RESUMO
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has created challenges in the diagnosis and management of colorectal cancer (CRC). It was proposed in regional Northern Australia that the distance to services could further impact cancer outcomes, leading to delayed diagnosis. The authors compared the outcomes of patients prior and during the pandemic; with a focus on whether patients were presenting in the emergency setting with more advanced disease. The distance to treatment was also analysed to see if there was any impact to the management of patients with colorectal cancer. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 444 patients who underwent treatment for colorectal cancer over two time periods was examined. Time period 1 (prior to COVID-19); March 2017-July 2019 and time period 2 (during COVID-19); March 2020-July 2022. Only patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma were included if they were primarily treated at a hospital in northern Australia; those with benign pathologies or recurrent disease were also excluded. Data was collected in terms of treatment and outcomes and compared between the two groups. A separate analysis of whether locality affected outcomes and referral times was also performed. Results: In the time period prior to COVID-19, 174 patients' required invasive management, while in the second time period during COVID-19, there were 188 patients managed surgically or endoscopically. Of the patients managed prior to COVID-19 17/174 (9.8%) patients required emergency interventions, during COVID-19 this number increased to 37/188 (19.7%). This difference was deemed to be statistically significant (P =0.008). No substantial difference in cancer staging at presentation was found between the two groups. There was an increase in complication rate found during COVID-19 34.6 vs 25.5% prior to COVID-19 (P=0.046). During COVID-19, the median time between General Practitioner (primary care physician) referral and colonoscopy was actually lower than prior to covid 26.5 vs 36 days (P=0.047). When comparing local to distant patients, we found locally based patients had lower rates of neoadjuvant treatment 18.9 vs 30.4% (P=0.018) and higher rates of open surgery 39.1 vs 26.5%, P =0.012. An increase in time between colonoscopy and outpatient department review (OPD) was seen in patients not from the local area 13 vs 18 days (P =0.006). Conclusion: The authors found during the COVID-19 pandemic a greater proportion of patients were presenting with colorectal cancer that required emergency intervention. This may be due to decreased presentations to general practitioners due to lockdown causing potential delays in diagnosis. The authors did not see more advanced disease in these patients presenting emergently, between the two groups. Further assessment of local patients' vs patients from distant sites, showed difference in how patients were managed but similar outcomes. Our large catchment area with distance to treatment in Northern Australia may further impact the management of colorectal cancer in the future.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Rectal cancer treatment outcomes for socioeconomically disadvantaged and regional patients have been suggested to be suboptimal in Australia. We investigate outcomes at a regional tertiary centre in order to determine the prognostic impact of patient and treatment factors. METHODS: Patients who underwent short and long course neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery for stage II-III rectal cancer over an 11-year period were identified. Results were analysed to determine oncological and surgical outcomes along with whether patient and treatment-related variables were prognostic. Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA) and Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage (IRSD) was used to determine remoteness and socioeconomic status, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 207 patients underwent short (n = 103, 49.8%) and long course (n = 104, 50.2%) over the time period; 81.6% (n = 169) were from outer regional, remote or very remote communities and 55.1% travelled >200 km for treatment; 57.0% were in the most disadvantaged three IRSD deciles. Five-year cancer-specific survival, recurrence-free survival and local recurrence were 83.1% (n = 172), 76.3% (n = 158) and 7.3% (n = 15), respectively. Wound complications were higher in outer regional, remote or very remote patients (25.4% versus 13.2%, P = 0.03). Remoteness, socioeconomic indices, distance to treatment and neoadjuvant type were not prognostic for any other oncological or surgical outcomes on univariate or multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Despite demography suggesting geographic and socioeconomic barriers, oncological and surgical outcomes at our regional centre were comparable to international and Australian trials. Further, these factors were not prognostic. Geographically remote patient's may safely have neoadjuvant modality individualized without compromising care.