Anal Cancers in Previously Screened Versus Unscreened Patients: Tumor Stage and Treatment Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Targeted screening programs for patients at high risk for anal squamous-cell carcinoma have been proposed; however, the evidence in support of screening remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether screening high-risk patients (predominantly those living with HIV) detected squamous-cell carcinoma at an earlier stage compared to the routine practice of not screening. DESIGN: This is a cohort study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a quaternary care center in Canada. PATIENTS: Included patients were at least 18 years old with a pathologic diagnosis of invasive anal squamous-cell carcinoma between 2002 and 2022. INTERVENTIONS: Patients diagnosed through a high-risk screening program were compared to those who did not undergo screening. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was clinical stage at presentation, categorized as T1N0M0 vs other. Secondary outcomes included treatments received, treatment failure, and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 612 patients with anal squamous-cell carcinoma were included, with 26 of those patients diagnosed through a screening program. Patients with screen-detected cancers had greater odds of presenting with T1N0M0 tumors compared to unscreened patients (18 [69.2%] vs 84 [14.3%]; adjusted OR 9.95; 95% CI, 3.95-25.08). A propensity score-matched sensitivity analysis found similar results (OR 11.13; 95% CI, 4.67-26.52). Screened patients had greater odds of treatment with wide local excision alone, as opposed to any combination of chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery (3 [12.5%] vs 18 [3.2%]; OR 4.38; 95% CI, 1.20-16.04). There were no statistically significant differences in treatment failure or overall survival between groups. LIMITATIONS: The small number of screened patients limits the power of the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for anal squamous-cell carcinoma among high-risk populations detects cancers at an earlier stage. Patients with screen-detected cancers also had a greater likelihood of being candidates for wide local excision alone, which may have spared them the morbidity associated with chemoradiotherapy or abdominoperineal resection. See Video Abstract. CNCERES DE ANO EN PACIENTES PREVIAMENTE DETECTADOS POR CRIBADO VERSUS NO DETECTADOS ESTADIO DEL TUMOR Y RESULTADOS DEL TRATAMIENTO: ANTECEDENTES:Se han propuesto programas de cribado dirigidos a pacientes con alto riesgo de carcinoma anal de células escamosas; sin embargo, la evidencia a favor de la detección sigue sin estar clara.OBJETIVO:Este estudio tuvo como objetivo determinar si el cribado de pacientes de alto riesgo (predominantemente aquellos que viven con el VIH) detectó el carcinoma de células escamosas en una etapa más temprana en comparación con la práctica habitual de no cribado.DISEÑO:Este es un estudio de cohortes.CONFIGURACIÓN:Este estudio se realizó en un centro de atención cuaternaria en Canadá.PACIENTES:Los pacientes incluidos tenían al menos 18 años con un diagnóstico patológico de carcinoma de células escamosas anal invasivo entre 2002 y 2022.INTERVENCIONES:Los pacientes diagnosticados mediante un programa de cribado de alto riesgo se compararon con aquellos que no se sometieron a cribado.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El resultado primario fue el estadio clínico en la presentación, categorizado como T1N0M0 versus otro. Los resultados secundarios incluyeron los tratamientos recibidos, el fracaso del tratamiento y la supervivencia general.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron un total de 612 pacientes con carcinoma anal de células escamosas, con 26 de esos pacientes diagnosticados a través de un programa de cribado. Los pacientes con cánceres detectados mediante cribado tenían mayores probabilidades de presentar tumores T1N0M0 en comparación con los pacientes no cribados (18 [69.2%] frente a 84 [14.3%]; razón de probabilidad ajustada 9.95; intervalo de confianza del 95 % 3.95 -25.08). Un análisis de sensibilidad emparejado por puntaje de propensión encontró resultados similares (odds ratio 11.13; intervalo de confianza del 95% 4.67 -26.52; p < 0.001). Los pacientes examinados tenían mayores probabilidades de recibir tratamiento con escisión local amplia sola, en comparación con cualquier combinación de quimioterapia, radiación y cirugía (3 [12.5%] frente a 18 [3.2%]; razón de probabilidad 4.38; intervalo de confianza del 95 % 1.20 -16.04). No hubo diferencias estadísticamente significativas en el fracaso del tratamiento o la supervivencia global entre los grupos.LIMITACIONES:El pequeño número de pacientes evaluados limita el poder del análisis.CONCLUSIONES:La detección del carcinoma anal de células escamosas entre las poblaciones de alto riesgo detecta los cánceres en una etapa más temprana. Los pacientes con cánceres detectados mediante cribado también tenían una mayor probabilidad de ser candidatos para una escisión local amplia sola, lo que puede haberles evitado la morbilidad asociada con la quimiorradioterapia o la resección abdominoperineal. (Traducción --Dr. Aurian Garcia Gonzalez ).

