Prehabilitation in colorectal cancer surgery improves outcome and reduces hospital costs.

INTRODUCTION: Increasing evidence suggests that multimodal prehabilitation programs reduce postoperative complication rates and length of stay. Nevertheless, prehabilitation is not standard care yet, also as financial consequences of such programs are lacking. Aim of this study was to analyse clinical outcomes and effects on hospital resources if prehabilitation is implemented for patients who are planned for colorectal surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery and who received either prehabilitation or standard care between January 2017 and March 2022 in a regional Dutch hospital were included. Outcome parameters were length of hospital stay, 30-day postoperative complications, 30-day ICU admission, readmission rates and hospital costs. RESULTS: A total of 196 patients completed prehabilitation whereas 390 patients received standard care. Lower overall complication rates (31 % vs 40 %, p = 0.04) and severe complication rates (20 % vs 31 %, p = 0.01) were observed in the prehabilitation group compared to standard care. Length of stay was shorter in the prehabilitation group (mean 5.80 days vs 6.71 days). In hospital cost savings were €1109 per patient, while the calculated investment for prehabilitation was €969. CONCLUSION: Implementation of a multimodal prehabilitation program in colorectal surgery reduces postoperative complication rates, length of stay and hospital costs.

Oncological Safety and Potential Cost Savings of Routine vs Selective Histopathological Examination After Appendectomy: Results of the Multicenter, Prospective, Cross-Sectional FANCY Study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the oncological safety and potential cost savings of selective histopathological examination after appendectomy. BACKGROUND: The necessity of routine histopathological examination after appendectomy has been questioned, but prospective studies investigating the safety of a selective policy are lacking. METHODS: In this multicenter, prospective, cross-sectional study, inspection and palpation of the (meso)appendix was performed by the surgeon in patients with suspected appendicitis. The surgeon's opinion on additional value of histopathological examination was reported before sending all specimens to the pathologist. Main outcomes were the number of hypothetically missed appendiceal neoplasms with clinical consequences benefiting the patient (upper limit two-sided 95% confidence interval below 3:1000 considered oncologically safe) and potential cost savings after selective histopathological examination. RESULTS: Seven thousand three hundred thirty-nine patients were included. After a selective policy, 4966/7339 (67.7%) specimens would have been refrained from histopathological examination. Appendiceal neoplasms with clinical consequences would have been missed in 22/4966 patients. In 5/22, residual disease was completely resected during additional surgery. Hence, an appendiceal neoplasm with clinical consequences benefiting the patient would have been missed in 1.01:1000 patients (upper limit 95% confidence interval 1.61:1000). In contrast, twice as many patients (10/22) would not have been exposed to potential harm due to re-resections without clear benefit, whereas consequences were neither beneficial nor harmful in the remaining seven. Estimated cost savings established by replacing routine for selective histopathological examination were €725,400 per 10,000 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Selective histopathological examination after appendectomy for suspected appendicitis is oncologically safe and will likely result in a reduction of pathologists' workload, less costs, and fewer re-resections without clear benefit.

Safety and economic analysis of selective histopathology following cholecystectomy: multicentre, prospective, cross-sectional FANCY study.

BACKGROUND: There is ongoing debate concerning the necessity of routine histopathological examination following cholecystectomy. In order to reduce the pathology workload and save costs, a selective approach has been suggested, but evidence regarding its oncological safety is lacking. METHODS: In this multicentre, prospective, cross-sectional study, all gallbladders removed for gallstone disease or cholecystitis were systematically examined by the surgeon for macroscopic abnormalities indicative of malignancy. Before sending all specimens to the pathologist, the surgeon judged whether histopathological examination was indicated. The main outcomes were the number of patients with hypothetically missed malignancy with clinical consequences (upper limit two-sided 95 per cent c.i. below 3:1000 considered oncologically safe) and potential cost savings of selective histopathological examination. RESULTS: Twenty-two (2.19:1000) of 10 041 specimens exhibited malignancy with clinical consequences. In case of a selective policy, surgeons would have held back 7846 of 10041 (78.1 per cent) gallbladders from histopathological examination. Malignancy with clinical consequences would have been missed in seven of 7846 patients (0.89:1000, upper limit 95% c.i. 1.40:1000). No patient benefitted from the clinical consequences, while two were harmed (futile additional surgery). Of 15 patients in whom malignancy with clinical consequences would have been diagnosed, one benefitted (residual disease radically removed), two potentially benefitted (palliative systemic therapy), and four experienced harm (futile additional surgery). Estimated cost savings established by replacing routine for selective histopathological examination were €703 500 per 10 000 patients. CONCLUSION: Selective histopathological examination following cholecystectomy is oncologically safe and could reduce pathology workload, costs, and futile re-resections.

