Inequalities in the recovery of colorectal cancer services during the COVID-19 pandemic: a national population-based study.

AIM: Evidence is lacking on whether there were inequalities in the recovery of colorectal cancer (CRC) services within the English National Health Service (NHS) following the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to evaluate recovery according to patient age and socioeconomic status. METHOD: Using routinely collected data, CRC patients diagnosed and treated in the English NHS were identified for two timeframes: the 'initial pandemic period' (April-June 2020) and the 'pandemic period' (April 2020-March 2022). Poisson models evaluated changes in numbers of diagnoses, major resections, adjuvant chemotherapy and neoadjuvant radiotherapy use for each timeframe, relative to the equivalent pre-pandemic timeframe (April-June 2019 and April 2018-March 2020, respectively), stratified by age and socioeconomic status. Tumour stage at presentation was evaluated over time. RESULTS: Substantial deficits in diagnoses, major resections and adjuvant chemotherapy were identified in the initial pandemic period, whilst the use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy increased. Overall, these deficits recovered. Patients outside screening age, and in the most deprived group, had greater deficits in diagnoses and major resections. There was no evidence of stage migration by June 2021. CONCLUSIONS: CRC services showed recovery to baseline during the pandemic. However, evident inequalities must be addressed in ongoing recovery efforts. Long-term outcomes will fully establish the impact of the pandemic on CRC patients.

Improving risk models for patients having emergency bowel cancer surgery using linked electronic health records: a national cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Life-saving emergency major resection of colorectal cancer (CRC) is a high-risk procedure. Accurate prediction of postoperative mortality for patients undergoing this procedure is essential for both healthcare performance monitoring and preoperative risk assessment. Risk-adjustment models for CRC patients often include patient and tumour characteristics, widely available in cancer registries and audits. The authors investigated to what extent inclusion of additional physiological and surgical measures, available through linkage or additional data collection, improves accuracy of risk models. METHODS: Linked, routinely-collected data on patients undergoing emergency CRC surgery in England between December 2016 and November 2019 were used to develop a risk model for 90-day mortality. Backwards selection identified a 'selected model' of physiological and surgical measures in addition to patient and tumour characteristics. Model performance was assessed compared to a 'basic model' including only patient and tumour characteristics. Missing data was multiply imputed. RESULTS: Eight hundred forty-six of 10 578 (8.0%) patients died within 90 days of surgery. The selected model included seven preoperative physiological and surgical measures (pulse rate, systolic blood pressure, breathlessness, sodium, urea, albumin, and predicted peritoneal soiling), in addition to the 10 patient and tumour characteristics in the basic model (calendar year of surgery, age, sex, ASA grade, TNM T stage, TNM N stage, TNM M stage, cancer site, number of comorbidities, and emergency admission). The selected model had considerably better discrimination compared to the basic model (C-statistic: 0.824 versus 0.783, respectively). CONCLUSION: Linkage of disease-specific and treatment-specific datasets allowed the inclusion of physiological and surgical measures in a risk model alongside patient and tumour characteristics, which improves the accuracy of the prediction of the mortality risk for CRC patients having emergency surgery. This improvement will allow more accurate performance monitoring of healthcare providers and enhance clinical care planning.

What is the impact of hospital and surgeon volumes on outcomes in rectal cancer surgery?

