Charting connections: A systematic review of colorectal surgery research networks.

Research in surgery faces intrinsic difficulties such as the lack of reproducibility of surgical operations, self-referring surgeons, decentralized data. Establishing a community of qualified researchers across surgeons is crucial. Clinical networks have been proposed as solutions to many challenges in surgical research, yet their implementation remains uncommon, especially for surgical trialists. The extent of literature produced by networks remains unclear, but fostering such collaborations could enhance the overall quality of surgical research. We conducted review focusing on research networks in colorectal surgery to assess their workload and impact in the literature and identify factors contributing to their durability. Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched for articles published through research networks. Networks were categorized by subspecialty, and specific items were retrieved for further classification. A survey was administered to twenty experts in colorectal surgery or research networking. A total of 2490 manuscripts were screened, and 397 networks identified. Of these, 96 were colorectal networks contributing to 492 publications, with 28 networks having five or more publications. Seventeen networks were affiliated with International or National societies, and only 5 conducted both prospective trials and RCTs. Twenty networks reported national or population-based data, and 26 networks lasted for more than 5 years. Sixteen experts participated in the survey, with an 80 % compliance rate, and 12 of them have been involved in creating a surgical network. The large majority of experts advocate the establishment of guidelines for networks creation in the surgical community.

How to incorporate chronic health conditions in oncologic decision-making and care for older patients with cancer? A survey among healthcare professionals.

PURPOSE: A substantial proportion of patients with cancer are older and experience multimorbidity. As the population is ageing, the management of older patients with multimorbidity including cancer will represent a significant challenge to current clinical practice. METHODS: This study aimed to (1) identify which chronic health conditions may cause change in oncologic decision-making and care in older patients and (2) provide guidance on how to incorporate these in decision-making and care provision of older patients with cancer. Based on a scoping literature review, an initial list of prevalent morbidities was developed. A subsequent survey among healthcare providers involved in the care for older patients with cancer assessed which chronic health conditions were relevant and why. RESULTS: A list of 53 chronic health conditions was developed, of which 34 were considered likely or very likely to influence decision-making or care according to the 39 healthcare professionals who responded. These conditions were further categorized into five patient profiles. From these conditions, five patient profiles were developed, namely, (1) a somatic profile consisting of cardiovascular, metabolic, and pulmonary disease, (2) a functional profile, including conditions that cause disability, dependency or a high caregiver burden, (3) a psychosocial profile, including cognitive impairment, (4) a nutritional profile also including digestive system diseases, and finally, (5) a concurrent cancer profile. All profiles were considered likely to impact decision-making with differences between treatment modalities. The impact on the care trajectory was generally considered less significant, except for patients with care dependency and psychosocial health problems. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic health conditions have various ways of influencing oncologic decision-making and the care trajectory in older adults with cancer. Understanding why specific chronic health conditions may impact the oncologic care trajectory can aid clinicians in the management of older patients with multimorbidity, including cancer.

Assessing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-related outcomes in randomized cancer clinical trials for older adults: Results of DATECAN-ELDERLY initiative.

As older adults with cancer are underrepresented in randomized clinical trials (RCT), there is limited evidence on which to rely for treatment decisions for this population. Commonly used RCT endpoints for the assessment of treatment efficacy are more often tumor-centered (e.g., progression-free survival). These endpoints may not be as relevant for the older patients who present more often with comorbidities, non-cancer-related deaths, and treatment toxicity. Moreover, their expectation and preferences are likely to differ from younger adults. The DATECAN-ELDERLY initiative combines a broad expertise, in geriatric oncology and clinical research, with interest in cancer RCT that include older patients with cancer. In order to guide researchers and clinicians coordinating cancer RCT involving older patients with cancer, the experts reviewed the literature on relevant domains to assess using patient-reported outcomes (PRO) and patient-related outcomes, as well as available tools related to these domains. Domains considered relevant by the panel of experts when assessing treatment efficacy in RCT for older patients with cancer included functional autonomy, cognition, depression and nutrition. These were based on published guidelines from international societies and from regulatory authorities as well as minimum datasets recommended to collect in RCT including older adults with cancer. In addition, health-related quality of life, patients' symptoms, and satisfaction were also considered by the panel. With regards to tools for the assessment of these domains, we highlighted that each tool has its own strengths and limitations, and very few had been validated in older adults with cancer. Further studies are thus needed to validate these tools in this specific population and define the minimum clinically important difference to use when developing RCTs in this population. The selection of the most relevant tool should thus be guided by the RCT research question, together with the specific properties of the tool.