Patient-Reported Symptom Burden After Cancer Surgery in Older Adults: A Population-Level Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Older adults have unique needs for supportive care after surgery. We examined symptom trajectories and factors associated with high symptom burden after cancer surgery in older adults. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a population-level study of patients ≥ 70 years old undergoing cancer surgery (2007-2018) using prospectively collected Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) scores. The monthly prevalence of moderate to severe symptoms (ESAS ≥ 4) for anxiety, depression, drowsiness, lack of appetite, nausea, pain, shortness of breath, tiredness, and poor wellbeing was computed over 12 months after surgery. RESULTS: Among 48,748 patients, 234,420 ESAS scores were recorded over 12 months after surgery. Moderate to severe tiredness (57.8%), poor wellbeing (51.9%), and lack of appetite (39.3%) were most common. The proportion of patients with moderate to severe symptoms was stable over the 1 month prior to and 12 months after surgery (< 5% variation for each symptom). There was no clinically significant change (< 5%) in symptom trajectory with the initiation of adjuvant therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-reported symptom burden was stable for up to 1 year after cancer surgery among older adults. Neither surgery nor adjuvant therapy coincided with a worsening in symptom burden. However, the persistence of symptoms at 1 year may suggest gaps in supportive care for older adults. This information on symptom trajectory and predictors of high symptom burden is important to set appropriate expectations and improve patient counseling, recovery care pathways, and proactive symptom management for older adults after cancer surgery.

The impact of unexpected intensive care unit admission after cancer surgery on long-term symptom burden among older adults: a population-based longitudinal analysis.

BACKGROUND: Older adults are at high-risk for a post-operative intensive care unit (ICU) admission, yet little is known about the impact of these admissions on quality of life. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of an unexpected post-operative ICU admission on the burden of cancer symptoms among older adults who underwent high-intensity cancer surgery and survived to hospital discharge. METHODS: We performed a population-based cohort study of older adults (age ≥ 70) who underwent high-intensity cancer surgery and survived to hospital discharge in Ontario, Canada (2007-2017). Using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), a standardized tool that quantifies patient-reported physical, mental, and emotional symptoms, we described the burden of cancer symptoms during the year after surgery. Total symptom scores ≥ 40 indicated a moderate-to-severe symptom burden. Modified log-Poisson analysis was used to estimate the impact of an unexpected post-operative ICU admission (admission not related to routine monitoring) on the likelihood of experiencing a moderate-to-severe symptom burden during the year after surgery, accounting for potential confounders. We then used multivariable generalized linear mixed models to model symptom trajectories among patients with two or more ESAS assessments. A 10-point difference in total symptom scores was considered clinically significant. RESULTS: Among 16,560 patients (mean age 76.5 years; 43.4% female), 1,503 (9.1%) had an unexpected ICU admission. After accounting for baseline characteristics, patients with an unexcepted ICU admission were more likely to experience a moderate-to-severe symptom burden relative to those without an unexpected ICU admission (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.31-2.05). Specifically, among patients with an unexcepted ICU admission the average probability of experiencing moderate-to-severe symptoms ranged from 6.9% (95 CI 5.8-8.3%) during the first month after surgery to 3.2% (95% CI 0.9-11.7%) at the end of the year. Among the 11,229 (67.8%) patients with multiple ESAS assessments, adjusted differences in total scores between patients with and without an unexpected ICU admission ranged from 2.0 to 5.7-points throughout the year (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: While unexpected ICU admissions are associated with a small increase in the likelihood of experiencing a moderate-to-severe symptom burden, most patients do not experience a high overall symptom burden during the year after surgery. These findings support the role of aggressive therapy among older adults after major surgery.

Immediate and Long-Term Health Care Support Needs of Older Adults Undergoing Cancer Surgery: A Population-Based Analysis of Postoperative Homecare Utilization.

