colorectal cancer clinically staged T4, reducing significantly their LOS without affecting surgical postoperative outcomes. It is interesting to note that the decreased compliance with postoperative items does not affect the main ERAS outcome, suggesting the importance of the pre/intraoperative phase, especially patient counseling regarding advantages and duties of the ERAS protocol.

Since the first report by Kehlet et al. [13] back in 1997, the adoption of fast-track protocols in elective colorectal surgery has been shown to reduce postoperative length of stay and results in a faster recovery when compared to traditional care [14,15,16].

However, the impact of fast-track protocols on patients affected by advanced colorectal cancer has never been investigated. Many studies that compared ERAS to standard of care analyze all stages of colorectal cancer as a single group [17, 18]. As a matter of fact, T4 colorectal cancer patients undergoing surgical resections are a minority (5–8%) [19] and probably their weight is not influential. On the contrary, in other trials, patients with complex and/or multiorgan resections and/or patients who were previously treated with neoadjuvant chemo radiotherapy are excluded in order to limit the heterogeneity of the study population [20,21,22]. The primary reasons being that a larger number of patients are exposed to more complex surgery and, therefore, are more likely to develop postoperative complications. Clearly, they would represent a mark in the analysis of outcomes such as complication rates and LOS.

Nevertheless, patients treated with ERAS protocol from Gatt, Fosmo, and Feng, who all excluded either multi-visceral resections or advanced stage of disease from their studies, do not differ from those of Gouvas and Nanavati who included T4 resections, with regard to median postoperative LOS (5 days; 5 days and 5.5 days vs 5.5 days and 4.75 days, respectively).

Another explanation for the exclusion of advanced stage colorectal cancer patients in ERAS trials, lies in the belief that they would have a more difficult compliance with some specific perioperative items such as the avoidance of abdominal drains, early urinary catheter removal, early feeding, and mobilization.

Lately, the nature of these items has been the focus of debate, since they could be considered markers of both protocol compliance and recovery [23]. Since many postoperative items are strongly linked to the onset of postoperative complications, it is difficult to figure out whether a given patient had better recovery because he was eating and ambulating early or whether he tolerated early eating and walked early thanks to rapid recovery. For the aforementioned reasons, we have included in our study group all cT4 patients undergoing colorectal resections under an established ERAS protocol, with no exception. All patients were included in the analysis of results even in case of complex surgery and multiorgan resections. However, in such cases, a part of the ERAS principles could not be respected and the overall postoperative compliance was scarce. Despite a lower compliance, the study group obtained better outcomes in terms of PLOS and time to tolerate solid food compared to patients treated with traditional care.

Some other institutions focused their research on special subgroups of patients undergoing colorectal surgery such as patients affected by Crohn’s disease [24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33] and elderly patients [34,35,36,37,38,39], proving that even fragile patients could benefit from a faster recovery obtained through the ERAS protocol. Small series by Feroci et al. [40] and Kisialeuski et al. [41] confirmed a lower adherence to overall ERAS items in elderly compared to younger patients, especially regarding mobilization and intravenous fluid therapy duration, while they recorded similar median postoperative LOS in the ERAS groups regardless of compliance.

In our study, we found a high level of compliance with regard to the application of preoperative ERAS items. This is probably due to the extensive effort made to provide counseling the patients and to the fact that patients operated in emergency were excluded.

However, a lower level of compliance for both caregivers and patients, was found for some intra and postoperative items, inter alia minimally invasive approach (50% for T4a VS 7% for T4b), drainage of abdominal cavity (10%), postoperative analgesia (47%), and early urinary catheter removal (55%), which can to be related to the advanced nature of the disease.

A minimal invasive approach is considered a fundamental tool to maximize the results of enhanced recovery and two RCTs already compared the adoption of ERAS protocols between open and laparoscopic surgery with or without an implementation with fast track. A combination of ERAS with laparoscopy results in a significant faster recovery compared with all other combinations (open + ERAS, laparoscopy + standard, open + standard). However, the open approach + ERAS also reduces the LOS, thus demonstrating a success of the ERAS program [42, 43].