Predicting Functional Recovery and Quality of Life in Older Patients Undergoing Colorectal Cancer Surgery: Real-World Data From the International GOSAFE Study.

PURPOSE: The GOSAFE study evaluates risk factors for failing to achieve good quality of life (QoL) and functional recovery (FR) in older patients undergoing surgery for colon and rectal cancer. METHODS: Patients age 70 years and older undergoing major elective colorectal surgery were prospectively enrolled. Frailty assessment was performed and outcomes, including QoL (EQ-5D-3L) recorded (3/6 months postoperatively). Postoperative FR was defined as a combination of Activity of Daily Living ≥5 + Timed Up & Go test <20 seconds + MiniCog >2. RESULTS: Prospective complete data were available for 625/646 consecutive patients (96.9%; 435 colon and 190 rectal cancer), 52.6% men, and median age was 79.0 years (IQR, 74.6-82.9 years). Surgery was minimally invasive in 73% of patients (321/435 colon; 135/190 rectum). At 3-6 months, 68.9%-70.3% patients experienced equal/better QoL (72.8%-72.9% colon, 60.1%-63.9% rectal cancer). At logistic regression analysis, preoperative Flemish Triage Risk Screening Tool ≥2 (3-month odds ratio [OR], 1.68; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.73; P = .034, 6-month OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.06 to 2.75; P = .027) and postoperative complications (3-month OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.20 to 3.42; P = .008, 6-month OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.15 to 5.68; P = .02) are associated with decreased QoL after colectomy. Eastern Collaborative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) ≥2 is a strong predictor of postoperative QoL decline in the rectal cancer subgroup (OR, 3.81; 95% CI, 1.45 to 9.92; P = .006). FR was reported by 254/323 (78.6%) patients with colon and 94/133 (70.6%) with rectal cancer. Charlson Age Comorbidity Index ≥7 (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.26 to 5.32; P = .009), ECOG ≥2 (OR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.36 to 7.20; P = .007 colon; OR, 4.61; 95% CI, 1.45 to 14.63; P = .009 rectal surgery), severe complications (OR, 17.33; 95% CI, 7.30 to 40.8; P < .001), fTRST ≥2 (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.40 to 5.25; P = .003), and palliative surgery (OR, 4.11; 95% CI, 1.29 to 13.07; P = .017) are risk factors for not achieving FR. CONCLUSION: The majority of older patients experience good QoL and stay independent after colorectal cancer surgery. Predictors for failing to achieve these essential outcomes are now defined to guide patients' and families' preoperative counseling.

5 year oncological outcomes of the HIGHLOW randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: The oncological outcomes of low ligation (LL) compared to high ligation (HL) of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) during low-anterior rectal resection (LAR) with total mesorectal excision are still debated. The aim of this study is to report the 5 year oncologic outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic LAR with either HL vs. LL of the IMA MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between June 2014 and December 2016, patients who underwent elective laparoscopic LAR + TME in 6 Italian non-academic hospitals were randomized to HL or LL of IMA after meeting the inclusion criteria (HighLow trial; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02153801). We analyzed the rate of local recurrence, distant metastasis, overall survival, disease-specific survival, and disease-free survival at 5 years of patients previously enrolled. RESULTS: Five-year follow up data were available for 196 patients. Recurrence happened in 42 (21.4%) of patients. There was no statistically significant difference in the distant recurrence rate (15.8% HL vs. 18.9% LL; P = 0.970) and pelvic recurrence rate (4,9% HL vs 3,2% LL; P = 0.843). No statistically significant difference was found in 5-year OS (p = 0.545), DSS (p = 0.732) or DFS (p = 0.985) between HL and LL. Low vs medium and upper rectum site of tumor, conversion rate, Clavien-Dindo post-operative grade ≥3 complications and tumor stage were found statistically significantly associated to poor oncological outcomes in univariate analysis; in multivariate analysis, however, only conversion rate and stage 3 cancer were found to be independent risk factors for poor DFS at 5 years. CONCLUSION: We confirmed the results found in the previous 3-year survival analysis, the level of inferior mesenteric artery ligation does not affect OS, DSS and DFS at 5-year follow-up.

Frailty assessment can predict textbook outcomes in senior adults after minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery.