AIM: Evidence for a positive volume-outcome relationship for rectal cancer surgery is unclear. This study aims to evaluate the volume-outcome relationship for rectal cancer surgery at hospital and surgeon level in the English National Health Service (NHS). METHOD: All patients undergoing a rectal cancer resection in the English NHS between 2015 and 2019 were included. Multilevel multivariable logistic regression was used to model relationships between outcomes and mean annual hospital and surgeon volumes (using a linear plus a quadratic term for volume) with adjustment for patient characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 13 858 patients treated in 166 hospitals were included. Six hospitals (3.6%) performed fewer than 10 rectal cancer resections per year, and 381 surgeons (45.0%) performed fewer than five such resections per year. Patients treated by high-volume surgeons had a reduced length of stay (p = 0.016). No statistically significant volume-outcome relationships were demonstrated for 90-day mortality, 30-day unplanned readmission, unplanned return to theatre, stoma at 18 months following anterior resection, positive circumferential resection margin and 2-year all-cause mortality at either hospital or surgeon level (p values > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Almost half of colorectal surgeons in England do not meet national guidelines for rectal cancer surgeons to perform a minimum of five major resections annually. However, our results suggest that centralizing rectal cancer surgery with the main focus of increasing operative volume may have limited impact on NHS surgical outcomes. Therefore, quality improvement initiatives should address a wider range of evidence-based process measures, across the multidisciplinary care pathway, to enhance outcomes for patients with rectal cancer.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing neoadjuvant treatment strategies for stage II and III rectal cancer.

AIM: Multiple neoadjuvant therapy strategies have been used and compared for rectal cancer and there has been no true consensus as to the optimal neoadjuvant therapy regimen. The aim is to identify and compare the neoadjuvant therapies available for stage II and III rectal cancer. DESIGN: A systematic literature review was performed, from inception to August 2022, of the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, Cochrane Library. Only randomized controlled trials comparing neoadjuvant therapies for stage II and III rectal cancer were considered. Stata was used to draw network plots, and a Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted through models utilizing the Markov Chain Monte Carlo method in WinBUGS. RESULTS: A total of 58 articles were included based on 41 randomised controlled trials, reporting on 12,404 participants that underwent 15 neoadjuvant treatment regimens. No significant difference was identified between treatments for major or total postoperative complications, anastomotic leak rates, or sphincter-saving surgery. Straight to surgery (STS) ranked as best treatment for preoperative toxicity but ranked worst treatment for positive resection margins and complete response. STS had significantly increased positive resection margins compared to long-course chemoradiotherapy with short-wait (LCCRT-SW) or long-wait (LCCRT-LW) to surgery, or short-course radiotherapy with short-wait (SCRT-SW) or immediate surgery (SCRT-IS). LCCRT-SW or LCCRT-LW resulted in significantly increased complete response rates compared to STS. LCCRT-LW significantly improved 2-year overall survival compared to STS, SCRT-IS, SCRT-SW. Total neoadjuvant therapy regimes with short-course radiotherapy followed by consolidation chemotherapy (SCRT-CT-SW), induction chemotherapy followed by long-course chemoradiotherapy (CT-LCCRT-S), long-course chemoradiotherapy followed by consolidation chemotherapy (LCCRT-CT-S), significantly improved positive resection margins, complete response, and disease-free survival compared to STS. Chemotherapy with monoclonal antibodies followed by long-course chemoradiotherapy (CT+MAB-LCCRT+MAB-S) significantly improved complete response and positive resection margins compared to STS, and 2-year disease-free survival compared to STS, SCRT-IS, SCRT-SW, SCRT-CT-SW, LCCRT-SW, LCCRT-LW. CT+MAB-LCCRT+MAB-S ranked as best treatment for disease-free survival and overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional neoadjuvant therapies with short-course radiation or long-course chemoradiotherapy have oncological benefits compared to no neoadjuvant therapy without increasing perioperative complication rates. Prolonged wait to surgery may improve oncological outcomes. Total neoadjuvant therapies provide additional benefits in terms of complete response, positive resection margins, and disease-free survival. Monoclonal antibody therapy may further improve oncological outcomes but currently is only applicable to a small subgroup of patients and requires further validation.

Measuring variation in the quality of systemic anti-cancer therapy delivery across hospitals: A national population-based evaluation.

