Quality of internet information to aid patient decision making in locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: To review whether online decision aids are available for patients contemplating pelvic exenteration (PE) for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer (LARC and LRRC). METHODS: A grey literature review was carried out using the Google Search™ engine undertaken using a predefined search strategy (PROSPERO database CRD42019122933). Written health information was assessed using the DISCERN criteria and International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) with readability content assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid reading ease test and Flesch-Kincaid grade level score. RESULTS: Google search yielded 27, 782, 200 results for the predefined search criteria. 131 sources were screened resulting in the analysis of 6 sources. No sources were identified as a decision aid according to the IPDAS criteria. All sources provided an acceptable quality of written health information, scoring a global score of 3 for the DISCERN written assessment. The median Flesch-Kincaid reading ease was 50.85 (32.5-80.8) equating to a reading age of 15-18 years and the median Flesch-Kincaid grade level score was 7.65 (range 3-9.7), which equates to a reading age of 13-14. CONCLUSIONS: This study has found that there is a paucity of online information for patients contemplating PE. Sources that are available are aimed at a high health literate patient. Given the considerable morbidity associated with PE surgery there is a need for high quality relevant information in this area. A PDA should be developed to improve decision making and ultimately improve patient experience.

Laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery in the acute setting (LaCeS trial): a multicentre randomized feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 30 000 people undergo major emergency abdominal gastrointestinal surgery annually, and 36 per cent of these procedures (around 10 800) are carried out for emergency colorectal pathology. Some 14 per cent of all patients requiring emergency surgery have a laparoscopic procedure. The aims of the LaCeS (laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery in the acute setting) feasibility trial were to assess the feasibility, safety and acceptability of performing a large-scale definitive phase III RCT, with a comparison of emergency laparoscopic versus open surgery for acute colorectal pathology. METHODS: LaCeS was designed as a prospective, multicentre, single-blind, parallel-group, pragmatic feasibility RCT with an integrated qualitative study. Randomization was undertaken centrally, with patients randomized on a 1 : 1 basis between laparoscopic or open surgery. RESULTS: A total of 64 patients were recruited across five centres. The overall mean steady-state recruitment rate was 1·2 patients per month per site. Baseline compliance for clinical and health-related quality-of-life data was 99·8 and 93·8 per cent respectively. The conversion rate from laparoscopic to open surgery was 39 (95 per cent c.i. 23 to 58) per cent. The 30-day postoperative complication rate was 27 (13 to 46) per cent in the laparoscopic arm and 42 (25 to 61) per cent in the open arm. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic emergency colorectal surgery may have an acceptable safety profile. Registration number: ISRCTN15681041 ( http://www.controlled-trials.com).

ANTECEDENTES: Aproximadamente 30.000 personas se someten cada año una operación de cirugía mayor urgente gastrointestinal de las cuales el 36% (~ 10.800) se realizan por patología colorrectal urgente. Aproximadamente el 14% de todos los pacientes que requieren cirugía urgente son operados mediante abordaje laparoscópico. Los objetivos del ensayo de factibilidad LaCeS (Laparoscopic versus Open Colorectal Surgery in the Acute Setting; Cirugía Colorrectal Laparoscópica versus Abierta en Urgencias) fueron evaluar la factibilidad, seguridad y aceptabilidad de realizar un ensayo clínico aleatorizado definitivo a gran escala de fase III comparando la cirugía colorrectal urgente por vía laparoscópica con el abordaje abierto. MÉTODOS: LaCeS se diseñó como un ensayo clínico prospectivo, multicéntrico, simple ciego, de grupos paralelos, pragmático, aleatorizado (factibilidad) con un estudio cualitativo integrado. La asignación al azar se realizó de forma centralizada y los pacientes se asignaron al azar en proporción 1:1 a cirugía laparoscópica o abierta. RESULTADOS: Un total de 64 pacientes fueron reclutados en 5 centros. La tasa media global estable de reclutamiento fue de 1,2 pacientes/mes. El cumplimiento inicial de los datos clínicos y de calidad de vida (HRQoL) fue del 99,8% y del 93,8%, respectivamente. La tasa de conversión de la cirugía laparoscópica a cirugía abierta fue del 39,4% (i.c. del 95%: 22,9% a 57,9%). La tasa de complicaciones postoperatorias a los 30 días fue del 27,3% (i.c. del 95%: 13,3-45,5) para la cirugía laparoscópica y del 41,9% (i.c. del 95%: 24,6-60,9) para la cirugía abierta. CONCLUSIÓN: La cirugía colorrectal urgente por vía laparoscópica puede tener un perfil de seguridad aceptable.