AIM: Colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery can be associated with suboptimal outcomes in older patients. The aim was to identify the correlation between frailty and surgical variables with the achievement of Textbook Outcome (TO), a composite measure of the ideal postoperative course, by older patients with CRC. METHOD: All consecutive patients ≥70years who underwent elective CRC-surgery between January 2017 and November 2021 were analyzed from a prospective database. To obtain a TO, all the following must be achieved: 90-day survival, Clavien-Dindo (CD) < 3, no reintervention, no readmission, no discharge to rehabilitation facility, no changes in the living situation and length of stay (LOS) ≤5days/≤14days for colon and rectal surgery respectively. Frailty and surgical variables were related to the achievement of TO. RESULTS: Four-hundred-twenty-one consecutive patients had surgery (97.7% minimally invasive), 24.9% for rectal cancer, median age 80 years (range 70-92), median LOS of 4 days (range 1-96). Overall, 288/421 patients (68.4%) achieved a TO. CD 3-4 complications rate was 6.4%, 90-day mortality rate was 2.9%. At univariate analysis, frailty and surgical variables (ileostomy creation, p = 0.045) were related to. However, multivariate analysis showed that only frailty measures such as flemish Triage Risk Screening Tool≥2 (OR 1.97, 95%CI: 1.23-3.16; p = 0.005); Charlson Index>6 (OR 1.61, 95%CI: 1.03-2.51; p = 0.036) or Timed-Up-and-Go>20 s (OR 2.06, 95%CI: 1.01-4.19; p = 0.048) independently predicted an increased risk of not achieving a TO. CONCLUSION: The association between frailty and comprehensive surgical outcomes offers objective data for guiding family counseling, managing expectations and discussing the possible loss of independence with patients and caregivers.

Use of fluorescence imaging and indocyanine green during colorectal surgery: Results of an intercontinental Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: Fluorescence imaging with indocyanine green is increasingly being used in colorectal surgery to assess anastomotic perfusion, and to detect sentinel lymph nodes. METHODS: In this 2-round, online, Delphi survey, 35 international experts were asked to vote on 69 statements pertaining to patient preparation and contraindications to fluorescence imaging during colorectal surgery, indications, technical aspects, potential advantages/disadvantages, and effectiveness versus limitations, and training and research. Methodological steps were adopted during survey design to minimize risk of bias. RESULTS: More than 70% consensus was reached on 60 of 69 statements, including moderate-strong consensus regarding fluorescence imaging's value assessing anastomotic perfusion and leak risk, but not on its value mapping sentinel nodes. Similarly, although consensus was reached regarding most technical aspects of its use assessing anastomoses, little consensus was achieved for lymph-node assessments. Evaluating anastomoses, experts agreed that the optimum total indocyanine green dose and timing are 5 to 10 mg and 30 to 60 seconds pre-evaluation, indocyanine green should be dosed milligram/kilogram, lines should be flushed with saline, and indocyanine green can be readministered if bright perfusion is not achieved, although how long surgeons should wait remains unknown. The only consensus achieved for lymph-node assessments was that 2 to 4 injection points are needed. Ninety-six percent and 100% consensus were reached that fluorescence imaging will increase in practice and research over the next decade, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although further research remains necessary, fluorescence imaging appears to have value assessing anastomotic perfusion, but its value for lymph-node mapping remains questionable.

Immediate versus early (24-hours) urinary catheter removal after elective minimally invasive colonic resection: study protocol for a randomized, multicenter, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) represents the standard of care in colorectal surgery. Among ERAS items, early removal of urinary catheter (UC) is considered a key issue, though adherence to this specific item still varies among centers. UC placement allows for monitoring of post-operative urinary output but relates to an increased risk of urinary tract infection (UTI), reduced mobility, and patient's discomfort. Several studies investigated the role of early UC removal specifically looking at the rate of acute urinary retention (AUR) but most of them were retrospective, single-center, underpowered, cohort studies. The main purpose of this study is to compare the rate of AUR after immediate (at the end of the surgery) versus early (within 24 h from the completion of surgery) removal of UC in patients undergoing minimally invasive colonic resection (MICR). The secondary outcomes focus on goals that could be positively impacted by the immediate removal of the UC at the end of the surgery. In particular, the rate of UTIs, perception of pain, time-to-return of bowel and physical functions, postoperative complications, and length of hospital stay will be measured. METHODS: This is a prospective, randomized, controlled, two-arm, multi-center, study comparing the rate of AUR after immediate versus early removal of UC in patients undergoing MICR. The investigators hypothesize that immediate UC removal is non-inferior to 24-h UC removal in terms of AUR rate. Randomization is at the patient level and participants are randomized 1:1 to remove their UC either immediately or within 24 h from the completion of surgery. Those eligible for inclusion were patients undergoing any MICR with an anastomosis above the peritoneal reflection. Those patients who need to continue urinary output monitoring after the surgery will be excluded. The number of patients calculated to be enrolled in each group is 108 based on an expected AUR rate of 3% for the 24-h UC removal group and considering acceptable an AUR of 9% for the immediate UC removal group. DISCUSSION: The demonstration of a non-inferiority of immediate versus 24-h removal of UC would call into question the usefulness of urinary drainage in the setting of MICR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05249192. Prospectively registered on February 21, 2022.

