Anastomotic Recurrence of Colon Cancer—is it a Local Recurrence,a Second Primary,or a Metastatic Disease (Local Manifestation of Systemic Disease)?

The aim of this study is to review the literature to find out the exact etiology of anastomotic cancers of colon post resection and differentiate them between a recurrence, second primary, and metastatic disease (local manifestation of systemic disease). Web-based literature search was done, and datas collected. We searched PubMed for papers using the keywords colon cancer recurrence, anastomotic recurrence, and recurrent colon carcinoma. We also searched for systematic review in the same topic. In addition, we used our personal referrence archive. Anastomotic recurrences of colon are postulated to arise due to inadequate margins, tumor implantation by exfoliated cells, altered biological properties of bowel anastomosis, and missed synchronous lesions. Some tumors are unique with repeated recurrence after repeated resection. Duration after primary surgery plays a major role in differentiating recurrent and second primary lesions. Repeated recurrences after repeated resections have to be considered a manifestation of systemic disease or metastatic disease due to the virulence of the disease. A detailed analysis and study of patients with colonic anastomotic lesion are required to differentiate it between a recurrent, a second primary lesion, and a metastatic disease (local manifestation of a systemic disease). The nomenclature is significant to study the survival of these patients, as a second primary lesion will have different survival compared to that of recurrent lesions.     

Changes in Quality of Health Care Delivery after Vertical Integration

ObjectivesTo fill an empirical gap in the literature by examining changes in quality of care measures occurring when multispecialty clinic systems were acquired by hospital-owned, vertically integrated health care delivery systems in the Twin Cities area.ConclusionsMoving a clinic system into a vertically integrated delivery system resulted in limited increases in quality of care indicators. Caution is warranted when the acquisition causes disruption in referral patterns.     

Assessment of the reporting of quality and outcome measures in hepatic resections: a call for 90-day reporting in all hepatectomy series

BackgroundThe aim of this paper is to assess the current state of quality and outcomes measures being reported for hepatic resections in the recent literature.MethodsMedline and PubMed databases were searched for English language articles published between 1 January 2002 and 30 April 2013. Two examiners reviewed each article and relevant citations for appropriateness of inclusion, which excluded papers of liver donor hepatic resections, repeat hepatectomies or meta-analyses. Data were extracted and summarized by two examiners for analysis.ResultsFifty-five studies were identified with suitable reporting to assess peri-operative mortality in hepatic resections. In only 35% (19/55) of the studies was the follow-up time explicitly stated, and in 47% (26/55) of studies peri-operative mortality was limited to in-hospital or 30 days. The time period in which complications were captured was not explicitly stated in 19 out of 28 studies. The remaining studies only captured complications within 30 days of the index operation (8/28). There was a paucity of quality literature addressing truly patient-centred outcomes.ConclusionQuality outcomes after a hepatic resection are inconsistently reported in the literature. Quality outcome studies for a hepatectomy should report mortality and morbidity at a minimum of 90 days after surgery.