The colorectal surgeon's personality may influence the rectal anastomotic decision.

AIM: Colorectal surgeons regularly make the decision to anastomose, defunction or form an end colostomy when performing rectal surgery. This study aimed to define personality traits of colorectal surgeons and explore any influence of such traits on the decision to perform a rectal anastomosis. METHOD: Fifty attendees of The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland 2016 Conference participated. After written consent, all underwent personality testing: alexithymia (inability to understand emotions), type of thinking process (intuitive versus rational) and personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, openness, emotional stability, conscientiousness). Questions were answered regarding anastomotic decisions in various clinical scenarios and results analysed to reveal any influence of the surgeon's personality on anastomotic decision. RESULTS: Participants were: male (86%), consultants (84%) and based in England (68%). Alexithymia was low (4%) with 81% displaying intuitive thinking (reflex, fast). Participants scored higher in emotional stability (ability to remain calm) and conscientiousness (organized, methodical) compared with population norms. Personality traits influenced the next anastomotic decision if: surgeons had recently received criticism at a departmental audit meeting; were operating with an anaesthetist that was not their regular one; or there had been no anastomotic leaks in their patients for over 1 year. CONCLUSION: Colorectal surgeons have speciality relevant personalities that potentially influence the important decision to anastomose and could explain the variation in surgical practice across the UK. Future work should explore these findings in other countries and any link of personality traits to patient-related outcomes.

Development of a conceptual framework of health-related quality of life in locally recurrent rectal cancer.

AIM: The surgical management of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) has become widely accepted to afford cure and improve quality of life in this subset of patients. Thus far, traditional surgical and oncological markers have been used to highlight the success of surgical intervention. The use of patient-reported outcomes, specifically health-related quality of life (HRQoL), is sparse in these patients. This may be in part due to the lack of well-designed, validated instruments. This study identifies HRQoL issues relevant to patients undergoing surgery for LRRC, with the aim of developing a conceptual framework of HRQoL specific to LRRC to enable measurement of patient-reported outcomes in this cohort of patients. METHOD: Qualitative focus groups were undertaken at two institutions to identify relevant HRQoL themes. The principles of thematic content analysis were used to analysis data. NViVo10 was used to analyse data. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients participated in six consecutive focus groups. Two patterns of themes emerged related to HRQoL and healthcare service delivery and utilization. Identified themes related to HRQoL included symptoms, sexual function, psychological impact, role and social functioning and future perspective. Under healthcare service and delivery and utilization the subdomain of disease management, treatment expectations and healthcare professionals were identified. CONCLUSION: This is the first qualitative study undertaken exclusively in patients with LRRC to ascertain relevant HRQoL outcomes. The impact of LRRC on patients is wide-ranging and extends beyond traditional HRQoL outcomes. The study operationalizes the identified outcomes into a conceptual framework, which will provide the basis for the development of a LRRC-specific patient-reported outcome measure.

Systematic review of emergency laparoscopic colorectal resection.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery (LS) has become standard practice for a range of elective general surgical operations. Its role in emergency general surgery is gaining momentum. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of LS compared with open surgery (OS) for colorectal resections in the emergency setting. METHODS: A systematic review was performed of studies reporting outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal resections in the acute or emergency setting in patients aged over 18 years, between January 1966 and January 2013. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were included, providing outcomes for 5557 patients: 932 laparoscopic and 4625 open emergency resections. Median (range) operating time was 184 (63-444) min for LS versus 148 (61-231) min for OS. Median (range) length of stay was 10 (3-23) and 15 (6-33) days in the LS and OS groups respectively. The overall median (range) complication rate was 27.8 (0-33.3) and 48.3 (9-72) per cent respectively. There were insufficient data to detect differences in reoperation and readmission rates. CONCLUSION: Emergency laparoscopic colorectal resection, where technically feasible, has better short-term outcomes than open resection.

Surgical resection of recurrent colonic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Locoregional recurrence of colonic cancer includes anastomotic recurrence, associated nodal masses, masses that involve the abdominal wall and pelvic masses. The aim of this study was to report the outcome of resection of such recurrences and to provide guidance on the management of this disease. METHODS: Patients were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Data were obtained on demographics, surgical procedure, morbidity, histopathology and outcome. Univariable and multivariable analyses of factors influencing survival were performed using stepwise Cox logistic regression. RESULTS: Forty-two patients (21 men; median age 61 (range 41-82) years) underwent resection of recurrent colonic cancer between 2003 and 2011. The median interval between resection of the primary and recurrent colonic tumour was 37·5 (interquartile range 7-91) months. The recurrences developed at the previous anastomosis (9 patients), elsewhere within the abdominal cavity or wall (8) and as discrete masses within the pelvic cavity (25). Eighteen of 42 patients underwent resection of hepatic or pulmonary metastases at some stage after resection of the primary tumour. Median survival was 29 months after R0 resection and 26 months after R1 resection of the recurrent tumour (P = 0·226). The survival benefit depended on the location of the recurrence (median survival after resection of recurrent disease: anastomotic 33 months, pelvic 26 months, abdominal 19 months; P = 0·010). CONCLUSION: This study described a classification system, management algorithm and prognostic factors for recurrent colonic cancer. The distribution of disease influenced survival. Long-term survival was achieved, including a subset of patients with drop metastases and/or previous metastasectomy.

Outcome of surgical resection of second-time locally recurrent rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Locally recurrent rectal cancer relapses in the pelvis in up to 60 per cent of patients following resection. This study assessed the surgical and oncological outcomes of patients who underwent surgery for re-recurrent rectal cancer. METHODS: Patients who underwent second-time resection of locally recurrent rectal cancer between 2001 and 2010 were eligible for inclusion. Data were collected on demographics, presentation of disease, preoperative staging imaging, adjuvant therapy, operative detail, histopathology and follow-up status (clinical and imaging) for the primary tumour, and first and second recurrences. RESULTS: Thirty patients (of 56 discussed at the multidisciplinary meeting) underwent resection of re-recurrent rectal cancer. Postoperative morbidity occurred in nine patients but none died within 30 days. Negative resection margins (R0) were achieved in ten patients, microscopic margin positivity (R1) was evident in 15 and macroscopic involvement (R2) was found in five. Although no patient had distant metastatic disease, 22 had involvement of the pelvic side wall. One- and 3-year overall survival rates were 77 and 27 per cent respectively, with a median overall survival of 23 (range 3-78) months. An R0 resection conferred a survival benefit (median survival 32 (11-78) months versus 19 (6-33) months after R1 and 7 (3-10) months after R2 resection). CONCLUSION: Surgical resection of re-recurrent rectal cancer had comparable surgical and oncological outcomes to initial recurrences in well selected patients.

Injectable collagen for the treatment of fecal incontinence: long-term results.

BACKGROUND: Fecal incontinence is a distressing condition that is difficult to treat. Injection of bulking agents has been used to treat passive fecal incontinence. However, no long-term results are available. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the long-term clinical effectiveness of intra-anal injection of collagen for passive fecal incontinence. DESIGN: This research is a retrospective cohort study from a prospectively collected database SETTING: This investigation took place in a high-volume tertiary colorectal department. PATIENTS: All patients who underwent intra-anal injection of collagen for passive fecal incontinence with internal sphincter dysfunction between January 2006 and December 2009 were included in the study. Data including demographic details, preoperative anorectal physiology, and outcome measures were collected prospectively and maintained in a database MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were the Cleveland Clinic Florida incontinence score and the responses to a subjective patient satisfaction questionnaire before the procedure and at subsequent follow-up visits. Data were analyzed by using SPSS v19.0. RESULTS: One hundred patients (70 female; mean age, 61 years (range, 36-82)) were followed up for a minimum duration of 36 months. Fifty-six patients (56%) had an improvement in fecal incontinence score from a mean of 14 (range, 9-18) to a mean of 8 (range, 5-14). A total of 68% reported subjective improvement in symptoms. Thirty-eight patients (38%) required a repeat injection of collagen, and a further 15 patients required a third injection. The median interval between the first and final injection was 12 months (range, 4-16 months). Age was the only independent predictor of successful outcome (p = 0.032). There was no morbidity. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its nonrandomized retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS: Injection of collagen into the internal anal sphincter is simple, safe, and effective in patients with passive fecal incontinence, although repeat injections are necessary in approximately half of the patients.

Surgery for recurrent rectal cancer: higher and wider?

AIM: There has been a steady increase in the number of centres that carry out resection of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). The aim of this review was to highlight the present management and suggest technical strategies that may improve survival and quality of life. METHOD: The review identified relevant studies from an electronic search of MEDLINE and PubMed databases between 1980 and 2011. References in published articles were also reviewed. RESULTS: Surgical intervention offers the best hope to control LRRC but the proportion of patients offered this remains small. Certain contraindications previously considered to be absolute should now be thought of as relative. CONCLUSION: Awareness of the surgical options and a willingness to consider more aggressive options may result in more patients being considered for potentially curative resection.

Partial anterior sacrectomy with nerve preservation to treat locally advanced rectal cancer.

AIM: Most studies that have reported outcomes after composite abdomino-sacral resection for locally advanced/recurrent rectal cancer have involved resections below the S2/3 disc space. Involvement of the sacrum above this level is uncommon and, until recently, was considered a contraindication to resection. METHOD: We report here a surgical technique to deal with high sacral involvement with an anterior approach and maintenance of sacropelvic stability. RESULTS: The operative findings confirmed a locally perforated rectal cancer with an associated abscess cavity and direct invasion into S2. Given the likelihood that a complete dislocation of the sacrum would cause significant neurological damage and pelvic instability without oncological benefit, we opted for a partial high anterior sacrectomy with nerve preservation. The patient made an uncomplicated recovery without neurological deficit and was able to walk with the aid of crutches from postoperative day 3. CONCLUSION: While a high sacral transection is appropriate for some patients with locally advanced/recurrent rectal cancer, operative decisions and options should be tailored to each individual.

Current UK management of locally recurrent rectal cancer.

AIM: The study aimed to determine current UK practice in the management of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). METHOD: An electronic based survey was sent to UK based Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland members to establish current management in this patient group. A total of 188 questionnaires were sent out to consultant surgeons in a total of 105 colorectal units. RESULTS: Seventy-nine consultants from 69 units responded, giving an overall response rate from consultants of 42% and from colorectal units of 66%. In all, 688 patients were managed by multidisciplinary teams in the 12 months prior to the survey. Seventy-four (94% of responders) surgeons had experience of operating on patients with LRRC. Fifty-nine (74.6%) operated on one to three per year and four (5%) operated on more than 10 patients per year. Central and anterior recurrences were most commonly undertaken locally, with most complex recurrences being referred to a tertiary centre. Forty-seven (61%) surgeons worked to an algorithm. CONCLUSION: A small number of specialist units in the UK manage the full spectrum of LRRC but the majority of patients are managed in small volume centres. The survey provides a snapshot of current activity in the UK and may provide a stimulus for discussion about how to expand and improve the care of a technically challenging group of patients.

The challenge of pouch-vaginal fistulas: a systematic review.

Pouch-vaginal fistulae affect 6% of women after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Such fistulae significantly impact on the patient's quality of life and present a technical challenge to the surgeon. Although several operative approaches have been described, results from a number of case series are variable and associated with significant rates of failure. As a result, there remains a lack of consensus in the literature with regard to the management of this troublesome problem. The purpose of this article is to review the results of surgical intervention and to provide a clinical algorithm that gives a structured approach to the management of pouch-vaginal fistulae.

The impact of multidisciplinary team decision-making in locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Appropriate patient selection within the context of a multidisciplinary team (MDT) is key to good clinical outcomes. The current evidence base for factors that guide the decision-making process in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) is limited to anatomical factors. METHODS: A registry-based, prospective cohort study was undertaken of patients referred to our specialist MDT between 2015 and 2019. Data were collected on patients and disease characteristics including performance status, Charlson Comorbidity Index, the English Index of Multiple Deprivation quintiles and MDT treatment decision. Curative treatment was defined as neoadjuvant treatment and surgical resection that would achieve a R0 resection, and/or complete treatment of distant metastatic disease. Palliative treatment was defined as non-surgical treatment. RESULTS: In total, 325 patients were identified; 72.7% of patients with LARC and 63.6% of patients with LRRC were offered treatment with curative intent (p = 0.08). Patients with poor performance status (PS > 2; p < 0.001), severe comorbidity (p < 0.001), socio-economic deprivation (p = 0.004), a positive predictive circumferential resection margin (p = 0.005) and metastatic disease (p < 0.001) were associated with palliative treatment. Overall survival in the curative cohort was 49 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 32.4-65.5) compared with 12 months (95% CI 9.1-14.9) in the palliative cohort (p < 0.001). The presence of metastatic disease was identified as a prognostic factor for patients undergoing curative treatment (p = 0.05). The only prognostic factor identified in patients treated palliatively was performance status (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study identifies a number of preoperative, prognostic factors that affect MDT decision-making and overall survival.

Emergency Laparotomy Follow-Up Study (ELFUS): prospective feasibility investigation into postoperative complications and quality of life using patient-reported outcome measures up to a year after emergency laparotomy.

BACKGROUND: Emergency laparotomy carries a significant risk profile around the time of surgery. This research aimed to establish the feasibility of recruitment to a study using validated scoring tools to assess complications after surgery; and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess quality of life and quality of recovery up to a year following emergency laparotomy (EL). METHODS: We used our local National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) register to identify potential participants at a single NHS centre in England. Complications were assessed at 5, 10 and 30 days after EL. Patient-reported outcome measures were collected at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery using EQ5D and WHODAS 2.0 questionnaires. RESULTS: Seventy of 129 consecutive patients (54%) agreed to take part in the study. Post-operative morbidity survey data was recorded from 63 and 37 patients at postoperative day 5 and day 10. Accordion Complication Severity Grading data was obtained from 70 patients. Patient-reported outcome measures were obtained from patients at baseline and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery from 70, 59, 51, 48, to 42 patients (100%, 87%, 77%, 75% and 69% of survivors), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study affirms the feasibility of collecting PROMs and morbidity data successfully at various time points following emergency laparotomy, and is the first longitudinal study to describe quality of life up to a year after surgery. This finding is important in the design of a larger observational study into quality of life and recovery after EL.

A systematic review of outcome reporting in incisional hernia surgery.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of incisional hernia is up to 20 per cent after abdominal surgery. The management of patients with incisional hernia can be complex with an array of techniques and meshes available. Ensuring consistency in reporting outcomes across studies on incisional hernia is important and will enable appropriate interpretation, comparison and data synthesis across a range of clinical and operative treatment strategies. METHODS: Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE (from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2019) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. All studies documenting clinical and patient-reported outcomes for incisional hernia were included. RESULTS: In total, 1340 studies were screened, of which 92 were included, reporting outcomes on 12 292 patients undergoing incisional hernia repair. Eight broad-based outcome domains were identified, including patient and clinical demographics, hernia-related symptoms, hernia morphology, recurrent incisional hernia, operative variables, postoperative variables, follow-up and patient-reported outcomes. Clinical outcomes such as hernia recurrence rates were reported in 80 studies (87 per cent). A total of nine different definitions for detecting hernia recurrence were identified. Patient-reported outcomes were reported in 31 studies (34 per cent), with 18 different assessment measures used. CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates the significant heterogeneity in outcome reporting in incisional hernia studies, with significant variation in outcome assessment and definitions. This is coupled with significant under-reporting of patient-reported outcomes.

A multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study of variation in practice in perioperative analgesia strategies in elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery (the LapCoGesic study).

INTRODUCTION: Enhanced recovery programmes are established as an essential part of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Optimal pain management is central to the success of an enhanced recovery programme and is acknowledged to be an important patient reported outcome measure. A variety of analgesia strategies are employed in elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery ranging from patient-controlled analgesia to local anaesthetic wound infiltration catheters. However, there is little evidence regarding the optimal analgesia strategy in this cohort of patients. The LapCoGesic study aimed to explore differences in analgesia strategies employed for patients undergoing elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery and to assess whether this variation in practice has an impact on patient-reported and clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing elective laparoscopic colorectal resection was undertaken over a two-month period. The primary outcome measure was postoperative pain scores at 24 hours. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS version 22. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients undergoing elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery were included in the study. Thoracic epidural was used in 4 (3.9%) patients, spinal diamorphine in 56 (54.4%) patients and patient-controlled analgesia in 77 (74.8%) patients. The use of thoracic epidural and spinal diamorphine were associated with lower pain scores on day 1 postoperatively (P < 0.05). The use of patient-controlled analgesia was associated with significantly higher postoperative pain scores and pain severity. DISCUSSION: Postoperative pain is managed in a variable manner in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery, which has an impact on patient reported outcomes of pain scores and pain severity.

Incisional hernia formation in hepatobiliary surgery using transverse and hybrid incisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence suggests that midline incisions should be closed with the small-bite technique to reduce IH formation. No recommendations exist for the closure of transverse incisions used in hepatobiliary surgery. This work systematically summarises rates of IH formation and associated technical factors for these transverse incisions. METHODS: A systematic search was undertaken. Studies describing the incidence of IH were included. Incisions were classified as transverse (two incision types) or hybrid (transverse with midline extension, comprising five incision types). The primary outcome measure was the pooled proportion of IH. Subgroup analysis based on minimum follow-up of two years and a priori definition of IH with clinical and radiological diagnosis was undertaken. FINDINGS: Thirteen studies were identified and included 5,427 patients; 1,427 patients (26.3%) underwent surgery for benign conditions, 3,465 (63.8%) for malignancy and 535 (9.9%) for conditions that were not stated or classified as 'other'. The pooled incidence of IH was 6.0% (2.0-10.0%) at a weighted mean follow-up of 17.5 months in the transverse group, compared with 15.0% (11.0-19.0%) at a weighted mean follow-up of 42.0 months in the hybrid group (p = 0.045). Subgroup analysis did not demonstrate a statistical difference in IH formation between the hybrid versus transverse groups. CONCLUSION: Owing to the limitations in study design and heterogeneity, there is limited evidence to guide incision choice and methods of closure in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery. There is an urgent need for a high-quality prospective cohort study to understand the techniques used and their outcomes, to inform future research.

Making an IMPACT: A priority setting consultation exercise to improve outcomes in patients with locally advanced, recurrent and metastatic colorectal cancer.

AIM: The IMPACT (Improving the Management of Patients with Advanced Colorectal Tumours) initiative was established by the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland in 2017 as a consortium of surgeons (colorectal, hepatobiliary, thoracic), oncologists, radiologists, pathologists, palliative care physicians, patients, carers and charity stakeholders who will work together to improve outcomes in patients with advanced and metastatic colorectal cancer. To establish this initiative, better information is required to establish how further intervention is focused. This paper details the approaches used, and outcomes generated, from a priority setting exercise to inform the design of the IMPACT initiative. METHODS: A mixed method approach was employed to set the priorities of patients, clinicians and other key stakeholders in the delivery of optimal care. This consisted of two patient centered consultation events and a questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 128 participants took part in the consultation exercise; 15 patients, 5 carers/family members, 5 charity representatives and 113 healthcare professionals. Nine key themes for focus were identified, these were: current service provision, specialist services, communication, education, access to care, definitions and standardisation, research and audit, outcome measures, and funding of specialist care. CONCLUSION: These future priorities will be developed with collaborative engagement in a systematic manner to produce an overall cohesive programme which will deliver a sustainable and efficient clinical and academic service to improving the management of patients with advanced colorectal tumours.

Systematic review of definitions and outcome measures for return of bowel function after gastrointestinal surgery.

Background: Ileus is common after gastrointestinal surgery and has been identified as a research priority. Several issues have limited previous research, including a widely accepted definition and agreed outcome measure. This review is the first stage in the development of a core outcome set for the return of bowel function after gastrointestinal surgery. It aims to characterize the extent of variation in current outcome reporting. Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and the Cochrane Library was performed for 1990-2017. RCTs of adults undergoing gastrointestinal surgery, including at least one reported measure relating to return of bowel function, were eligible. Trial registries were searched across the same period for ongoing and completed (but not published) RCTs. Definitions of ileus and outcome measures describing the return of bowel function were extracted. Results: Of 5670 manuscripts screened, 215 (reporting 217 RCTs) were eligible. Most RCTs involved patients undergoing colorectal surgery (161 of 217, 74·2 per cent). A total of 784 outcomes were identified across all published RCTs, comprising 73 measures (clinical: 63, 86 per cent; radiological: 6, 8 per cent; physiological: 4, 5 per cent). The most commonly reported outcome measure was 'time to first passage of flatus' (140 of 217, 64·5 per cent). The outcomes 'ileus' and 'prolonged ileus' were defined infrequently and variably. Conclusion: Outcome reporting for the return of bowel function after gastrointestinal surgery is variable and not fit for purpose. An agreed core outcome set will improve the consistency, reliability and clinical value of future studies.