AIM: To date, there has been little systematic assessment of the quality of care associated with systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) delivery across national healthcare systems. We evaluated hospital-level toxicity rates during SACT treatment as a means of identifying variation in care quality. METHODS: All colorectal cancer (CRC) patients receiving SACT within 106 English National Health Service (NHS) hospitals between 2016 and 2019 were included. Severe acute toxicity rates were derived from hospital administrative data using a validated coding framework. Variation in hospital-level toxicity rates was assessed separately in the adjuvant and metastatic settings. Toxicity rates were adjusted for age, sex, comorbidity, performance status, tumour site, and TNM staging. RESULTS: Eight thousand one hundred and seventy three patients received SACT in the adjuvant setting, and 7,683 patients in the metastatic setting. Adjusted severe acute toxicity rates varied between hospitals from 11% to 49% for the adjuvant cohort, and from 25% to 67% for the metastatic cohort. Compared to the national mean toxicity rate in the adjuvant cohort, six hospitals were more than two standard deviations (2SD) above, and four hospitals were more than 2SD below. In the metastatic cohort, six hospitals were more than 2SD above, and seven hospitals were more than 2SD below the national mean toxicity rate. Overall, 12 hospitals (12%) had toxicity rates more than 2SD above the national mean, and 11 (10%) had rates more than 2SD below. CONCLUSION: There is substantial variation in hospital-level severe acute toxicity rates in both the adjuvant and metastatic settings, despite risk-adjustment. Ongoing reporting of this performance indicator can be used to focus further investigation of toxicity rates and stimulate quality improvement initiatives to improve care.

Utilising quality of life outcome trajectories to aid patient decision making in pelvic exenteration.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making in pelvic exenteration is a complex and detailed process, which must balance clinical, oncological and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), whilst addressing and valuing the patient priorities. Communicating patient-centred information on quality of life (QoL) and functional outcomes is an essential component of this. The aim of this systematic review was to understand the impact of pelvic exenteration on QoL PROs over a longitudinal period and to develop QoL trajectories to support decision-making in this context. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science databases were searched between 1st January 2000 and 20th December 2021 Studies reporting on PROs, including QoL, in adults undergoing pelvic exenteration were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I assessment tool. Data from studies reporting QoL using the same outcome measure at the same candidate timepoint were extracted and synthesised to develop a longitudinal QoL trajectory. RESULTS: Fourteen studies consisting of 1370 patients were included in this review. QoL trajectories were constructed in the domains of physical function, psychological function, role function, sexual function, body image and general and specific symptoms. Decision-making was only assessed by one study, with satisfaction with decision-making reported to be high. There is an initial decline in QoL scores in the domains of physical function, role function, sexual function, body image and general health and symptoms deteriorating during the first 3-6 months post-operatively. Psychological function is the only QoL domain that remains stable throughout the post-operative period. CONCLUSION: Mapping QoL trajectories provides a visual representation of post-operative progress, highlighting the enduring impact of pelvic exenteration on patients and can be used to inform pre-operative shared decision-making.

A systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the impact of body mass index on long-term survival outcomes after surgery for colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The impact of body mass index (BMI) on long-term survival outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery is debated. DESIGN: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was performed to compare long-term survival outcomes of patients of different BMI categories after colorectal cancer surgery. RESULTS: Of the 2588 articles screened, 56 articles met the inclusion criteria, reporting on 72,582 participants. Patients with BMI <18.5 had significantly worse overall survival [hazard ratio (HR) 1.91; P < 0.0001], cancer-specific survival (HR = 1.91; P < 0.0001), disease-free survival (HR = 1.50; P < 0.0001) and recurrence-free survival (HR = 1.13; P = 0.007) compared to patients with a BMI of 18.5-25. There was no significant difference between those with BMI 25-30 and 18.5-25 in overall survival, cancer-specific survival, disease-free survival and recurrence-free survival, except for the subgroup of patients with colon cancer where patients with BMI 25-30 had significantly improved overall survival (HR = 0.90; P = 0.05) and disease-free survival (HR = 0.90; P = 0.04). Patients with BMI >30 had significantly worse disease-free survival (HR = 1.05; P = 0.03) compared to patients with a BMI of 18.5-25, but no significant difference in overall survival, cancer-specific survival and recurrence-free survival. Patients with BMI >35 compared to 18.5-25 had significantly worse overall survival (HR = 1.24; P = 0.02), cancer-specific survival (HR = 1.36; P = 0.01), disease-free survival (HR = 1.15; P = 0.03) and recurrence-free survival for colon (HR = 1.11; P = 0.04) and rectal (HR = 4.10; P = 0.04) cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Being underweight (BMI < 18.5) or class II/III obese (BMI > 35) at the time of colorectal cancer surgery may result in worse long-term survival outcomes, whereas being overweight (BMI 25-30) may improve survival in a subgroup of patients with colon cancer. Optimising BMI may preoperatively improve long-term survival after surgery for colorectal cancer.

