- Research article
- Open Access
Endoscopic obstruction is associated with higher risk of acute events requiring emergency operation in colorectal cancer patients
© Chalieopanyarwong et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013
- Received: 24 July 2013
- Accepted: 3 September 2013
- Published: 8 September 2013
Unplanned emergency operations in colorectal cancers (CRC) are generally associated with increased risk of operative complications. This study aimed to examine the association, if any, between an endoscopic finding of obstructing tumor and the subsequent need for an emergency operation, with the aim of determining if this finding could be useful in identifying CRC cases who are more likely to require an emergency operation.
The records of CRC cases operated on in our institute during the years 2002-2011 were retrospectively reviewed regarding an endoscopic obstruction (eOB), defined as a luminal obstruction of the colon or rectum severe enough to prevent the colonoscope from passing beyond the tumor. The eOBs were analyzed against outcomes in terms of need for emergency operation, surgical complications and overall survival (OS).
A total of 329 CRCs which had been operated on during the study period had complete colonoscopic data. eOB was diagnosed in 209 cases (64%). Occurrence of eOB was not correlated with clinical symptoms. Colon cancer had a higher incidence of eOB (70%) than rectal cases (50%) (p-value < 0.01). eOB was significantly associated with higher tumor size and more advanced T-stage (p < 0.01). Twenty-two cases (7%) had required an emergency operation before their scheduled elective surgery. The cases with eOB had a significantly higher risk of requiring an emergency operation while waiting for their scheduled procedure (p-value < 0.01), and these emergency surgeries had more post-operative complications (36%) than elective procedures (13%) (p-value 0.01) and poorer OS (p-value < 0.01).
Regardless of the presenting symptom, luminal obstruction severe enough to prevent further passage of a colonoscope should prompt the physician to consider an urgent surgery.
- Colorectal cancers
- Colonic obstruction
- Surgical waiting time
- Surgical outcome
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the common cancers in which surgery plays a crucial role in the definitive management. When a diagnosis of CRC is suspected, it is recommended by the UK National Health Service that the patient should be referred within 2 weeks  and treatment should be performed within one month of diagnosis . However, due to resource constraints, this quick response is often impossible , resulting in 15-30% of CRC cases require emergency surgery due to development of acute symptoms while they await their surgery . Identifying CRC patients who are likely to develop acute conditions in order to have the option of considering fast-track service could reduce problems associated with prolonged waits for necessary surgeries.
Unplanned operations in patients with colorectal cancer are associated with a higher incidence of operative complications and poorer surgical outcome than non-emergency procedures [4–6], and the most common condition that leads to emergency surgery in these patients is colonic obstruction . CRC patients that are at risk of needing emergency surgery should, therefore, be prioritized. However, the clinical presentation of CRC patients is not always correlated with the severity of obstruction, this making the scheduling of prioritized surgeries a hit-and-miss decision at best. In this study, we aimed to look for a correlation between an endoscopic finding of tumor obstruction and the risk of needing emergency surgery in CRCs.
Histologically proven colorectal adenocarcinoma patients recorded in the Cancer Registry Unit of Songklanagarind Hospital who were operated on at the institute during the period between the years 2002 and 2011 and who had a colonoscopy before their operation were included in this retrospective review. The data were retrieved from electronic medical records and reviewed regarding clinical and pathological parameters with an emphasis on the management timeline. Access and use of clinical data were approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University.
Clinical management of CRC patients who were referred to our institute as an elective case usually begins with primary diagnostic confirmation by colonoscopic biopsy, followed by an appointment for an elective colectomy. Endoscopic obstruction (eOB) is diagnosed when a standard colonoscope (11.8-13.0 millimeters diameter) is unable to pass beyond the tumor. All patients were also sent for computerized tomography of their chest and abdomen as our standard pre-operative work-up while they were waiting for their surgery. During the surgical waiting period, patients who developed an emergency condition such as colonic obstruction, bleeding or tumor rupture were immediately admitted for an emergency procedure. An on-table colonic lavage technique was used in cases of left-sided colonic obstruction. Cases with an acute condition requiring immediate surgery at their initial presentation were not included in the original study. Patients who had received a prior treatment such as a colostomy from another institute or those who received neoadjuvant therapy were also excluded. In the majority of cases, laboratory tests including complete blood count, carcinoembryonic antigen and serum albumin were performed both on the first visit and on the surgical hospitalization date 4-6 weeks later. Tumor size was measured directly from the pathological specimen. Lymph node ratio (LNR) refers to the ratio between the number of positive lymph nodes and the total number of harvested nodes. A LNR cut-off of 0.35 used to determine cases with poorer prognosis in this study analysis was derived from our previous study . Post-operative follow-up assessments were done through both clinical evaluation and periodic colonoscopies every 6-12 months. Adjuvant therapy was administered when indicated and the patient was physically well enough. Hospital-based follow-up data was updated until December 2012. In cases which were lost to follow-up, survival status was determined using death registry data from the regional municipal office.
