Making an IMPACT: A priority setting consultation exercise to improve outcomes in patients with locally advanced, recurrent and metastatic colorectal cancer.

AIM: The IMPACT (Improving the Management of Patients with Advanced Colorectal Tumours) initiative was established by the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland in 2017 as a consortium of surgeons (colorectal, hepatobiliary, thoracic), oncologists, radiologists, pathologists, palliative care physicians, patients, carers and charity stakeholders who will work together to improve outcomes in patients with advanced and metastatic colorectal cancer. To establish this initiative, better information is required to establish how further intervention is focused. This paper details the approaches used, and outcomes generated, from a priority setting exercise to inform the design of the IMPACT initiative. METHODS: A mixed method approach was employed to set the priorities of patients, clinicians and other key stakeholders in the delivery of optimal care. This consisted of two patient centered consultation events and a questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 128 participants took part in the consultation exercise; 15 patients, 5 carers/family members, 5 charity representatives and 113 healthcare professionals. Nine key themes for focus were identified, these were: current service provision, specialist services, communication, education, access to care, definitions and standardisation, research and audit, outcome measures, and funding of specialist care. CONCLUSION: These future priorities will be developed with collaborative engagement in a systematic manner to produce an overall cohesive programme which will deliver a sustainable and efficient clinical and academic service to improving the management of patients with advanced colorectal tumours.

Systematic review of definitions and outcome measures for return of bowel function after gastrointestinal surgery.

Background: Ileus is common after gastrointestinal surgery and has been identified as a research priority. Several issues have limited previous research, including a widely accepted definition and agreed outcome measure. This review is the first stage in the development of a core outcome set for the return of bowel function after gastrointestinal surgery. It aims to characterize the extent of variation in current outcome reporting. Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and the Cochrane Library was performed for 1990-2017. RCTs of adults undergoing gastrointestinal surgery, including at least one reported measure relating to return of bowel function, were eligible. Trial registries were searched across the same period for ongoing and completed (but not published) RCTs. Definitions of ileus and outcome measures describing the return of bowel function were extracted. Results: Of 5670 manuscripts screened, 215 (reporting 217 RCTs) were eligible. Most RCTs involved patients undergoing colorectal surgery (161 of 217, 74·2 per cent). A total of 784 outcomes were identified across all published RCTs, comprising 73 measures (clinical: 63, 86 per cent; radiological: 6, 8 per cent; physiological: 4, 5 per cent). The most commonly reported outcome measure was 'time to first passage of flatus' (140 of 217, 64·5 per cent). The outcomes 'ileus' and 'prolonged ileus' were defined infrequently and variably. Conclusion: Outcome reporting for the return of bowel function after gastrointestinal surgery is variable and not fit for purpose. An agreed core outcome set will improve the consistency, reliability and clinical value of future studies.

Socioeconomic differences in selection for liver resection in metastatic colorectal cancer and the impact on survival.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic inequalities in colorectal cancer (CRC) survival are well recognised. The aim of this study was to describe the impact of socioeconomic deprivation on survival in patients with synchronous CRC liver-limited metastases, and to investigate if any survival inequalities are explained by differences in liver resection rates. METHODS: Patients in the National Bowel Cancer Audit diagnosed with CRC between 2010 and 2016 in the English National Health Service were included. Linked Hospital Episode Statistics data were used to identify the presence of liver metastases and whether a liver resection had been performed. Multivariable random-effects logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) of liver resection by Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) quintile. Cox-proportional hazards model was used to compare 3-year survival. RESULTS: 13,656 patients were included, of whom 2213 (16.2%) underwent liver resection. Patients in the least deprived IMD quintile were more likely to undergo liver resection than those in the most deprived quintile (adjusted OR 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18-1.70). Patients in the least deprived quintile had better 3-year survival (least deprived vs. most deprived quintile, 22.3% vs. 17.4%; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.20, 1.11-1.30). Adjusting for liver resection attenuated, but did not remove, this effect. There was no difference in survival between IMD quintile when restricted to patients who underwent liver resection (adjusted HR 0.97, 0.76-1.23). CONCLUSIONS: Deprived CRC patients with synchronous liver-limited metastases have worse survival than more affluent patients. Lower rates of liver resection in more deprived patients is a contributory factor.

The timing of liver resection in patients with colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases: a population-based study of current practice and survival.