Outcomes of colorectal cancer resection in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a national population-based analysis in England and Wales.

AIM: The aim was to compare early postoperative outcomes and 2-year cancer-specific mortality following colorectal cancer (CRC) resection in patients with and without inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in England and Wales. METHOD: Records for patients in the National Bowel Cancer Audit who had major CRC resection between April 2014 and December 2017 were linked to routinely collected hospital level administrative datasets and chemotherapy and radiotherapy datasets. Multivariable regression models were used to compare outcomes with adjustment for patient and tumour characteristics. RESULTS: In all, 63 365 patients were included. 1285 (2.0%) had an IBD diagnosis: 839 (65.3%) ulcerative colitis, 435 (33.9%) Crohn's disease and 11 (0.9%) were indeterminate. IBD patients were younger, had more advanced cancer staging and a higher proportion of right-sided tumours. They also had a higher proportion of emergency resection, total/subtotal colectomy, open surgery and stoma formation at resection, with longer hospital admissions and higher rates of unplanned readmission and reoperation. Fewer rectal cancer patients with IBD received neoadjuvant radiotherapy (24.8% vs. 36.0%, P = 0.005) whilst similar proportions of Stage III colon cancer patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. Ninety-day postoperative mortality was similar, but unadjusted 2-year cancer-specific mortality was significantly higher in patients with IBD (subdistribution hazard ratio 1.35, 95% CI 1.18-1.55). Risk adjustment for patient and tumour factors reduced this association (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio 1.22, 95% CI 1.05-1.43). CONCLUSION: Patients with IBD and CRC are a distinct patient group who develop CRC at a younger age and undergo more radical surgery. They have worse cancer survival, with the difference in prognosis appearing after the early postoperative period.

Development and validation of a coding framework to identify severe acute toxicity from systemic anti-cancer therapy using hospital administrative data.

BACKGROUND: The capture of toxicities from systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) in real-world data will complement results from clinical trials. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a comprehensive coding framework to identify severe acute toxicity in hospital administrative data. METHODS: A coding framework was developed to identify diagnostic codes representing severe acute toxicity in hospital administrative data. The coding framework was validated on a sample of 23,265 colon cancer patients treated in the English National Health Service between 1 June 2014 and 31 December 2017. This involved comparing individual toxicities according to the receipt of SACT and according to different SACT regimens, as well as assessing the associations of predictive factors and outcomes with toxicity. RESULTS: The severe acute toxicities captured by the developed coding framework were shown to vary across clinical groups with an overall rate of 26.4% in the adjuvant cohort, 53.4% in the metastatic cohort, and 12.5% in the comparison group receiving no chemotherapy. Results were in line with regimen-specific findings from clinical trials. For example, patients receiving additional bevacizumab had higher rates of bleeding (12.5% vs. 2.7%), gastrointestinal perforation (5.6% vs. 2.9%) and fistulation (1.4% vs. 0.5%), and allergic drug reactions (1.4% vs. 0.5%). Severe acute toxicity was associated with pre-existing renal (p = 0.001) and cardiac disease (p = 0.038), and urgency of surgery (p = 0.004). Severe toxicity also predicted lower rates of completion of chemotherapy (p = <0.001) and an increased likelihood of altered administration route (p = <0.001). CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that the developed coding framework captures severe acute toxicities from hospital administrative data of colon cancer patients. A similar approach can be used for patients with other cancer types, receiving different regimens. Toxicity captured in administrative data can be used to compare treatment outcomes, inform clinical decision making, and provide opportunities for benchmarking and provider performance monitoring.