BACKGROUND: Functional outcomes are central to decision-making by older adults (OA), but long-term risks after cancer surgery have not been described beyond 1 year for this population. This study aimed to evaluate long-term health care support needs by examining homecare use after cancer surgery for OA. METHODS: This population-based study investigated adults 70 years of age or older with a new cancer diagnosis between 2007 and 2017 who underwent resection. The outcomes were receipt and intensity of homecare from postoperative discharge to 5 years after surgery. Time-to-event analysis with competing events was used. RESULTS: Among 82,037 patients, homecare use was highest (43.7% of eligible patients) in postoperative month 1. The need for homecare subsequently decreased to stabilize between year 1 (13.9%) and year 5 (12.6%). Of the patients not receiving preoperative homecare, 10.9% became long-term users at year 5 after surgery. Advancing age, female sex, frailty, high-intensity surgery, more recent period of surgery, and receipt of preoperative homecare were associated with increased hazards of postoperative homecare. Intensity of homecare went from 10.3 to 10.1 days per patient-month between month 1 and year 1, reaching 12 days per patient-month at year 5. The type of homecare services changed from predominantly nursing care in year 1 (51.9%) to increasing personal support services from year 2 (69.6%) to year 5 (77.5%). CONCLUSION: Receipt of homecare increased long-term after cancer surgery for OA, peaking in the first 6 months and plateauing thereafter at a new baseline. One tenth of the patients without preoperative homecare became long-term homecare users postoperatively, indicating changing health care needs focused on personal support services from year 2 to year 5.

Improving the reporting of non-inferiority trials by incorporating non-efficacy benefits: not all non-inferiority trials are created equal.

Non-inferiority trials are used to test if a novel intervention is not worse than a standard treatment by more than a prespecified amount, the non-inferiority margin (ΔNI). The ΔNI indicates the amount of efficacy loss in the primary outcome that is acceptable in exchange for non-efficacy benefits in other outcomes. However, non-inferiority designs are sometimes used when non-efficacy benefits are absent. Without non-efficacy benefits, loss in efficacy cannot be easily justified. Further, non-efficacy benefits are scarcely defined or considered by trialists when determining the magnitude of and providing justification for the non-inferiority margin. This is problematic as the importance of a treatment's non-efficacy benefits are critical to understanding the results of a non-inferiority study. Here we propose the routine reporting in non-inferiority trial protocols and publications of non-efficacy benefits of the novel intervention along with the reporting of non-inferiority margins and their justification. The justification should include the specific trade-off between the accepted loss in efficacy (ΔNI) and the non-efficacy benefits of the novel treatment and should describe whether patients and other relevant stakeholders were involved in the definition of the ΔNI.