Emilia-Romagna Surgical Colorectal Cancer Audit (ESCA): a value-based healthcare retro-prospective study to measure and improve the quality of surgical care in colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Surgery is the main treatment for non-metastatic colorectal cancer. Despite huge improvements in perioperative care, colorectal surgery is still associated with a significant burden of postoperative complications and ultimately costs for healthcare organizations. Systematic clinical auditing activity has already proven to be effective in measuring and improving clinical outcomes, and for this reason, we decided to evaluate its impact in a large area of northern Italy. METHODS: The Emilia-Romagna Surgical Colorectal Audit (ESCA) is an observational, multicentric, retro-prospective study, carried out by 7 hospitals located in the Emilia-Romagna region. All consecutive patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer during a 54-month study period will be enrolled. Data regarding baseline conditions, preoperative diagnostic work-up, surgery and postoperative course will be collected in a dedicated case report form. Primary outcomes regard postoperative complications and mortality. Secondary outcomes include each center's adherence to the auditing (enrolment rate) and evaluation of the systematic feedback activity on key performance indicators for the entire perioperative process. CONCLUSION: This protocol describes the methodology of the Emilia-Romagna Surgical Colorectal Audit. The study will provide real-world clinical data essential for benchmarking and feedback activity, to positively impact outcomes and ultimately to improve the entire healthcare process of patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study ESCA is registered on the clinicaltrials.gov platform (Identifier: NCT03982641).

Quality of Life in Older Adults After Major Cancer Surgery: The GOSAFE International Study.

BACKGROUND: Accurate quality of life (QoL) data and functional results after cancer surgery are lacking for older patients. The international, multicenter Geriatric Oncology Surgical Assessment and Functional rEcovery after Surgery (GOSAFE) Study compares QoL before and after surgery and identifies predictors of decline in QoL. METHODS: GOSAFE prospectively collected data before and after major elective cancer surgery on older adults (≥70 years). Frailty assessment was performed and postoperative outcomes recorded (30, 90, and 180 days postoperatively) together with QoL data by means of the three-level version of the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L), including 2 components: an index (range = 0-1) generated by 5 domains (mobility, self-care, ability to perform the usual activities, pain or discomfort, anxiety or depression) and a visual analog scale. RESULTS: Data from 26 centers were collected (February 2017-March 2019). Complete data were available for 942/1005 consecutive patients (94.0%): 492 male (52.2%), median age 78 years (range = 70-95 years), and primary tumor was colorectal in 67.8%. A total 61.2% of all surgeries were via a minimally invasive approach. The 30-, 90-, and 180-day mortality was 3.7%, 6.3%, and 9%, respectively. At 30 and 180 days, postoperative morbidity was 39.2% and 52.4%, respectively, and Clavien-Dindo III-IV complications were 13.5% and 18.7%, respectively. The mean EQ-5D-3L index was similar before vs 3 months but improved at 6 months (0.79 vs 0.82; P < .001). Domains showing improvement were pain and anxiety or depression. A Flemish Triage Risk Screening Tool score greater than or equal to 2 (odds ratio [OR] = 1.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.13 to 2.21, P = .007), palliative surgery (OR = 2.14, 95% CI = 1.01 to 4.52, P = .046), postoperative complications (OR = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.19 to 3.18, P = .007) correlated with worsening QoL. CONCLUSIONS: GOSAFE shows that older adults' preoperative QoL is preserved 3 months after cancer surgery, independent of their age. Frailty screening tools, patient-reported outcomes, and goals-of-care discussions can guide decisions to pursue surgery and direct patients' expectations.