Survival outcomes associated with completion of adjuvant oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer: A national population-based study.

The impact of cycle completion rates of oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer in real-world practice is unknown. We assessed its impact, and that of treatment modification, on 3-year cancer-specific mortality. Four thousand one hundred and forty-seven patients with pathological stage III colon cancer undergoing major resection from 2014 to 2017 in the English National Health Service were included. Chemotherapy data came from linked national administrative datasets. Competing risk regression analysis for 3-year cancer-specific mortality was performed according to completion of <6, 6-11, or 12 5-fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) cycles, or <4, 4-7, or 8 capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) cycles, adjusted for patient, tumour and hospital-level characteristics. Median age was 64 years. Thirty-two per cent of patients had at least one comorbidity. Forty-two per cent of patients had T4 disease, and 40% had N2 disease. Compared to completion of 12 FOLFOX cycles, cancer-specific mortality was higher in patients completing <6 cycles [subdistribution hazard ratios (sHR) 2.17; 95% CI 1.56-3.03] or 6-11 cycles (sHR 1.40; 95% CI 1.09-1.78) (P < .001). Compared to completion of 8 CAPOX cycles, cancer-specific mortality was higher in patients completing <4 cycles (sHR 2.02; 95% CI 1.53-2.67) or 4-7 cycles (sHR 1.63; 95% CI 1.27-2.10) (P < .001). Dose reduction and early oxaliplatin discontinuation did not impact mortality in patients completing all cycles. Completion of all cycles of chemotherapy was associated with improved cancer-specific survival in real-world practice. Poor prognostic factors may have affected findings, however, patients completing <50% of cycles had poor outcomes. Clinicians may wish to facilitate completion with treatment modification in those able to tolerate it.

A systematic review of the literature assessing operative blood loss and postoperative outcomes after colorectal surgery.

PURPOSE: There is no consensus in the literature regarding the association between operative blood loss and postoperative outcomes in colorectal surgery, despite evidence suggesting a link. Therefore, this systematic review assesses the association between operative blood loss, perioperative and long-term outcomes after colorectal surgery. METHODS: A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and Cochrane was performed to identify studies reporting on operative blood loss in colorectal surgery. RESULTS: The review included forty-nine studies reporting on 61,312 participants, with a mean age ranging from 53.4 to 78.1 years. The included studies demonstrated that major operative blood loss was found to be a risk factor for mortality, anastomotic leak, presacral abscess, and postoperative ileus, leading to an increased duration of hospital stay. In the long term, the studies suggest that significant blood loss was an independent risk factor for future small bowel obstruction due to colorectal cancer recurrence and adhesions. Studies found that survival was significantly reduced, whilst the risk of colorectal cancer recurrence was increased. Reoperation and cancer-specific survival were not associated with major blood loss. CONCLUSION: The results of this systematic review suggest that major operative blood loss increases the risk of perioperative adverse events and has short and long-term repercussions on postoperative outcomes. Laparoscopic and robotic surgery, vessel ligation technology and anaesthetic considerations are essential for reducing blood loss and improving outcomes. This review highlights the need for further high quality, prospective, multicentre trials with a greater number of participants, and accurate and standardised methods of measuring operative blood loss.

Bowel cancer screening workforce survey: developing the endoscopy workforce for 2025 and beyond.