AIM: There is uncertainty regarding the optimal sequence of surgery for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and synchronous liver metastases. This study was designed to describe temporal trends and inter-hospital variation in surgical strategy, and to compare long-term survival in a propensity score-matched analysis. METHOD: The National Bowel Cancer Audit dataset was used to identify patients diagnosed with primary CRC between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2015 who underwent CRC resection in the English National Health Service. Hospital Episode Statistics data were used to identify those with synchronous liver-limited metastases who underwent liver resection. Survival outcomes of propensity score-matched groups were compared. RESULTS: Of 1830 patients, 270 (14.8%) underwent a liver-first approach, 259 (14.2%) a simultaneous approach and 1301 (71.1%) a bowel-first approach. The proportion of patients undergoing either a liver-first or simultaneous approach increased over the study period from 26.8% in 2010 to 35.6% in 2015 (P < 0.001). There was wide variation in surgical approach according to hospital trust of diagnosis. There was no evidence of a difference in 4-year survival between the propensity score-matched cohorts according to surgical strategy: bowel first vs simultaneous [hazard ratio (HR) 0.92 (95% CI: 0.80-1.06)] or bowel first vs liver first [HR 0.99 (95% CI: 0.82-1.19)]. CONCLUSION: There is evidence of wide variation in surgical strategy in dealing with CRC and synchronous liver metastases. In selected patients, the simultaneous and liver-first strategies have comparable long-term survival to the bowel-first approach.

Impact of hepatobiliary service centralization on treatment and outcomes in patients with colorectal cancer and liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Centralization of specialist surgical services can improve patient outcomes. The aim of this cohort study was to compare liver resection rates and survival in patients with primary colorectal cancer and synchronous metastases limited to the liver diagnosed at hepatobiliary surgical units (hubs) with those diagnosed at hospital Trusts without hepatobiliary services (spokes). METHODS: The study included patients from the National Bowel Cancer Audit diagnosed with primary colorectal cancer between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2014 who underwent colorectal cancer resection in the English National Health Service. Patients were linked to Hospital Episode Statistics data to identify those with liver metastases and those who underwent liver resection. Multivariable random-effects logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio of liver resection by presence of specialist hepatobiliary services on site. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Of 4547 patients, 1956 (43·0 per cent) underwent liver resection. The 1081 patients diagnosed at hubs were more likely to undergo liver resection (adjusted odds ratio 1·52, 95 per cent c.i. 1·20 to 1·91). Patients diagnosed at hubs had better median survival (30·6 months compared with 25·3 months for spokes; adjusted hazard ratio 0·83, 0·75 to 0·91). There was no difference in survival between hubs and spokes when the analysis was restricted to patients who had liver resection (P = 0·620) or those who did not undergo liver resection (P = 0·749). CONCLUSION: Patients with colorectal cancer and synchronous metastases limited to the liver who are diagnosed at hospital Trusts with a hepatobiliary team on site are more likely to undergo liver resection and have better survival.

Double bypass for inoperable pancreatic malignancy at laparotomy: postoperative complications and long-term outcome.

INTRODUCTION: Between 4% and 13% of patients with operable pancreatic malignancy are found unresectable at the time of surgery. Double bypass is a good option for fit patients but it is associated with a high risk of postoperative complications. The aim of this study was to identify pre-operatively which patients undergoing double bypass are at high risk of complications and to assess their long-term outcome. METHODS: Of the 576 patients undergoing pancreatic resections between 2006 and 2011, 50 patients who underwent a laparotomy for a planned pancreaticoduodenectomy had a double bypass procedure for inoperable disease. Demographic data, risk factors for postoperative complications and pre-operative anaesthetic assessment data including the Portsmouth Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and morbidity (P-POSSUM) and cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) were collected. RESULTS: Fifty patients (33 men and 17 women) were included in the study. The median patient age was 64 years (range: 39-79 years). The complication rate was 50% and the in-hospital mortality rate was 4%. The P-POSSUM physiology subscore and low anaerobic threshold at CPET were significantly associated with postoperative complications (p =0.005 and p =0.016 respectively) but they were unable to predict them. Overall long-term survival was significantly shorter in patients with postoperative complications (9 vs 18 months). Postoperative complications were independently associated with poorer long-term survival (p =0.003, odds ratio: 3.261). CONCLUSIONS: P-POSSUM and CPET are associated with postoperative complications but the possibility of using them for risk prediction requires further research. However, postoperative complications following double bypass have a significant impact on long-term survival and this type of surgery should therefore only be performed in specialised centres.