Even if not recommended by the guidelines, feasibility and safety of laparoscopic resection in T4 colorectal tumors have been investigated by some series concluding that, despite the increased odds of conversion, in specialized centers and selected patients, laparoscopy can be applied to patients with T4 colorectal tumors without worsening long-term outcomes [44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54]. In our study, we treated laparoscopically with an R0 resection 37 patients out of 82; in nine patients, it was necessary to complete the operation with a conversion to open surgery. However, the number of patients who underwent laparoscopic resections did not differ significantly in the two groups (p = 0.83); therefore, the beneficial effects of laparoscopic surgery were present in equal manners in both the study group and the control group.

Although there are guidelines for implementing an enhanced recovery protocol for colorectal surgery, variation in the number and definition of protocol components, as well as variation in the criteria for adherence, contributes to difficulties in determining which components are most important for improving patient outcomes [55,56,57,58]. Our results suggest that a complex surgery with an expected overall lower compliance to ERAS items should not be a deterrent to fast-track application, considering the benefits in terms of faster recovery, with no differences in terms of complications.

Furthermore, we would also highlight a short LOS as crucial during the current COVID-19 pandemic, both in terms of resources optimization, then in terms of reduced risk of hospital acquired disease. The relevance of these considerations is amplified by the recent evidence of an overall increase number of advanced cancer patient’s receiving surgical treatment, related to the delay in diagnosis and treatment since the beginning of the pandemic [59,60,61,62].

Limitations of this analysis are the retrospective nature of the study, which is also a single-unit study, the lack of contemporaneous controls, and the small sample size of the study group. The small sample size does not permit a risk adjustment analysis for factors as complications and confounding factors; in the face of a huge average effect on the primary outcome, the lack of specificity of the effect is a major limitation. However, single-center trials provide the flexibility of approach necessary for clinicians and scientists to develop new treatments and can provide an important source for new therapeutic ideas. In fact, some ERAS strategies, such as antimicrobial prophylaxis, prevention of hypothermia, and thoracic epidural anesthesia during open surgery, but also laparoscopy in colon surgery, are considered the current “standard of care”; therefore, it may be considered unethical and difficult to perform randomized trials to evaluate the benefits of each of the ERAS items. Further multicentric prospective studies with lager sample size are warranted to help define the benefits of ERAS protocol in advanced colorectal patients.

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this is the first study analyzing the feasibility of ERAS program exclusively in T4 cancer patients’ undergoing colorectal resections. These preliminary results, from a single unit, show that ERAS is feasible in T4 colorectal cancer patients and can enhance postoperative recovery.

Availability of data and materials

Data supporting reported results can be found in the database of Policlinico Tor Vergata (www.ptvonline.it). Data are protected and access availability must be obtained.

References

  1. Gustafsson UO, Scott MJ, Schwenk W, Demartines N, Roulin D, Francis N, et al. Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colonic surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations. Clin Nutr. 2012;31(6):783–800 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2012.08.013.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wind J, Polle SW. Fung Kon Jin PHP. Systematic review of enhanced recovery programmes in colonic surgery. Br J Surg 2006;93(7):800–809. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.5384.

