ABSTRACT
(1) Background: Anal canal adenocarcinomas constitute 1% of all gastrointestinal tract cancers. There is a current lack of consensus and NICE guidelines in the United Kingdom regarding the management of this disease. The overall objective was to perform a systematic review on the multitude of practice and subsequent outcomes in this group. (2) Methods: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE and CINAHL databases were interrogated between 2011 to 2021. PRISMA guidelines were used to select relevant studies. The primary outcome measure was 5-year overall survival (OS). Secondary outcome measures included both local recurrences (LR) and distant metastases (DM). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of studies retrieved. The study was registered on PROSPERO (338286). (3) Results: Fifteen studies were included. Overall, there were 11,967 participants who were demographically matched. There were 2090 subjects in the largest study and five subjects in the smallest study. Treatment modalities varied from neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT), CRT and surgery (CRT + S), surgery then CRT (S + CRT) and surgery only (S). Five-year OS ranged from 30.2% to 91% across the literature. LR rates ranged from 22% to 29%; DM ranged from 6% to 60%. Study heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. (4) Conclusions: Trimodality treatment with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by radical surgery of abdominoperineal excision of rectum (APER) appeared to be the most effective approach, giving the best survival outcomes according to the current data.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Implementing a streamlined interventional radiology (IR) service in the UK has been a challenge. This study aims to review a set of changes introduced in IR at a tertiary centre, including a new referral process and the designation of IR clinical nurse specialists. METHODS: A new process of referring patients to IR using a single generic referral pathway was implemented, replacing an order dropdown-based system. A qualitative survey was designed and distributed as a single-use web link in order to assess the satisfaction and impact of this new process. Responses were based on Likert scale and pertained to perceived qualities of the new referral process. Data analysis was performed to identify specialty and grade-specific trends and possible differences amongst groups. RESULTS: Findings from 98 respondents revealed a strong overall satisfaction with the new referral method and support for its continuation. Subgroup analysis by specialty, concluded medical specialties rated the new referral system more favourably than surgical specialties across all aspects: time efficiency, ease of use, periprocedural support and overall user experience. The new system also increased departmental productivity with an increase in the number of patients treated by 11.2%. CONCLUSION: Micropolicy changes within individual IR departments such as the replacement of a request-based referral system to one which puts IR in control of vetting and patient flow is one of many changes that reinforce the transformational phase of this specialty. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Micropolicy changes within IR departments are key in the progression and widespread recognition of the specialty.