Association of high ligation versus low ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery on anastomotic leak, postoperative complications, and mortality after minimally invasive surgery for distal sigmoid and rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: In the treatment of distal sigmoid and rectal cancer, the appropriate level for the ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) remains unresolved. High ligation divides the IMA proximally at its origin, and low ligation ligates the IMA distal to the origin of left colic artery. We assessed the association of level of ligation in scheduled minimally invasive resection of sigmoid and rectal cancers on anastomotic leak, postoperative complications, and death within 30 days. METHODS: We identified all patients with primary sigmoid and rectal cancer treated with scheduled minimally invasive resection and primary anastomosis between January 2002 and June 2018 using linked institutional and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program databases. We assessed the association of level of ligation with each outcome by fitting individual univariable and multivariable logistic regression models, adjusting for surgical approach, tumor location, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, and Charlson comorbidity index. RESULTS: We included 158 patients treated with high ligation and 123 patients treated with low ligation. Overall, 12 patients had an anastomotic leak requiring intervention within 30 days: 5 in the high ligation group (3.2%, 95% CI 1.4-7.2%) and 7 in the low ligation group (5.7%, 95% CI 2.8-11.3%). There was no association between the level of ligation and anastomotic leak (unadjusted OR 1.85, 95% CI 0.58-6.38; adjusted OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.16-2.55). Similarly, there was no association between the level of ligation and reoperation for anastomotic leak (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.15-10.9), major complications (Clavien-Dindo III-V; OR 2.22, 95% CI 0.90-5.77), minor complications (Clavien-Dindo I-II; OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.88-2.60), and all complications (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.94-2.67). No deaths occurred in either group. CONCLUSIONS: There was no association of level of ligation of the IMA with anastomotic leak, postoperative complications as a composite, or death. The choice of high or low ligation of the IMA should be made based on technical factors such as length for the creation of a tension-free anastomosis.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Noninferiority Meta-analysis of Quality of Surgical Resection Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether laparoscopic surgery is noninferior to open surgery for rectal cancer in terms of quality of surgical resection outcomes. BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have evaluated the oncologic safety of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer with conflicting results. Prior meta-analyses comparing these operative approaches in terms of quality of surgical resection aimed to demonstrate if one approach was superior. However, this method is not appropriate and potentially misleading when noninferiority RCTs are included. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane were searched to identify RCTs comparing these operative approaches. Risk differences (RDs) were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. One-sided Z tests were used to determine noninferiority. Noninferiority margins (ΔNI) for circumferential resection margin (CRM), plane of mesorectal excision (PME), distal resection margin (DRM), and a composite outcome ("successful resection") were based on the consensus of 58 worldwide experts. RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs were included. Laparoscopic resection was noninferior compared with open resection for the rate of positive CRM [RD 0.79%, 90% confidence interval (CI) -0.46 to 2.04, ΔNI = 2.33%, PNI = 0.026], incomplete PME (RD 1.16%, 90% CI -0.27 to 2.59, ΔNI = 2.85%, PNI = 0.025), and positive DRM (RD 0.15%, 90% CI -0.58 to 0.87, ΔNI = 1.28%, PNI = 0.005). For the rate of "successful resection" (RD 6.16%, 90% CI 2.30-10.02), the comparison was inconclusive when using the ΔNI generated by experts (ΔNI = 2.71%, PNI = 0.07), although no consensus was achieved for this ΔNI. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopy was noninferior to open surgery for rectal cancer in terms of individual quality of surgical resection outcomes. These findings are concordant with RCTs demonstrating noninferiority for long-term oncologic outcomes between the 2 approaches.

Caring for Older Surgical Patients: Contemporary Attitudes, Knowledge, Practices, and Needs of General Surgeons and Residents.

OBJECTIVE: To gain contemporary insights from residents and surgeons regarding the care of older surgical patients. BACKGROUND DATA: With worldwide aging, efforts over the past decade have attempted to increase surgeons' abilities to care for older adults, but a current understanding of attitudes, knowledge, practices, and needs is missing. METHODS: Between July 2016 and September 2016 we conducted a national Web-based survey sampling all general surgery residents and academic general surgeons using a questionnaire designed and tested for this purpose. Summative scales within each domain (attitudes, knowledge, practices, and needs) were created and compared between groups. Open-ended responses were analyzed with thematic analysis. RESULTS: Ninety-four of 172 invited residents (55%) and 80 of 243 invited surgeons (33%) across 14 general surgery programs responded with no missing data. Both groups had favorable attitudes (83% vs 68%, P = 0.02). However, 80% of residents and 76% of surgeons had medium-level knowledge test scores, and few had prior training. Most respondents reported only sometimes performing guideline-recommended practices (71% vs 73%, P = 0.55). Gaps in training and care delivery were identified. Residents wanted focused, high-yield materials and case-oriented practical skills training. Respondents reported further improvements may come from building surgeons' capacity, enhancing collaboration including perioperative geriatric services, better preoperative assessment, increased adherence to perioperative guidelines, and greater community-based supports to recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Residents and surgeons have favorable attitudes, but only moderate geriatric-specific knowledge and only some guideline-adherent practices. We identified gaps in training and care delivery with targets for future knowledge translation and quality improvement initiatives.

Opioid Use After Discharge in Postoperative Patients: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Over the past 2 decades, there has been an increase in opioid use and subsequently, opioid deaths. The amount of opioid prescribed to surgical patients has also increased. The aim of this systematic review was to determine postdischarge opioid consumption in surgical patients compared with the amount of opioid prescribed. Secondary outcomes included adequacy of pain control and disposal methods for unused opioids. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to characterize postdischarge opioid consumption and prescription patterns in surgical patients. METHODS: A systematic search in MEDLINE and EMBASE identified 11 patient survey studies reporting on postdischarge opioid use in 3525 surgical patients. RESULTS: The studies reported on a variety of surgical operations, including abdominal surgery, orthopedic procedures, tooth extraction, and dermatologic procedures. The majority of patients consumed 15 pills or less postdischarge. The proportion of used opioids ranged from 5.6% to 59.1%, with an outlier of 90.1% in pediatric spinal fusion patients. Measured pain scores of those taking opioids ranged between 2 and 5 out of 10 and the majority of patients were satisfied with their pain control. Seventy percent of patients kept the excess opioids. Where planned disposal methods were reported, between 4% and 59% of patients planned proper disposal. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that surgical patients are using substantially less opioid than prescribed. There is a lack of awareness regarding proper disposal of leftover medication, leaving excess opioid that may be used inappropriately by the patient or others. Education for providers and clinical practice guidelines that provide guidance on prescription of outpatient of opioids are required.