AIM: The demand for bowel cancer screening (BCS) is expected to increase significantly within the next decade. Little is known about the intentions of the workforce required to meet this demand. The Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG), the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) developed the first BCS workforce survey. The aim was to assess endoscopist career intentions to aid in future workforce planning to meet the anticipated increase in BCS colonoscopy. METHODS: A survey was developed by JAG, BSG and ACPGBI and disseminated to consultant, clinical and trainee endoscopists between February and April 2020. Descriptive and comparative analyses were undertaken, supported with BCS data. RESULTS: There were 578 respondents. Screening consultants have a median of one programmed activity (PA) per week for screening, accounting for 40% of their current endoscopy workload. 38% of current screening consultants are considering giving up colonoscopy in the next 2-5 years. Retirement (58%) and pension issues (23%) are the principle reasons for this. Consultants would increase their screening PAs by 70% if able to do so. The top three activities that endoscopists would relinquish to further support screening were outpatient clinics, acute medical/surgical on call and ward cover. An extra 155 colonoscopists would be needed to fulfil increased demand and planned retirement at current PAs. CONCLUSION: This survey has identified a serious potential shortfall in screening colonoscopists in the next 5-10 years due to an ageing workforce and job plan pressures of aspirant BCS colonoscopists. We have outlined potential mitigations including reviewing job plans, improving workforce resources and supporting accreditation and training.

Surgical Treatment and Outcomes of Colorectal Cancer Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A National Population-based Study in England.

To compare the management and outcomes of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients during the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic with the preceding 6 months. BACKGROUND: The pandemic has affected the diagnosis and treatment of CRC patients worldwide. Little is known about the safety of major resection and whether creating "cold" sites (COVID-free hospitals) is effective. METHODS: A national study in England used administrative hospital data for 14,930 CRC patients undergoing surgery between October 1, 2019, and May 31, 2020. Mortality of CRC resection was compared before and after March 23, 2020 ("lockdown" start). RESULTS: The number of elective CRC procedures dropped sharply during the pandemic (from average 386 to 214 per week), whereas emergency procedures were hardly affected (from 88 to 84 per week). There was little change in characteristics of surgical patients during the pandemic. Laparoscopic surgery decreased from 62.5% to 35.9% for elective and from 17.7% to 9.7% for emergency resections. Surgical mortality increased slightly (from 0.9% to 1.2%, P = 0.06) after elective and markedly (from 5.6% to 8.9%, P = 0.003) after emergency resections. The observed increase in mortality during the first phase of the pandemic was similar in "cold" and "hot" sites (P > 0.5 elective and emergency procedures). CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic resulted in a 50% reduction in elective CRC procedures during the initial surge and a substantial increase in mortality after emergency resection. There was no evidence that surgery in COVID-free "cold" sites led to better outcomes in the first 2 months.

Patients Undergoing Ileoanal Pouch Surgery Experience a Constellation of Symptoms and Consequences Representing a Unique Syndrome: A Report from the Patient-Reported Outcomes After Pouch Surgery (PROPS) Delphi Consensus Study.