  3. Šerclová Z, Dytrych P, Marvan J. Fast-track in open intestinal surgery: prospective randomized study (Clinical Trials Gov identifier no. NCT00123456). Clin Nutr. 2009;28(6):618–24 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2009.05.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ren L, Zhu D, Wei Y, Pan X, Liang L, Xu J, et al. Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) program attenuates stress and accelerates recovery in patients after radical resection for colorectal cancer: a prospective randomized controlled trial. World J Surg. 2012;36(2):407–14 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-011-1348-4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ota H, Ikenaga M, Hasegawa J. Safety and efficacy of an “enhanced recovery after surgery” protocol for patients undergoing colon cancer surgery: a multi-institutional controlled study. Surg Today. 2017;47(6):668–75 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-016-1423-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sica GS, Campanelli M, Bellato V, Monteleone G. Gastrointestinal cancer surgery and enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) during COVID-19 outbreak. Langenbeck's Arch Surg. 2020;405(3):357–8 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-020-01885-0. Epub 2020 May 11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Scott UOGMJ, Nygren MHJ, NDN F. Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colorectal surgery : Enhanced Recovery After Surgery ( ERAS Ò ) Society recommendations. World J Surg. 2019;43(3):659–95 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-018-4844-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Klaver CEL, Kappen TM, Borstlap WAA, Bemelman WA, Tanis PJ. Laparoscopic surgery for T4 colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(12):4902–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5544-7 Epub 2017 Apr 21. PMID: 28432461; PMCID: PMC5715041.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Sica GS, Fiorani C, Stolfi C, Monteleone G, Candi E, Amelio I, et al. Peritoneal expression of Matrilysin helps identify early post-operative recurrence of colorectal cancer. Oncotarget. 2015;6(15):13402–15 PubMed PMID: 25596746; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4537023.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Del Vecchio Blanco G, Paoluzi OA, Sileri P, Rossi P, Sica G, Pallone F. Familial colorectal cancer screening: when and what to do? World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21(26):7944–53 https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i26.7944. Review. PubMed PMID:26185367; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4499338.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Mihaylov I, Kańduła M, Krachunov M, Vassilev D. A novel framework for horizontal and vertical data integration in cancer studies with application to survival time prediction models. Biol Direct. 2019;14(1):22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13062-019-0249-6 PMID: 31752974 Free PMC article.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Sibio S, Di Giorgio A, D’Ugo S, Palmieri G, Cinelli L, Formica V, et al. Histotype influences emergency presentation and prognosis in colon cancer surgery. Langenbeck's Arch Surg. 2019;404(7):841–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-019-01826-6 PMID: 31760472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kehlet H. Multimodal approach to control postoperative pathophysiology and rehabilitation. Br J Anaesth. 1997;78(5):606–17 https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/78.5.606.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Greer NL, Gunnar WP, Dahm P, et al. Enhanced recovery protocols for adults undergoing colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2018;61(9):1108–18 https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000001160.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wang G, Jiang ZW, Zhao K. Fast track rehabilitation programme enhances functional recovery after laparoscopic colonic resection. Hepatogastroenterology. 2012;59(119):2158–63 https://doi.org/10.5754/hge11957.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mari GM, Costanzi A, Maggioni D. Fast-track versus standard care in laparoscopic high anterior resection: a prospective randomized-controlled trial. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Tech. 2014;24(2):118–21 https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0b013e3182a50e3a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gouvas N, Gogos-Pappas G, Tsimogiannis K, Tsimoyiannis E, Dervenis C, Xynos E. Implementation of fast-track protocols in open and laparoscopic sphincter-preserving rectal cancer surgery: a multicenter, comparative, prospective, non-randomized study. Dig Surg. 2012;29(4):301–9 https://doi.org/10.1159/000342554.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pędziwiatr M, Pisarska M, Kisielewski M, Major P, Matłok M, Wierdak M, et al. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) protocol in patients undergoing laparoscopic resection for stage IV colorectal cancer. World J Surg Oncol. 2015;13:328–30 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-015-0745-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Diaconescu M, Burada F, Mirea CS. T4 Colon Cancer - Current Management. Curr Health Sci J. 2018;44(1):5–13 https://doi.org/10.12865/CHSJ.44.01.01.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Forsmo HM, Pfeffer F, Rasdal A. Compliance with enhanced recovery after surgery criteria and preoperative and postoperative counseling reduces length of hospital stay in colorectal surgery: results of a randomized controlled trial. Color Dis. 2016;18(6):603–11 https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.13253.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Gatt M, Anderson ADG, Reddy BS, Hayward-Sampson P, Tring IC, MacFie J. Randomized clinical trial of multimodal optimization of surgical care in patients undergoing major colonic resection. Br J Surg. 2005;92(11):1354–62 https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.5187.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Feng F, Li XH, Shi H. Fast-track surgery combined with laparoscopy could improve postoperative recovery of low-risk rectal cancer patients: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Dig Dis. 2014;15(6):306–13 https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-2980.12142.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Slim K, Joris J. The egg-and-chicken situation in postoperative enhanced recovery programmes. Br J Anaesth. 2017:5–6 https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aew408.