Safety and cost analysis of selective histopathological examination following appendicectomy and cholecystectomy (FANCY study): protocol and statistical analysis plan of a prospective observational multicentre study.

INTRODUCTION: Routine histopathological examination following appendicectomy and cholecystectomy has significant financial implications and comprises a substantial portion of the pathologists' workload, while the incidence of unexpected pathology is low. The aim of the selective histopathological examination Following AppeNdicectomy and CholecystectomY (FANCY) study is to investigate the oncological safety and potential cost savings of selective histopathological examination based on macroscopic assessment performed by the surgeon. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a Dutch multicentre prospective observational study, in which removed appendices and gallbladders will be systematically assessed by the operating surgeon for macroscopic abnormalities suspicious for malignant neoplasms. After visual inspection and digital palpation of the removed specimen, the operating surgeon will report whether macroscopic abnormalities suspicious for a malignant neoplasm are present, and if he or she believes additional microscopic examination by the pathologist is indicated. Regardless of the surgeon's assessment, all specimens will be sent for histopathological examination. In this way, routine histopathological examination can be compared with a hypothetical situation in which specimens are routinely examined by surgeons and only sent to the pathologist on indication. The two main outcomes are oncological safety and potential cost savings of a selective policy. Oncological safety of selective histopathological examination will be assessed by calculating the number of patients in whom a histopathological diagnosis of an appendiceal neoplasm or gallbladder cancer with clinical consequences benefitting the patient would have been missed. A cost analysis will be performed to quantify the potential cost savings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was reviewed by the Institutional Review Board of the Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, which decided that the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act is not applicable. In all participating centres, approval for execution of the FANCY study has been obtained from the local Institutional Review Board before the start of inclusion of patients. The study results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. Guidelines will be revised according to the findings of the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03510923.

Low socioeconomic status and mental health outcomes in colorectal cancer survivors: disadvantage? advantage?... or both?

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to examine the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and both positive and negative mental health (MH) outcomes in a population-based sample of colorectal cancer survivors. On the basis of theoretical conceptualizations of trauma and posttraumatic growth, low SES was hypothesized to be positively associated with both greater negative MH outcomes (e.g., distress) and greater positive MH outcomes (e.g., growth). METHODS: Colorectal cancer survivors (n = 1300; 57% male; mean age 69.4 and 4.0 years post-diagnosis) were recruited using a regional, population-based cancer registry in the Netherlands and completed a questionnaire assessing current negative and positive MH outcomes. Low, medium, and high SES respondents were identified using an area-level indicator of SES based on aggregated individual fiscal data on monetary home value and household income. RESULTS: Analysis of covariance and logistic regression analyses indicated that low SES was a risk factor for greater negative MH outcomes. Relative to high SES survivors, low SES survivors reported poorer status on nine indices of MH, and high SES survivors were about 50% less likely to report clinically important levels of anxiety and depression. Results provided partial support for the hypothesis low SES was a 'risk' factor for greater positive MH outcomes. Relative to high SES survivors, low SES survivors reported greater positive MH outcomes on 2 of 5 positive MH indices examined (Positive Self-Evaluation, Meaning of Cancer). CONCLUSIONS: Study findings are the first to suggest that low SES might increase the likelihood of both greater negative as well as positive MH outcomes in cancer survivors.

Impact of chemotherapy on health status and symptom burden of colon cancer survivors: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: This population-based study assessed the impact of chemotherapy on general and disease-specific health status of resected colon cancer survivors up to 10 years post-diagnosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Colon cancer survivors diagnosed between 1998 and 2007 were selected from the Eindhoven Cancer Registry. Survivors completed the SF-36 and the EORTC colorectal module (EORTC-QLQ-CR38). Comparisons to a normative population were conducted. Multiple linear regression analyses investigated the association between treatment and health status. RESULTS: Eight hundred and forty eight survivors were evaluated: 29% had chemotherapy (CT); 71% without chemotherapy (nCT). Survivors had similar SF-36 scores and scored better than the normative population on several domains. On the EORTC-QLQ-CR38, male nCT survivors had more sexual problems than CT survivors (p=0.01). Among the sexually active respondents, the survivors reported sex to be less enjoyable than the normative population (p=0.02). In multivariate analyses, CT predicted better physical function, and less male sexual dysfunction and weight loss problems than nCT. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, CT survivors have general health status scores comparable to nCT survivors and the normative population up to 10 years since initial diagnosis. Sex-related problems among survivors suggest more attention on this often sensitive issue is required in clinical management.