Impact of autotransfusion on recurrence of colorectal cancer liver metastasis: Long-term follow-up of patients undergoing curative intent hepatectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRLM) occurs in upto 50% of cases and drives patient outcomes. Up-front liver resection is the treatment of choice in resectable cases. There is no consensus yet established as to the safety of intraoperative autotransfusion in liver resection for CRLM. METHODS: Patients undergoing curative-intent hepatectomy for CRLM at a single quaternary-care institution from 1999 to 2016 were included. Demographics, surgical variables, Fong Clinical Risk Score (FCRS), use of intraoperative auto and/or allotransfusion, and survival data were analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed accounting for allotransfusion, extent of hepatectomy, FCRS, and systemic treatment regimens. RESULTS: Three-hundred sixteen patients were included. The median follow-up was 10.4 years (7.8-14.1 years). The median recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in all patients were 1.6 years (interquartile range: 0.63-6.6 years) and 4.4 years (2.1-8.7), respectively.  Before PSM, there was a significantly reduced RFS in the autotransfusion group (0.96 vs. 1.73 years, p = 0.20). There was no difference in OS (4.11 vs. 4.44 years, p = 0.118). Patients in groups of FCRS 0-2 and 3-5 both had reduced RFS when autotransfusion was used (p = 0.005). This reduction in RFS was further found when comparing autotransfusion versus no autotransfusion within the FCRS 0-2 group and within the FCRS 3-5 group (p = 0.027). On Cox-regression analysis, autotransfusion (hazard ratio = 1.423, 1.028-2.182, p = 0.015) remained predictive of RFS. After PSM, there were no differences in FCRS (p = 0.601), preoperative hemoglobin (p = 0.880), allotransfusion (p = 0.130), adjuvant chemotherapy (p = 1.000), immunotherapy (p = 0.172), tumor grade (p = 1.000), use of platinum-based chemotherapy (p = 0.548), or type of hepatic resection (p = 0.967). After matching, there was a higher rate of recurrence with autotransfusion (69.0% vs. 47.6%, p = 0.046). There was also a reduced time to recurrence in the autotransfusion group compared with the group without (p = 0.006). There was no difference in OS after PSM (p = 0.262). CONCLUSION: Autotransfusion may adversely affect recurrence in liver resection for CRLM. Until further studies clarify this risk profile, the use of intraoperative autotransfusion should be critically assessed on a case-by-case basis only when other resuscitation options are not available.

Patient and Physician Attitudes Toward Telemedicine in Cancer Clinics Following the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: COVID-19 has infected more than 94 million people worldwide and caused more than 2 million deaths. Patients with cancer are at significantly increased risk compared with the general population. Telemedicine represents a common strategy to prevent viral spread. We sought to evaluate patient with cancer and physician perceptions of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A 16-question survey was e-mailed to 1,843 active e-mails of patients presenting to one of the six cancer clinics at a comprehensive cancer care center from January 1, 2020, to June 1, 2020. A six-question survey was e-mailed to attending physicians of those clinics. Specialties included Medical Oncology, Hematology-Oncology, Surgical Oncology, Urological Oncology, and Gynecologic Oncology. RESULTS: Three hundred seventy-four patients (20.3%) and 14 physicians (66.7%) responded. Most (68.2%) currently prefer in-person visits, and 80.4% prefer in-person visits following pandemic resolution. More than half (52.2%) of patients preferring virtual visits do so because of convenience. Most (63.1%) patients with cancer are comfortable with a complete physical examination. Surgical patients are more likely to prefer a complete examination (P = .0476). Physicians prefer in-person visits (64.2%) and believe that virtual visits maybe or probably do not provide comparable care (64.2%). 71.4% believe that virtual visits help prevent the spread of infectious disease. CONCLUSION: Given preferences for in-person visits, cancer care teams should be prepared to continue providing in-person visits for many of their patients. The discrepancy between patient and provider concern for spread of infectious disease represents an area where patients may benefit from increased education. Providers should feel comfortable performing physical examinations at their own discretion.