MRI-Pathology Agreement in Rectal Cancer: Real-World Data from a Prospective Rectal Cancer Registry.

Introduction: Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is routinely used in preoperative rectal cancer staging. The concordance of MRI staging with final pathologic exam, albeit improved, has not yet reached perfection. The aim of this study is to analyze the agreement between MRI and pathologic exam in patients operated on for mid-low rectal cancer. Material and Method: Patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (nCRT) or upfront surgery were analyzed. Between January 2019 to December 2019, 140 patients enrolled in the AIMS Academy rectal cancer registry were analyzed. Sixty-two patients received nCRT and 78 underwent upfront surgery. Results: Overall, the agreement between MRI and pathologic exam on T stage and N stage were 64.7% and 69.2%, respectively. The agreement between MRI and pathologic exam on T stage was 62.7% for patients who did not receive nCRT and 67.4% for patients who received nCRT (p = 0.62). The agreement on N stage was 76.3% for patients who did not receive nCRT and 60.0% for patients who received nCRT (p = 0.075). Conclusions: Real-world data shows MRI is still far from being able to correlate with the pathology findings which raises questions about the accuracy of the real-life decision-making process during cancer boards.

The Diverticular Disease Registry (DDR Trial) by the Advanced International Mini-Invasive Surgery Academy Clinical Research Network: Protocol for a Multicenter, Prospective Observational Study.

Diverticular disease is an increasingly common issue, with a variety of clinical presentations and treatment options. However, very few prospective cohort studies explore outcomes between the different presentations and treatments. The Diverticular Disease Registry (DDR Trial) is a multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study on behalf of the Advanced International Mini-Invasive Surgery (AIMS) academy clinical research network. The DDR Trial aims to investigate the short-term postoperative and long-term quality of life outcomes in patients undergoing surgery or medical treatments for diverticular disease. DDR Trial is open to participation by all tertiary-care hospitals. DDR Trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04907383). Data collection will be recorded on Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) starting on June 1st, 2021 and will end after 5 years of recruitment. All adult patients with imaging-proven colonic diverticular disease (i.e., symptomatic colonic diverticulosis including diverticular bleeding, diverticulitis, and Symptomatic Uncomplicated Diverticular Disease) will be included. The primary outcome of DDR Trial is quality of life assessment at 12-month according to the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI). The secondary outcome is 30-day postoperative outcomes according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. DDR Trial will significantly advance in identifying the optimal care for patients with diverticular disease by exploring outcomes of different presentations and treatments. HIGHLIGHTS: Diverticular disease (i.e., diverticulitis, bleeding) has different treatments.This is a clinical protocol for the Diverticular Disease Registry (DDR Trial).DDR Trial is a multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study open to participation.DDR Trial will study short-term postoperative and long-term quality of life outcomes.Medical treatments, interventional radiology and surgery will be explored.

Prediction of functional loss in emergency surgery is possible with a simple frailty screening tool.

BACKGROUND: Senior adults fear postoperative loss of independence the most, and this might represent an additional burden for families and society. The number of geriatric patients admitted to the emergency room requiring an urgent surgical treatment is rising, and the presence of frailty is the main risk factor for postoperative morbidity and functional decline. Frailty assessment in the busy emergency setting is challenging. The aim of this study is to verify the effectiveness of a very simple five-item frailty screening tool, the Flemish version of the Triage Risk Screening Tool (fTRST), in predicting functional loss after emergency surgery among senior adults who were found to be independent before surgery. METHODS: All consecutive individuals aged 70 years and older who were independent (activity of daily living (ADL) score ≥5) and were admitted to the emergency surgery unit with an urgent need for abdominal surgery between December 2015 and May 2016 were prospectively included in the study. On admission, individuals were screened using the fTRST and additional metrics such as the age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (CACI) and the ASA score. Thirty- and 90-day complications and postoperative decline in the ADL score where recorded. Regression analysis was performed to identify preoperative predictors of functional loss. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients entered the study. Thirty-day mortality rate was 12.8% (10/78), and the 90-day overall mortality was 15.4% (12/78). One in every four patients (17/68) experienced a significant functional loss at 30-day follow-up. At 90-day follow-up, only 3/17 patients recovered, 2 patients died, and 12 remained permanently dependent. On the regression analysis, a statistically significant correlation with functional loss was found for fTRST, CACI, and age≥85 years old both at 30 and 90 days after surgery. fTRST≥2 showed the highest effectiveness in predicting functional loss at 90 days with AUC 72 and OR 6.93 (95% CI 1.71-28.05). The institutionalization rate with the need to discharge patients to a healthcare facility was 7.6% (5/66); all of them had a fTRST≥2. CONCLUSION: fTRST is an easy and effective tool to predict the risk of a postoperative functional decline and nursing home admission in the emergency setting.