  24. Spinelli A, Bazzi P, Sacchi M. Short-term outcomes of laparoscopy combined with enhanced recovery pathway after ileocecal resection for Crohn’s disease: a case-matched analysis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2013;17(1):126–32 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-012-2012-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Adamina M, Bonovas S, Raine T, Spinelli A, Warusavitarne J, Armuzzi A, et al. ECCO guidelines on therapeutics in Crohn's disease: surgical treatment. J Crohns Colitis. 2020;14(2):155–68 https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjz187. PMID: 31742338.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pellino G, Keller DS, Sampietro GM, Annese V, Carvello M, Celentano V, et al. Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) position statement of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR): general principles of IBD management. Tech Coloproctol. 2020;24(2):105–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-019-02145-0 Epub 2020 Jan 25. Erratum in: Tech Coloproctol. 2020 Jun 20;: PMID: 31983044.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Pellino G, Keller DS, Sampietro GM, Carvello M, Celentano V, Coco C, et al. Inflammatory bowel disease position statement of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR): ulcerative colitis. Tech Coloproctol. 2020;24(5):397–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-020-02175-z Epub 2020 Mar 2. Erratum in: Tech Coloproctol. 2020 Jun 20; PMID: 32124113.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Pellino G, Keller DS, Sampietro GM, Angriman I, Carvello M, Celentano V, et al. Inflammatory bowel disease position statement of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR): Crohn's disease. Tech Coloproctol. 2020;24(5):421–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-020-02183-z Epub 2020 Mar 14. Erratum in: Tech Coloproctol. 2020 Jun 19; PMID: 32172396.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sica GS, Iaculli E, Biancone L, di Carlo S, Scaramuzzo R, Fiorani C, et al. Comparative study of laparoscopic vs open gastrectomy in gastric cancer management. World J Gastroenterol. 2011;17(41):4602–6. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v17.i41.4602 ISSN: 10079327, PubMed ID: 22147966.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Biancone L, Onali S, Calabrese E, Petruzziello C, Zorzi F, Condino G, et al. Non invasive techniques for assessing postoperative recurrence in Crohn’s disease. Dig Liver Dis. 2008;40(2):265–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1590-8658(08)60536-8 PMID: 18598999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. EuroSurg Collaborative. EuroSurg: a new European student-driven research network in surgery. Color Dis. 2016;18(2):214–5 https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.13260. PubMed PMID: 26748779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Franzè E, Marafini I, De Simone V, Monteleone I, Caprioli F, Colantoni A, et al. J. Interleukin-34 Induces Cc-chemokine Ligand 20 in Gut Epithelial Cells. Crohns Colitisc. 2016;10(1):87–94. https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjv181 Epub 2015 Oct 8. PubMed PMID: 26449789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Mineccia M, Menonna F, Germani P. A retrospective study on efficacy of the ERAS protocol in patients undergoing surgery for Crohn disease: a propensity score analysis. Dig Liver Dis. 2020;52(6):625–9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dld.2020.01.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Slieker J, Frauche P, Jurt J. Enhanced recovery ERAS for elderly: a safe and beneficial pathway in colorectal surgery. Int J Color Dis. 2017;32(2):215–21 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-016-2691-6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Bagnall NM, Malietzis G, Kennedy RH, Athanasiou T, Faiz O, Darzi A. A systematic review of enhanced recovery care after colorectal surgery in elderly patients. Color Dis. 2014;16(12):947–56 https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.12718.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Jia Y, Jin G, Guo S. Fast-track surgery decreases the incidence of postoperative delirium and other complications in elderly patients with colorectal carcinoma. Langenbeck's Arch Surg. 2014;399(1):77–84 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-013-1151-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hendry PO, Hausel J, Nygren J. Determinants of outcome after colorectal resection within an enhanced recovery programme. Br J Surg. 2009;96(2):197–205 https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.6445.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Artiles-Armas M, Roque-Castellano C, Fariña-Castro R, Conde-Martel A, Acosta-Mérida MA, Marchena-Gómez J. Impact of frailty on 5-year survival in patients older than 70 years undergoing colorectal surgery for cancer. World J Surg Oncol. 2021;19(1):106. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-021-02221-6 PMID: 33838668; PMCID: PMC8037830.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Rahr HB, Streym S, Kryh-Jensen CG, Hougaard HT, Knudsen AS, Kristensen SH, et al. Screening and systematic follow-up for cardiopulmonary comorbidity in elective surgery for colorectal cancer: a randomised feasibility study. World J Surg Oncol. 2019;17(1):127. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-019-1668-7 PMID: 31331339; PMCID: PMC6647202.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Feroci F, Lenzi E, Baraghini M. Fast-track surgery in real life: How patient factors influence outcomes and compliance with an enhanced recovery clinical pathway after colorectal surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Tech. 2013;23(3):259–65 https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0b013e31828ba16f.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kisialeuski M, Pędziwiatr M, Matłok M. Enhanced recovery after colorectal surgery in elderly patients. Wideochirurgia I Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne. 2015;10(1):30–6 https://doi.org/10.5114/wiitm.2015.48697.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Maggiori L, Rullier E, Lefevre JH, Régimbeau JM, Berdah S, Karoui M, et al. Does a combination of laparoscopic approach and full fast track multimodal management decrease postoperative morbidity? Ann Surg. 2017;266(5):729–37 https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002394.