Defining Non-inferiority Margins for Quality of Surgical Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Delphi Consensus Study.

INTRODUCTION: Quality of surgical resection metrics (QSRMs) have been used as surrogates for long-term oncologic outcomes in non-inferiority randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer. However, non-inferiority margins (ΔNI) for QSRMs have not been previously defined. METHODS: A two-round, web-based Delphi was used to define ΔNI for four QSRMs: positive circumferential resection margin (CRM), incomplete plane of mesorectal excision (PME), positive distal resection margin (DRM), and a composite of these outcomes. Overall, 130 international experts in rectal cancer (68 surgeons, 20 medical oncologists, 16 radiation oncologists, and 26 pathologists) were invited to participate. Experts were presented with evidence syntheses summarizing the association between QSRMs and long-term outcomes, and pooled quality of surgical resection outcomes for open surgery, and were asked to provide ΔNI for all outcomes balancing the risks and benefits of minimally invasive surgery. RESULTS: Seventy-two experts participated: 57 completed the initial questionnaire and 58 completed the revised questionnaire, with 43 participating in both rounds. Consensus was reached for all individual QSRM ΔNI but not for the composite. The mean (standard deviation) ΔNI was an absolute difference of 2.33% (1.59%) for the proportion of positive CRMs when comparing surgical interventions for the treatment of rectal cancer: 2.85% (1.83%) for incomplete PME; 1.28% (1.13%) for positive DRMs; and 2.71% (2.28%) for the composite. However, opinions varied widely for the composite outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Web-based Delphi processes are a feasible approach to generate ΔNI to evaluate novel surgical interventions. The generated ΔNI for QSRMs for rectal cancer can be used for future RCTs and non-inferiority meta-analyses.

Operative Strategies for Perforated Diverticulitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The traditional approach for perforated diverticulitis, the Hartmann procedure, has considerable morbidity and the challenge of stoma reversal. Alternative procedures, including primary resection and anastomosis and laparoscopic lavage, have been proposed but remain controversial. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare operative strategies for perforated diverticulitis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and the grey literature were searched from inception to October 2017. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized clinical trials evaluating operative strategies for perforated diverticulitis. INTERVENTIONS: Hartmann procedure, primary resection and anastomosis, and laparoscopic lavage were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data were independently extracted by 2 investigators. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Pooled risk ratios for major complications, reoperation, and mortality were determined using random-effects models. RESULTS: Six trials including 626 patients with perforated diverticulitis were identified. Laparoscopic lavage and sigmoidectomy had comparable rates of early reoperation and postoperative mortality; major complications (Clavien-Dindo >IIIa) were more frequent after laparoscopic lavage (RR = 1.68 (95% CI, 1.10-2.56); 3 trials, 305 patients). Comparing approaches for sigmoidectomy, primary resection and anastomosis had similar rates of major complications (RR = 0.88 (95% CI, 0.49-1.55); 3 trials, 255 patients) and postoperative mortality (RR = 0.58 (95% CI, 0.20-1.70); 3 trials, 254 patients) compared with the Hartmann procedure. However, patients who underwent primary resection and anastomosis were more likely to be stoma free at 12 months compared with the Hartmann procedure (RR = 1.40 (95% CI, 1.18-1.67); 4 trials, 283 patients) and to experience fewer major complications related to the stoma reversal procedure (RR = 0.26 (95% CI, 0.07-0.89); 4 trials, 186 patients). LIMITATIONS: There were no limitations to this study. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic lavage is associated with increased risk of major complications versus primary resection for Hinchey III diverticulitis. The lower rate of stoma reversal and higher rate of complications after the Hartmann procedure suggest primary resection and anastomosis as the optimal management of perforated diverticulitis.