BACKGROUND: Functional outcomes after ileoanal pouch creation have been studied; however, there is great variability in how relevant outcomes are defined and reported. More importantly, the perspective of patients has not been represented in deciding which outcomes should be the focus of research. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim was to create a patient-centered definition of core symptoms that should be included in future studies of pouch function. DESIGN: This was a Delphi consensus study. SETTING: Three rounds of surveys were used to select high-priority items. Survey voting was followed by a series of online patient consultation meetings used to clarify voting trends. A final online consensus meeting with representation from all 3 expert panels was held to finalize a consensus statement. PATIENTS: Expert stakeholders were chosen to correlate with the clinical scenario of the multidisciplinary team that cares for pouch patients, including patients, colorectal surgeons, and gastroenterologists or other clinicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A consensus statement was the main outcome. RESULTS: patients, 62 colorectal surgeons, and 48 gastroenterologists or nurse specialists completed all 3 Delphi rounds. Fifty-three patients participated in online focus groups. One hundred sixty-one stakeholders participated in the final consensus meeting. On conclusion of the consensus meeting, 7 bowel symptoms and 7 consequences of undergoing ileoanal pouch surgery were included in the final consensus statement. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by online recruitment bias. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to identify key functional outcomes after pouch surgery with direct input from a large panel of ileoanal pouch patients. The inclusion of patients in all stages of the consensus process allowed for a true patient-centered approach in defining the core domains that should be focused on in future studies of pouch function. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B571. LOS PACIENTES SOMETIDOS A CIRUGA DE RESERVORIO ILEOANAL EXPERIMENTAN UNA CONSTELACIN DE SNTOMAS Y CONSECUENCIAS QUE REPRESENTAN UN SNDROME UNICO: Un Informe de los Resultados Reportados por los Pacientes Posterior a la Cirugía de Reservorio (PROPS) Estudio de Consenso DelphiANTECEDENTES:Los resultados funcionales después de la creación del reservorio ileoanal han sido estudiados; sin embargo, existe una gran variabilidad en la forma en que se definen y reportan los resultados relevantes. Más importante aún, la perspectiva de los pacientes no se ha representado a la hora de decidir qué resultados deberían ser el foco de investigación.OBJETIVO:El objetivo principal era crear en el paciente una definición centrada de los síntomas principales que debería incluirse en los estudios futuros de la función del reservorio.DISEÑO:Estudio de consenso Delphi.ENTORNO CLINICO:Se emplearon tres rondas de encuestas para seleccionar elementos de alta prioridad. La votación de la encuesta fue seguida por una serie de reuniones de consulta de pacientes en línea que se utilizan para aclarar las tendencias de votación. Se realizo una reunión de consenso final en línea con representación de los tres paneles de expertos para finalizar una declaración de consenso.PACIENTES:Se eligieron partes interesadas expertas para correlacionar con el escenario clínico del equipo multidisciplinario que atiende a los pacientes con reservorio: pacientes, cirujanos colorrectales, gastroenterólogos / otros médicos.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:Declaración de consenso.RESULTADOS:Ciento noventa y cinco pacientes, 62 cirujanos colorrectales y 48 gastroenterólogos / enfermeras especialistas completaron las tres rondas Delphi. 53 pacientes participaron en grupos focales en línea. 161 interesados participaron en la reunión de consenso final. Al concluir la reunión de consenso, siete síntomas intestinales y siete consecuencias de someterse a una cirugía de reservorio ileoanal se incluyeron en la declaración de consenso final.LIMITACIONES:Sesgo de reclutamiento en línea.CONCLUSIONES:Este estudio es el primero en identificar resultados funcionales claves después de la cirugía de reservorio con información directa de un gran panel de pacientes con reservorio ileoanal. La inclusión de pacientes en todas las etapas del proceso de consenso permitió un verdadero enfoque centrado en el paciente para definir los dominios principales en los que debería centrarse los estudios futuros de la función del reservorio. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B571.

Defining standards in colorectal optimisation: a Delphi study protocol to achieve international consensus on key standards for colorectal surgery prehabilitation.

INTRODUCTION: Prehabilitation in colorectal surgery is evolving and may minimise postoperative morbidity and mortality. With many different healthcare professionals contributing to the prehabilitation literature, there is significant variation in reported primary endpoints that restricts comparison. In addition, there has been limited work on patient-related outcome measures suggesting that patients with colorectal cancer needs and issues are being overlooked. The Defining Standards in Colorectal Optimisation Study aims to achieve international consensus from all stakeholders on key standards to provide a framework for reporting future prehabilitation research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review will identify key standards reported in trials of prehabilitation in colorectal surgery. Standards that are important to patients will be identified by a patient and public involvement (PPI) event. The longlist of standards generated from the systematic review and PPI event will be used to develop a three-round online Delphi process. This will engage all stakeholders (healthcare professionals and patients) both nationally and internationally. The results of the Delphi will be followed by a face-to-face interactive consensus meeting that will define the final standards for prehabilitation for elective colorectal surgery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Glasgow College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences Ethics Committee has approved this protocol, which is registered as a study (200190120) with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative. Publication of the standards developed by all stakeholders will increase the potential for comparative research that advances understanding of the clinical application of prehabilitation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019120381.

