Inflammatory Bowel Disease-Associated Colorectal Cancer Epidemiology and Outcomes: An English Population-Based Study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) of the colon are at an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). This study investigates the epidemiology of IBD-CRC and its outcomes. METHODS: Using population data from the English National Health Service held in the CRC data repository, all CRCs with and without prior diagnosis of IBD (Crohn's, ulcerative colitis, IBD unclassified, and IBD with cholangitis) between 2005 and 2018 were identified. Descriptive analyses and logistic regression models were used to compare the characteristics of the 2 groups and their outcomes up to 2 years. RESULTS: Three hundred ninety thousand six hundred fourteen patients diagnosed with CRC were included, of whom 5,141 (1.3%) also had a previous diagnosis of IBD. IBD-CRC cases were younger (median age at CRC diagnosis [interquartile range] 66 [54-76] vs 72 [63-79] years [ P < 0.01]), more likely to be diagnosed with CRC as an emergency (25.1% vs 16.7% [ P < 0.01]), and more likely to have a right-sided colonic tumor (37.4% vs 31.5% [ P < 0.01]). Total colectomy was performed in 36.3% of those with IBD (15.4% of Crohn's, 44.1% of ulcerative colitis, 44.5% of IBD unclassified, and 67.7% of IBD with cholangitis). Synchronous (3.2% vs 1.6% P < 0.01) and metachronous tumors (1.7% vs 0.9% P < 0.01) occurred twice as frequently in patients with IBD compared with those without IBD. Stage-specific survival up to 2 years was worse for IBD-associated cancers. DISCUSSION: IBD-associated CRCs occur in younger patients and have worse outcomes than sporadic CRCs. There is an urgent need to find reasons for these differences to inform screening, surveillance, and treatment strategies for CRC and its precursors in this high-risk group.

Recruiting to surgical trials in the emergency setting: using a mixed methods study to understand clinician and patient perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Undertaking randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in emergency surgical settings is associated with methodological and practical challenges. This study explored patients' and clinicians' perspectives associated with the conduct of an RCT comparing laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery in the acute setting. METHODS: All eligible patients screened and enrolled for the 'Laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery in the acute setting (LaCeS)' multicentre, randomized clinical feasibility trial in five UK NHS Trusts were invited to respond to a survey. Patients and healthcare professionals were also invited to take part in semi-structured interviews. Survey and interviews explored the acceptability of the feasibility trial. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using thematic analysis. Survey data were analysed descriptively to assess patient views of the trial and intervention. RESULTS: Out of 72 patients enrolled for the LaCeS RCT, survey data were collected from 28 patients (38.9 per cent), and interviews were conducted with 16 patients and 14 healthcare professionals. Thirteen out of 28 patients (46 per cent) had treatment preferences but these were not strong enough to deter participation. Twelve of the patients interviewed believed that their surgeon preferred laparoscopic surgery, but this did not deter them from participating in the trial. Half of the surgeons interviewed expressed the view that laparoscopic surgery was of benefit in this setting, but recognized that the need for research evidence outweighed their personal treatment preferences. Eight of the 14 recruiters reported that the emergency setting affected recruitment, especially in centres with fewer recruiting surgeons. Interviewees reported that recruitment was helped significantly by using surgical trainees to consent patients. CONCLUSION: This study identified specific challenges for the LaCeS trial design to address and adds significant insights to our understanding of recruiting to emergency surgical trials more broadly.

Treatment of Patients With Late-Stage Colorectal Cancer: ASCO Resource-Stratified Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide expert guidance to clinicians and policymakers in resource-constrained settings on the management of patients with late-stage colorectal cancer. METHODS: ASCO convened a multidisciplinary, multinational Expert Panel that reviewed existing guidelines, conducted a modified ADAPTE process, and used a formal consensus process with additional experts for two rounds of formal ratings. RESULTS: Existing sets of guidelines from four guideline developers were identified and reviewed; adapted recommendations from five guidelines form the evidence base and provided evidence to inform the formal consensus process, which resulted in agreement of ≥ 75% on all recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS: Common elements of symptom management include addressing clinically acute situations. Diagnosis should involve the primary tumor and, in some cases, endoscopy, and staging should involve digital rectal exam and/or imaging, depending on resources available. Most patients receive treatment with chemotherapy, where chemotherapy is available. If, after a period of chemotherapy, patients become candidates for surgical resection with curative intent of both primary tumor and liver or lung metastatic lesions on the basis of evaluation in multidisciplinary tumor boards, the guidelines recommend patients undergo surgery in centers of expertise if possible. On-treatment surveillance includes a combination of taking medical history, performing physical examinations, blood work, and imaging; specifics, including frequency, depend on resource-based setting.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines.