Financial toxicity in early-onset colorectal cancer: A National Health Interview Survey study.

BACKGROUND: Financial toxicity is increasingly recognized as a devastating outcome of cancer treatment but is poorly characterized in patients with early-onset colorectal cancer. Young patients are particularly vulnerable to financial toxicity as they are frequently underinsured and may suffer significant disruptions to professional and financial growth. We hypothesized that financial toxicity associated with colorectal cancer treatment confers long-lasting effects on patients' well-being and disproportionately impacts patients diagnosed at <50 years of age. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of the National Health Interview Survey from years 2019 to 2021 was performed. Patients with a history of colorectal cancer were included and stratified by age at diagnosis. Randomly selected age-matched controls with no cancer history were used for comparison. The primary endpoint was financial toxicity, as assessed by a composite score formulated from 12 National Health Interview Survey items. The secondary endpoint was food security assessed by the United States Department of Agriculture's food security scale, embedded in the National Health Interview Survey. RESULTS: When compared to age-matched controls, patients with colorectal cancer experienced significant financial toxicity, as reflected by a composite financial toxicity score (P = .027). Within patients with colorectal cancer, female sex (adjusted odds ratio = 1.46, P = .046) and early-onset disease (adjusted odds ratio = 2.11, P = .002) were found to significantly increase the risk of financial toxicity. Patients with early-onset colorectal cancer more frequently experienced food insecurity (P = .011), delayed necessary medical care (P = .053), mental health counseling (P = .043), and filling prescriptions (P = .007) due to cost when compared to patients with average-onset colorectal cancer. CONCLUSION: Colorectal cancer is associated with significant long-term financial toxicity, which disproportionately impacts patients diagnosed at <50 years of age. Targeted interventions are warranted to reduce financial toxicity for patients with high-risk colorectal cancer.

A Survey of the Impact of the COVID-19 Crisis on Skill Decay Among Surgery and Anesthesia Residents.

OBJECTIVE: The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic has profoundly impacted healthcare delivery and strained medical training. This study explores resident and faculty perceptions regarding the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on technical skill decay of surgical and anesthesia residents. We hypothesized that many residents perceived that their technical abilities diminished due to a short period of interruption in their training. DESIGN: An IRB-exempt, web-based cross-sectional survey distributed to residents and faculty SETTING: Two large academic tertiary medical centers, North Shore University Hospital and Long Island Jewish Medical Center, of the Northwell Health System in New York. PARTICIPANTS: General surgery, anesthesiology, plastic surgery, cardiothoracic surgery, orthopedic surgery, oral maxillofacial surgery, urology, podiatry residents and faculty. RESULTS: All residents reported a significant impact on their training. Residents (82%) and faculty (94%) reported a significant reduction in case volumes due to the COVID-19 pandemic (p < 0.05). 64% of residents reported a reduction in technical skills, and 75% of faculty perceived a decrease in resident technical skills. Residents were concerned about fulfilling ACGME case requirements, however faculty were more optimistic that residents would achieve level-appropriate proficiency by the conclusion of their training. Both residents and faculty felt that resident critical care skills improved as a result of redeployment to COVID-19 intensive care units (66% and 94%). Additionally, residents reported increased confidence in their ability to care for critically ill patients and positive impact on professional competencies. CONCLUSIONS: Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on residency training are multi-dimensional. The majority of surgical and anesthesia residents perceived that their technical ability diminished as a result of skill decay, whereas other skillsets improved. Longitudinal surveillance of trainees is warranted to evaluate the effect of reduced operative volume and redeployment on professional competency.

Colon and Rectal Surgery Residency Selection Criteria: A National Program Director Survey.

OBJECTIVE: Colon and Rectal Surgery has established itself as a highly competitive specialty over recent years, with demand for residency positions growing and becoming increasingly difficult to obtain each year. However, limited information exists as to which characteristics make for a successful colorectal surgery applicant. This study aims to identify which academic benchmarks and applicant characteristics impact successful matriculation into Colon and Rectal Surgery residency. DESIGN: Each Colon and Rectal Surgery residency program was sent a web-based survey comprised of 28 questions. Questions were designed to assess which factors were considered when evaluating an applicant prior to offering an interview and during rank determination. SETTING: The study was conducted as an anonymous web-based survey. PARTICIPANTS: Each Colon and Rectal Surgery residency program in the United States accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (N = 63) was included in the study. Forty-four of 63 programs completed the survey for an overall response rate of 70%. RESULTS: Ninety-one percent of the programs reported having a prerequisite American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination score for interview, with 50% of these programs requiring scores above the 50th percentile. During the ranking process, the most important factors considered by programs were interpersonal skills and communication, letters of recommendation, and interaction with other applicants and nonclinical staff. The majority of program directors felt that interview performance was the most important factor in ranking an applicant highly. CONCLUSIONS: Successful matriculation into Colon and Rectal Surgery requires the applicant to achieve the necessary academic benchmarks while also demonstrating a variety of desirable characteristics, which are most importantly assessed during an interview.

