Do treatment patterns differ in those with early-onset colorectal cancer?

BACKGROUND: The incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC) is increasing. International guidelines state that treatment should not differ from that of older patients. Several studies have shown that patients under 50 years are receiving more aggressive treatment, without any survival benefit. We aim to determine if treatment for stages 2 and 3 EOCRC differs from those of late-onset colorectal cancer (LOCRC) patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective, population-based, cohort study of the treatment patterns of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer in Canterbury, New Zealand, from 2010 to 2021 age <50 years, compared to those aged 60-74 years. RESULTS: A total of 3263 patients were diagnosed with CRC between 2010 and 2021. Following exclusions, we identified 130 EOCRC and 668 LOCRC patients. Stage 2 EOCRC patients are more likely to be offered adjuvant chemotherapy (p = <0.001). Furthermore, EOCRC patients with either stage 2 or 3 disease are more likely to receive multi-agent therapy (p = <0.01), without any associated increase in survival. CONCLUSION: EOCRC patients are given more adjuvant chemotherapy, without a corresponding improvement in outcomes, highlighting a potential for increased treatment-related harms, particularly in stage 2 disease. Clinicians should be mindful of these biases when treating young cancer patients and need to carefully consider treatment-related harms.

Effect of surgeon-specific feedback on surgical outcomes: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Surgeon-specific outcome reporting provides an opportunity for quality assurance and improved surgical results. It is becoming increasingly prevalent and remains contentious amongst surgeons. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the extent to which published literature supports the concept that feedback of surgeon-level outcomes reduces morbidity and/or mortality. No systematic reviews have previously been completed on this subject. METHODS: Medline and Embase were systematically searched for studies published prior to the 1st of January 2022. Feedback was defined as a summary of clinical performance over a specified period of time provided in written, electronic or verbal format. Studies were required to provide surgeon-specific feedback to multiple individual consultant surgeons with the primary purpose being to determine if feedback improved outcomes. Primary outcome(s) needed to relate to surgical outcomes as opposed to process measures only. All surgical specialties and procedures were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included in the review, traversing a wide range of specialties and procedures. Sixteen were non-randominsed and one randomized. Fifteen were before and after studies. The balance of the non-randomized studies support the concept that provision of surgeon-specific feedback can improve surgical outcomes, while the single randomized study suggests feedback may not be effective. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review supports the use of surgeon-level feedback to improve outcomes. The strength of this finding is limited by reliance on before and after studies, further randomized studies on this subject would be insightful.