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Vlug MS, Wind J, Hollmann MW, Ubbink DT, Cense HA, Engel AF, et al. Laparoscopy in combination with fast track multimodal management is the best perioperative strategy in patients undergoing colonic surgery: a randomized clinical trial (LAFA-study). Ann Surg. 2011;254(6):868–75 https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31821fd1ce.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Zerey M, Hawver LM, Awad Z, Stefanidis D, Richardson W, Fanelli RD. SAGES evidence-based guidelines for the laparoscopic resection of curable colon and rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(1):1–10 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2592-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Watanabe T, Muro K, Ajioka Y. Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR) guidelines 2016 for the treatment of colorectal cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 2018;23(1):1–34 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-017-1101-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Benson AB, Venook AP, Al-Hawary MM. NCCN Guidelines ® insights colon cancer, version 2.2018 featured updates to the NCCN guidelines. JNCCN J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2018;16(4):359–69 https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2018.0021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Bretagnol F, Dedieu A, Zappa M, Guedj N, Ferron M, Panis Y. T4 colorectal cancer: is laparoscopic resection contraindicated? Color Dis. 2011;13(2):138–43 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2010.02380.x.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Bretagnol F, Leroy J. Laparoscopic resection for T4 colon cancer: perioperative and long-term outcomes. Updat Surg. 2016;68(1):59–62 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-016-0354-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Yang ZF, Wu DQ, Wang JJ, Lv ZJ, Li Y. Short- and long-term outcomes following laparoscopic vs open surgery for pathological T4 colorectal cancer: 10 years of experience in a single center. World J Gastroenterol. 2018;24(1):76–86 https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v24.i1.76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Leon P, Iovino MG, Giudici F. Oncologic outcomes following laparoscopic colon cancer resection for T4 lesions: a case–control analysis of 7-years’ experience. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(3):1133–40 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5784-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Huh JW, Kim HR. The feasibility of laparoscopic resection compared to open surgery in clinically suspected T4 colorectal cancer. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech. 2012;22(5):463–7 https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2011.0425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Park JS, Huh JW, Park YA. Clinically suspected T4 colorectal cancer may be resected using a laparoscopic approach. BMC Cancer. 2016;16(1):1–9 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-016-2753-8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Feinberg AE, Chesney TR, Acuna SA, Sammour T, Quereshy FA. Oncologic outcomes following laparoscopic versus open resection of pT4 colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2017;60(1):116–25 https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000000641.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Osseis M, Esposito F, Lim C. Impact of postoperative complications on long-term survival following surgery for T4 colorectal cancer 11 Medical and Health Sciences 1112 Oncology and Carcinogenesis. BMC Surg. 2018;18(1):1–11 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-018-0419-y.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Collard MK, Anyla M, Lefevre JH. Patients’ refusal as major limitation of early discharge after colorectal resection in an enhanced recovery program. Langenbeck's Arch Surg. 2020;405(3):337–44 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-020-01879-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Formica V, Luccchetti J, Cunningham D, et al. Systemic inflammation, as measured by the neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, may have differential prognostic impact before and during treatment with fluorouracil, irinotecan and bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Med Oncol. 2014;31(9):1–8 166.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Sun S-D, Wu P-P, Zhou J-F, Wang J-X, He Q-L. Failure of enhanced recovery after surgery in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review. Int J Color Dis. 2020;35(6):10071–14 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-020-03600-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Zhao Y, Zhang S, Liu B, Li J, Hong H. Clinical efficacy of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2020;18(1):131. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-020-01897-6 PMID: 32552894; PMCID: PMC7301489.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Bellato V, Konishi T, Pellino G, An Y, Piciocchi A, Sensi B, et al. Impact of asymptomatic COVID-19 patients in global surgical practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Br J Surg. 2020;107(10):e364–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.11800 Epub 2020 Aug 6. PMID: 32767367; PMCID: PMC7929295.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Divizia A, Sensi B, Sica GS. Ambulatory management of perianal crohn’s disease during the covid-19 pandemic. Color Dis. 2020;6:645–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.15104.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Spinelli A, Pellino G. COVID-19 pandemic: perspectives on an unfolding crisis. Br J Surg. 2020;107(7):785–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.11627 Epub 2020 Mar 23. PMID: 32191340; PMCID: PMC7228411.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Bellato V, Konishi T, Pellino G, An Y, Piciocchi A, Sensi B, et al. Screening policies, preventive measures and in-hospital infection of COVID-19 in global surgical practices. J Glob Health. 2020;10(2):020507. https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.10.020507 PMID: 33110590; PMCID: PMC7567431.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge SA.S. for his support and help, anesthesiologists, nurses, and hospital staff for the effort on ensure a quality ERAS protocol in our hospital.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Funding