Statistical analysis used Chi-squared test and logistic regression to test for any associations between eOB and the clinical parameters we were interested in. Cox’s hazard analysis was used to study association between eOB and emergency surgery. Survival outcome was analyzed in terms of overall survival (OS). Log-rank test and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis were used for survival comparison. Data are presented as hazard ratios (HR) with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI), with p-values of less than 0.05 considered statistically significant.
Selected demographic and medical parameters and their association with 5-year overall survival (OS) and modes of surgery
No. (cases) (%)
5-year OS (%)
< 60 years
≥ 60 years
< 5 ng/ml
≥ 5 ng/ml
Lymph node ratio
Mode of operation
Endoscopic obstruction and factors associated with this finding
On colonoscopy, the endoscope could not be passed beyond the tumor mass in 209 cases (63%). Clinical symptoms suggestive of early obstruction including decreased stool frequency or change in bowel habit were not significantly correlated with eOB (p-values 0.64 and 0.45, respectively). Although a primary tumor situated at the right colon had a significantly lower incidence of predominating obstructive symptoms (1%) than a left-sided CRC (8%) (p-value 0.02), the right-sided tumors had a higher incidence of eOB (72%) when compared to those on the left (60%, p-value 0.047). Colonic tumors had a higher incidence of eOB (70%) than rectal tumors (50%) (p-value < 0.01).
Association between selected clinicopathological parameters and endoscopic obstruction
No. (cases) (%)
Endoscopic obstruction (%)
Left colon and rectum
< 5 ng/ml
≥ 5 ng/ml
< 5.5 cm
≥ 5.5 cm
Significance of endoscopic obstruction on mode of operation and outcome
Post-operative complications according to mode of surgery (some cases had more than one complication)
Other (collection, seroma, etc.)
Previous studies have suggested that CRCs that present with acute symptoms and require emergency surgery have more aggressive behavior and higher tumor stages [4, 8]. Consistent with those findings, our study found that CRC patients who underwent emergency surgery had a more advanced stage tumor, which may partly explain the poorer survival. In addition, unplanned emergency operations are inferior to elective surgeries in terms of inadequate control of any underlying co-morbidities. For these reasons, it could be expected that procedures done in an emergency setting post a higher risk of operative complications. Obstruction and perforation are common problems that bring CRC patients to an emergency surgery before their scheduled surgery [5, 7, 9]. The number of emergency surgeries in our series was relatively lower than other previous reports [4, 5, 7–9], which might be explained by the fact that we did not include cases who first presented with emergency conditions in our analysis.
Providing fast-track service for these higher risk CRC patients may help in reducing acute events that require emergency surgery and its related higher morbidity . Our study found that clinical symptoms alone were not adequate in determining such high-risk patients, especially when the tumor was situated on the right colon. The pre-operative colonoscopy is an objective study that should be performed in all cases suspected of CRC, as in addition to a tissue biopsy for histological confirmation of malignancy, severity of luminal obstruction can be evaluated. We also found that a luminal obstruction was associated with larger tumor size and T-stage, but not histological grade. Moreover, eOB was also correlated with poorer nutritional status in our cases, as evidenced by lower serum albumin and hemoglobin. Above all, the evidence of eOB was associated with required emergency surgery. Overall, the data from our study suggest that patients with eOB should be reevaluated carefully and considered for fast-track urgent surgery. The average surgical waiting time in the study CRC cases was 35 days. If all of our cases are considered as on the same elective list, 10% of cases with eOB and 2% of non-eOB cases required an emergency operation. However, if the patients with eOB had been scheduled for surgery within 2 weeks of their first hospital visit, the overall number of emergency surgeries would have been reduced to 5%.