Oncologic Outcomes Following Laparoscopic versus Open Resection of pT4 Colon Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Locally advanced colon cancer is considered a relative contraindication for laparoscopic resection, and clinical trials addressing the oncologic safety are lacking. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to synthesize the oncologic outcomes associated with laparoscopic versus conventional open surgery for locally advanced colon cancers. DATA SOURCES: We systematically searched Medline, Embase, Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently screened the literature for controlled trials or observational studies comparing curative-intent laparoscopic and open surgery for colon cancer. Studies were included if it was possible to determine outcomes for the T4 colon cancers separately, either reported in the article or calculated with individual patient data. INTERVENTIONS: Included studies were systematically reviewed and assessed for risk of bias. Meta-analyses were done by using random-effects models. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes of interest were disease-free survival, overall survival, resection margins, and lymph node harvest. RESULTS: Of 2878 identified studies, 5 observational studies met eligibility criteria with a total of 1268 patients (675 laparoscopic, 593 open). There was no significant difference in overall survival (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.94-1.72), disease-free survival (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.90-1.61), or positive surgical margins (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.58-2.32) between the groups. The open group had a larger lymph node retrieval (pooled mean difference, 2.26 nodes; 95% CI, 0.58-3.93). The pooled rate of conversion from laparoscopy to an open procedure was 18.6% (95% CI, 9.3%-27.9%). LIMITATIONS: These results are limited by the inherent selection bias in the included nonrandomized studies. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available literature, minimally invasive resection of selected locally advanced colon cancer is oncologically safe. There is a small increase in lymph node harvest with open resections, but it is unclear whether this is clinically significant. Surgeons should be prepared for a significant rate of conversion to laparotomy as required to perform en bloc resection.

Geriatric assessment and treatment decision-making in surgical oncology.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Present an approach for surgical decision-making in cancer that incorporates geriatric assessment by building upon the common categories of tumor, technical, and patient factors to enable dual assessment of disease and geriatric factors. RECENT FINDINGS: Conventional preoperative assessment is insufficient for older adults missing important modifiable deficits, and inaccurately estimating treatment intolerance, complications, functional impairment and disability, and death. Including geriatric-focused assessment into routine perioperative care facilitates improved communications between clinicians and patients and among interdisciplinary teams. In addition, it facilitates the detection of geriatric-specific deficits that are amenable to treatment. We propose a framework for embedding geriatric assessment into surgical oncology practice to allow more accurate risk stratification, identify and manage geriatric deficits, support decision-making, and plan proactively for both cancer-directed and non-cancer-directed therapies. This patient-centered approach can reduce adverse outcomes such as functional decline, delirium, prolonged hospitalization, discharge to long-term care, immediate postoperative complications, and death. SUMMARY: Geriatric assessment and management has substantial benefits over conventional preoperative assessment alone. This article highlights these advantages and outlines a feasible strategy to incorporate both disease-based and geriatric-specific assessment and treatment when caring for older surgical patients with cancer.

Clinical tools to assess functional capacity before elective non-cardiac surgery: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to map the evidence on clinical tools to assess functional capacity prior to elective non-cardiac surgery. INTRODUCTION: Functional capacity is a strong prognostic indicator before surgery, which can be used to identify patients at elevated risk of postoperative complications, yet, there is no consensus on which clinical tools should be used to assess functional capacity in patients prior to non-cardiac surgery. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider any randomized or non-randomized studies that evaluate the performance of a functional capacity assessment tool in adults (≥18 years) prior to non-cardiac surgery. For studies to be included, the tool must be used clinically for risk stratification. We will exclude studies on lung and liver transplant surgery, as well as ambulatory procedures performed under local anesthesia. METHODS: The review will be conducted in line with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. A peer-reviewed search strategy will be used to query relevant databases (ie, MEDLINE, Embase, EBM Reviews). Additional sources of evidence will include databases of non-peer-reviewed literature and the reference lists of included studies. Two independent reviewers will identify eligible studies in 2 stages: stage 1, based on titles and abstracts; and stage 2, based on full texts. Information on study details, measurement properties, pragmatic qualities, and/or clinical utility metrics will be charted in duplicate onto standardized data collection forms. The results will be presented using descriptive summaries, frequency tables, and visual plots that highlight the extent of evidence and remaining gaps in the validation process of each tool. REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/6nfht.