This research did not receive grants from any founding agency in public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Minimally Invasive Unit, Department of Surgery, Università “Tor Vergata”, Viale Oxford 81, 00133, Rome, Italy

    Vittoria Bellato, Daniele Cerbo, Michela Campanelli, Marzia Franceschilli, Bruno Sensi, Leandro Siragusa, Piero Rossi & Giuseppe S. Sica

  2. Department of Colorectal Surgery, St Mark’s Academic Hospital, London, UK

    Vittoria Bellato

  3. Department of General Surgery, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China

    Yongbo An

  4. Department of Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA

    Krishn Khanna

Authors
  1. Vittoria Bellato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yongbo An
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniele Cerbo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michela Campanelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marzia Franceschilli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Krishn Khanna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Bruno Sensi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Leandro Siragusa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Piero Rossi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Giuseppe S. Sica
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

V.B. and D.C. have contributed to study conception and design and drafting of manuscript. G.S.S., L.S., B.S., K.K., Y.A., P.R., M.C., and M.F. have contributed to acquisition of data, analysis, and interpretation of data and they made substantial intellectual contribution. G.S.S. critically revised the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giuseppe S. Sica.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for publication

Written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bellato, V., An, Y., Cerbo, D. et al. Feasibility and outcomes of ERAS protocol in elective cT4 colorectal cancer patients: results from a single-center retrospective cohort study. World J Surg Onc 19, 196 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-021-02282-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-021-02282-7

Keywords

World Journal of Surgical Oncology

ISSN: 1477-7819

Contact us