Use of a self-expandible metallic stent as a bridge-to-surgery method has been recently proposed, not only as a time-buying strategy, but also to allow for more adequate pre-operative staging and bowel preparation . The stent procedure has one notable technical limitation, however, in that it can be applied only for an obstruction in the left colon and rectum. Although various retrospective case series have reported the benefits of this intervention [12–14], there are yet no good quality data to support its clinical advantage over emergency surgery.
In conclusion, our study found that a luminal obstruction detected by endoscopy was significantly associated with locally advanced tumor. This group of CRC patients had a higher risk of requiring an unplanned operation. The data suggest that this endoscopic finding should be regarded as an indication that these patients should be considered for fast-track surgical scheduling list.
The authors thank the Medical Records Unit, Songklanagarind Hospital for their assistance in retrieving the archived patient records. Dave Patterson of the International Affair Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, offered editorial suggestions for the English in the manuscript.
- Department of Health: The NHS Cancer Plan. London: Department of Health; 2000.Google Scholar
- Duff SE, Wood C, McCredie V, Levine E, Saunders MP, O’Dwyer ST: Waiting times for treatment of rectal cancer in North West England. J R Soc Med. 2004, 97: 117-118. 10.1258/jrsm.97.3.117.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hanna SJ, Muneer A, Khalil KH: The 2-week wait for suspected cancer: time for a rethink?. Int J Clin Pract. 2005, 59: 1334-1339. 10.1111/j.1368-5031.2005.00687.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wong SK, Jalaludin BB, Morgan MJ, Berthelsen AS, Morgan A, Gatenby AH, Fulham SB: Tumor pathology and long-term survival in emergency colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008, 51: 223-230. 10.1007/s10350-007-9094-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bass G, Fleming C, Conneely J, Martin Z, Mealy K: Emergency first presentation of colorectal cancer predicts significantly poorer outcomes: a review of 356 consecutive Irish patients. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009, 52: 678-684. 10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181a1d8c9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kritsanasakul A, Boonpipattanapong T, Wanitsuwan W, Phukaoloun M, Prechawittayakul P, Sangkhathat S: Impact of lymph node retrieval on surgical outcomes in colorectal cancers. J Surg Oncol. 2012, 106: 238-242. 10.1002/jso.22156.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cuffy M, Abir F, Audisio RA, Longo WE: Colorectal cancer presenting as surgical emergencies. Surg Oncol. 2004, 13: 149-157. 10.1016/j.suronc.2004.08.002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ghazi S, Berg E, Lindblom A, Lindforss U, Low-Risk Colorectal Cancer Study Group: Clinicopathological analysis of colorectal cancer: a comparison between emergency and elective surgical cases. World J Surg Oncol. 2013, 11: 133-10.1186/1477-7819-11-133.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chen HS, Sheen-Chen SM: Obstruction and perforation in colorectal adenocarcinoma: an analysis of prognosis and current trends. Surgery. 2000, 127: 370-376. 10.1067/msy.2000.104674.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Scott MA, Knight A, Brown K, Novell JR: A single common urgent pathway for all colorectal referrals reduces time to diagnosis and treatment. Colorectal Dis. 2006, 8: 766-771. 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2006.01034.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Baik SH, Kim NK, Cho HW, Lee KY, Sohn SK, Cho CH, Kim TI, Kim WH: Clinical outcomes of metallic stent insertion for obstructive colorectal cancer. Hepatogastroenterol. 2006, 53: 183-187.Google Scholar
- Ng KC, Law WL, Lee YM, Choi HK, Seto CL, Ho JW: Self-expanding metallic stent as a bridge to surgery versus emergency resection for obstructing left-sided colorectal cancer: a case-matched study. J Gastrointest Surg. 2006, 10: 798-803. 10.1016/j.gassur.2006.02.006.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- van Hooft JE, Bemelman WA, Oldenburg B, Marinelli AW, Holzik MF, Grubben MJ, Sprangers MA, Dijkgraaf MG, Fockens P, collaborative Dutch Stent-in study group: Colonic stenting versus emergency surgery for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011, 12: 344-352. 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70035-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Zhang Y, Shi J, Shi B, Song CY, Xie WF, Chen YX: Self-expanding metallic stent as a bridge to surgery versus emergency surgery for obstructive colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2012, 26: 110-119. 10.1007/s00464-011-1835-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 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.