Reduced duration of stay after elective colorectal surgery during the peak phase of COVID-19 pandemic: A positive effect of infection risk awareness?

BACKGROUND: While elective surgery was shut down in most settings during the 2019 novel coronavirus pandemic, some referral centers were designated as surgery hubs. We sought to investigate how the pandemic scenario impacted the quality of a long-established enhanced recovery protocol colorectal surgery program in 2 referral centers, designated as colorectal surgery hubs, located in the epicentral Italian regions hardest hit by the pandemic. METHODS: We compared short-term outcomes of patients undergoing major colorectal surgery with a long-established enhanced recovery protocol during the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak occurred in 2020 (group A) with the correspondent timeframe of 2019 (group B). Primary outcomes were morbidity and mortality, duration of stay, and readmission rate. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-six patients underwent major colorectal surgery in group A and 173 in group B. Postoperative complications and readmission rate were comparable between the 2 groups. Oncologic case-log was predominant in group A compared with group B (73.5 vs 61%; P = .01). A significantly shorter overall duration of stay was found in group A (P < .001). Uncomplicated patients of group A had a shorter duration of stay when compared with uncomplicated patients of group B (P = .008). CONCLUSION: Under special precautionary measures, major colorectal surgery can be undertaken on elective basis even during coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic with reasonable results. A reduction of duration of stay within a long-established enhanced recovery protocol colorectal surgery program was observed during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic occurred in 2020 in comparison with the correspondent timeframe of the previous year without compromising short-term outcomes. The pandemic uncovered the positive impact of patients' commitment to reducing duration of stay as the empowered risk awareness likely promoted their compliance to the enhanced recovery protocol.

Considerations in Surgical Management of Gastrointestinal Cancer in Older Patients.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The goal of this manuscript is to present new and thought-provoking information related to the surgical care of older patients. We focused on four main areas including communication, surgical pathways, the care of emergency surgery patients, and functional recovery and quality of life. We sought to answer how these areas have evolved, affecting the care of older patients. RECENT FINDINGS: Older patients with cancer present particular challenges in relation to communication, goals, surgical treatment, and post-surgical outcomes. Communication should be clear early and during the treatment course. A multidisciplinary, multimodality, multi-phase pathway can be utilized to improve the postoperative outcomes of older patients with cancer. Functional recovery and quality of life can and should be measured in this population. Communication is complicated in cancer patients, which is made more complex with advancing age. Communication is the cornerstone of the treatment of older patients. Future research should focus on interventions to improve communication and measure quality of life and functional recovery metrics.

A comparative cost analysis of transanal and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

Despite proven clinical benefits in the short term, technical difficulties limit utilization of laparoscopy in rectal cancer surgery (RCS). Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (taTME) overcomes many technical limitations of laparoscopic RCS. However, the costs of this procedure have not been addressed yet. Our goal was to perform a comparative cost analysis of taTME and laparoscopic TME (lapTME). Consecutive patients undergoing curative TME between 1 February 2014 and 31 October 2018 were selected from a prospectively maintained database and stratified, according to the type of procedure, into taTME and lapTME groups. Patient demographics, tumour characteristics, operative parameters, and short-term outcomes were analyzed. The main outcome measure was intraoperative costs of the two procedures. Secondary outcomes were short-term outcome and the utilization of hospital resources to manage the postoperative course. Hundred and fifty-two patients with rectal cancer (66 lapTME, 86 taTME) were included in the study. Surgical supplies required for taTME procedure exceeded the cost of lapTME of 754,54 €. The duration of surgery was not significantly different between the two approaches (266 ± 92.85 vs 271 ± 83.63, p = 0.50). Short-term outcomes were comparable including postoperative complication rate (17 vs 20%, p = 0.68), reintervention rate, and length of stay. There was no difference in hospital resources utilization to manage postoperative course including blood test, diagnostics, consultations, and medications. TaTME has higher intraoperative costs in terms of supplies with respect to lapTME. Short-term outcomes and hospital resources to manage postoperative course are comparable.