A comparison of open and robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal adenocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: This retrospective study was designed to compare open with robot-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: With use of predefined exclusion criteria, all consecutive laparoscopic-assisted (51 patients) and robot-assisted (36 patients) rectal resections for adenocarcinoma from August 2005 to November 2009 at a single institution were considered. Hand-assisted laparoscopy was used for splenic flexure mobilization in all cases. Patients were assigned into robotic and open groups on the basis of the technique used for total mesorectal excision. All 36 robot-assisted resections had the total mesorectal excision performed with robotic assistance and were included in the robotic group. Forty-six of the 51 patients who received a laparoscopic-assisted procedure had the total mesorectal excision performed through the hand port using open surgical technique and were included in the open group. Both groups were compared with respect to patient demographics, perioperative outcomes, and pathology. RESULTS: The robotic and open groups were comparable in age, sex, body mass index, history of prior abdominal surgery, ASA class, number of patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiation, and tumor stage. There were more abdominoperineal resections (P = .019) and more low and mid rectal tumors (P = .007) in the robotic group. Total procedure time was longer in the robotic group (P = .003), but blood loss was less (P = .036). Lymph node yield, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and length of stay were all comparable. There were 3 positive circumferential margins in the open group vs none in the robotic group, but this did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic total mesorectal excision is feasible and safe, and is comparable to open total mesorectal excision in terms of perioperative and pathological outcomes. The longer operative time associated with robotic total mesorectal excision could decrease as experience with this relatively new technique increases. Large randomized trials are necessary to validate the potential benefits of less blood loss and lower margin positivity rates observed in this study.

Total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: the potential advantage of robotic assistance.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of the da Vinci S HD robotic system in mesorectal excision for rectal adenocarcinoma, with the aim to identify areas of potential advantage for the robot in this procedure. METHODS: This study was conducted as a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of 44 consecutive cases of robot-assisted mesorectal excision for rectal adenocarcinoma performed between August 2005 and February 2010. Patient demographics, perioperative outcomes, and complications were evaluated and compared with similar published reports and relevant literature. RESULTS: There were 28 (63.6%) men and 16 (36.4%) women, with a mean age of 63 years. The majority of patients were either overweight or obese and 88.7% of lesions were in the mid or low rectum. We performed 36 low anterior resections (6 intersphincteric) and 8 abdominoperineal resections with a median blood loss of 150 mL (range, 50-1000), a median operative time of 347 minutes (range, 155-510), and a median length of stay of 5 days (range, 3-36). The median lymph node yield was 14 (range, 5-45) and the circumferential resection margin was negative in all patients. We had 1 distal margin positivity (2.7%), 2 anastomotic leaks (5.6%), 1 death (2.7%), and 2 conversions (4.5%) to the open approach. No robot-associated morbidity occurred in this series. CONCLUSIONS: This series compares favorably with similar published reports with regard to the safety and feasibility of robotic assistance in total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. The lower conversion rates reported for robotic rectal resection compared with laparoscopy require validation in large randomized trials.

Robotic colon and rectal surgery: a series of 131 cases.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic colorectal surgery has become a mainstay in the treatment of benign and malignant colorectal diseases. There are inherent limitations to conventional laparoscopy which can be overcome by the robot. Here we present our experience with 131 cases of robotic and robot-assisted colon and rectal resections. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database. From August 2005 through June 2009, we performed a total of 131 totally robotic and robot-assisted colorectal resections. These included 42 right colectomies (RC), 16 anterior resections (AR) for benign disease, 8 AR with rectopexy for prolapse, 7 total proctocolectomies (TPC), 47 low and ultralow anterior resections (LAR) for rectal cancer, and 11 abdominal perineal resections (APR). All LARs were done as a hybrid procedure (laparoscopic splenic flexure mobilization followed by robotic rectal dissection), and all APR specimens were extracted through the perineal incision. All coloanal anastomoses were diverted with a loop ileostomy. RESULTS: There were no intraoperative complications in this series. Postoperative complications included 10 patients with ileus or small bowel obstruction (SBO), 2 patients with anastomotic leaks, 1 patient with an abscess, and 3 patients with temporary peripheral neuropathy that resolved spontaneously. Five patients required reoperation and there were a total of 4 conversions (3.7%) across all case types. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic colon and rectal resections are safe and feasible options for the treatment of both benign and malignant disease processes. Further studies comparing oncologic and perioperative outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic, and open techniques are needed to determine the utility and efficacy of this technology in the field of colorectal surgery.