International Consensus Definition of Low Anterior Resection Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Low anterior resection syndrome is pragmatically defined as disordered bowel function after rectal resection leading to a detriment in quality of life. This broad characterization does not allow for precise estimates of prevalence. The low anterior resection syndrome score was designed as a simple tool for clinical evaluation of low anterior resection syndrome. Although the low anterior resection syndrome score has good clinical utility, it may not capture all important aspects that patients may experience. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this collaboration was to develop an international consensus definition of low anterior resection syndrome that encompasses all aspects of the condition and is informed by all stakeholders. DESIGN: This international patient-provider initiative used an online Delphi survey, regional patient consultation meetings, and an international consensus meeting. PARTICIPANTS: Three expert groups participated: patients, surgeons, and other health professionals from 5 regions (Australasia, Denmark, Spain, Great Britain and Ireland, and North America) and in 3 languages (English, Spanish, and Danish). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome measured was the priorities for the definition of low anterior resection syndrome. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-five participants (156 patients) registered. The response rates for successive rounds of the Delphi survey were 86%, 96%, and 99%. Eighteen priorities emerged from the Delphi survey. Patient consultation and consensus meetings refined these priorities to 8 symptoms and 8 consequences that capture essential aspects of the syndrome. LIMITATIONS: Sampling bias may have been present, in particular, in the patient panel because social media was used extensively in recruitment. There was also dominance of the surgical panel at the final consensus meeting despite attempts to mitigate this. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first definition of low anterior resection syndrome developed with direct input from a large international patient panel. The involvement of patients in all phases has ensured that the definition presented encompasses the vital aspects of the patient experience of low anterior resection syndrome. The novel separation of symptoms and consequences may enable greater sensitivity to detect changes in low anterior resection syndrome over time and with intervention.

International consensus definition of low anterior resection syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is pragmatically defined as disordered bowel function after rectal resection leading to a detriment in quality of life. This broad characterization does not allow for precise estimates of prevalence. The LARS score was designed as a simple tool for clinical evaluation of LARS. Although the LARS score has good clinical utility, it may not capture all important aspects that patients may experience. The aim of this collaboration was to develop an international consensus definition of LARS that encompasses all aspects of the condition and is informed by all stakeholders. METHODS: This international patient-provider initiative used an online Delphi survey, regional patient consultation meetings and an international consensus meeting. Three expert groups participated: patients, surgeons and other health professionals from five regions (Australasia, Denmark, Spain, Great Britain and Ireland, and North America) and in three languages (English, Spanish and Danish). The primary outcome measured was the priorities for the definition of LARS. RESULTS: Three hundred and twenty-five participants (156 patients) registered. The response rates for successive rounds of the Delphi survey were 86%, 96% and 99%. Eighteen priorities emerged from the Delphi survey. Patient consultation and consensus meetings refined these priorities to eight symptoms and eight consequences that capture essential aspects of the syndrome. Sampling bias may have been present, in particular, in the patient panel because social media was used extensively in recruitment. There was also dominance of the surgical panel at the final consensus meeting despite attempts to mitigate this. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first definition of LARS developed with direct input from a large international patient panel. The involvement of patients in all phases has ensured that the definition presented encompasses the vital aspects of the patient experience of LARS. The novel separation of symptoms and consequences may enable greater sensitivity to detect changes in LARS over time and with intervention.