Anal Cancers in Previously Screened Versus Unscreened Patients: Tumor Stage and Treatment Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Targeted screening programs for patients at high risk for anal squamous-cell carcinoma have been proposed; however, the evidence in support of screening remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether screening high-risk patients (predominantly those living with HIV) detected squamous-cell carcinoma at an earlier stage compared to the routine practice of not screening. DESIGN: This is a cohort study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a quaternary care center in Canada. PATIENTS: Included patients were at least 18 years old with a pathologic diagnosis of invasive anal squamous-cell carcinoma between 2002 and 2022. INTERVENTIONS: Patients diagnosed through a high-risk screening program were compared to those who did not undergo screening. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was clinical stage at presentation, categorized as T1N0M0 vs other. Secondary outcomes included treatments received, treatment failure, and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 612 patients with anal squamous-cell carcinoma were included, with 26 of those patients diagnosed through a screening program. Patients with screen-detected cancers had greater odds of presenting with T1N0M0 tumors compared to unscreened patients (18 [69.2%] vs 84 [14.3%]; adjusted OR 9.95; 95% CI, 3.95-25.08). A propensity score-matched sensitivity analysis found similar results (OR 11.13; 95% CI, 4.67-26.52). Screened patients had greater odds of treatment with wide local excision alone, as opposed to any combination of chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery (3 [12.5%] vs 18 [3.2%]; OR 4.38; 95% CI, 1.20-16.04). There were no statistically significant differences in treatment failure or overall survival between groups. LIMITATIONS: The small number of screened patients limits the power of the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for anal squamous-cell carcinoma among high-risk populations detects cancers at an earlier stage. Patients with screen-detected cancers also had a greater likelihood of being candidates for wide local excision alone, which may have spared them the morbidity associated with chemoradiotherapy or abdominoperineal resection. See Video Abstract. CNCERES DE ANO EN PACIENTES PREVIAMENTE DETECTADOS POR CRIBADO VERSUS NO DETECTADOS ESTADIO DEL TUMOR Y RESULTADOS DEL TRATAMIENTO: ANTECEDENTES:Se han propuesto programas de cribado dirigidos a pacientes con alto riesgo de carcinoma anal de células escamosas; sin embargo, la evidencia a favor de la detección sigue sin estar clara.OBJETIVO:Este estudio tuvo como objetivo determinar si el cribado de pacientes de alto riesgo (predominantemente aquellos que viven con el VIH) detectó el carcinoma de células escamosas en una etapa más temprana en comparación con la práctica habitual de no cribado.DISEÑO:Este es un estudio de cohortes.CONFIGURACIÓN:Este estudio se realizó en un centro de atención cuaternaria en Canadá.PACIENTES:Los pacientes incluidos tenían al menos 18 años con un diagnóstico patológico de carcinoma de células escamosas anal invasivo entre 2002 y 2022.INTERVENCIONES:Los pacientes diagnosticados mediante un programa de cribado de alto riesgo se compararon con aquellos que no se sometieron a cribado.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El resultado primario fue el estadio clínico en la presentación, categorizado como T1N0M0 versus otro. Los resultados secundarios incluyeron los tratamientos recibidos, el fracaso del tratamiento y la supervivencia general.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron un total de 612 pacientes con carcinoma anal de células escamosas, con 26 de esos pacientes diagnosticados a través de un programa de cribado. Los pacientes con cánceres detectados mediante cribado tenían mayores probabilidades de presentar tumores T1N0M0 en comparación con los pacientes no cribados (18 [69.2%] frente a 84 [14.3%]; razón de probabilidad ajustada 9.95; intervalo de confianza del 95 % 3.95 -25.08). Un análisis de sensibilidad emparejado por puntaje de propensión encontró resultados similares (odds ratio 11.13; intervalo de confianza del 95% 4.67 -26.52; p < 0.001). Los pacientes examinados tenían mayores probabilidades de recibir tratamiento con escisión local amplia sola, en comparación con cualquier combinación de quimioterapia, radiación y cirugía (3 [12.5%] frente a 18 [3.2%]; razón de probabilidad 4.38; intervalo de confianza del 95 % 1.20 -16.04). No hubo diferencias estadísticamente significativas en el fracaso del tratamiento o la supervivencia global entre los grupos.LIMITACIONES:El pequeño número de pacientes evaluados limita el poder del análisis.CONCLUSIONES:La detección del carcinoma anal de células escamosas entre las poblaciones de alto riesgo detecta los cánceres en una etapa más temprana. Los pacientes con cánceres detectados mediante cribado también tenían una mayor probabilidad de ser candidatos para una escisión local amplia sola, lo que puede haberles evitado la morbilidad asociada con la quimiorradioterapia o la resección abdominoperineal. (Traducción --Dr. Aurian Garcia Gonzalez ).

Clinical tools to assess functional capacity before elective non-cardiac surgery: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to map the evidence on clinical tools to assess functional capacity prior to elective non-cardiac surgery. INTRODUCTION: Functional capacity is a strong prognostic indicator before surgery, which can be used to identify patients at elevated risk of postoperative complications, yet, there is no consensus on which clinical tools should be used to assess functional capacity in patients prior to non-cardiac surgery. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider any randomized or non-randomized studies that evaluate the performance of a functional capacity assessment tool in adults (≥18 years) prior to non-cardiac surgery. For studies to be included, the tool must be used clinically for risk stratification. We will exclude studies on lung and liver transplant surgery, as well as ambulatory procedures performed under local anesthesia. METHODS: The review will be conducted in line with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. A peer-reviewed search strategy will be used to query relevant databases (ie, MEDLINE, Embase, EBM Reviews). Additional sources of evidence will include databases of non-peer-reviewed literature and the reference lists of included studies. Two independent reviewers will identify eligible studies in 2 stages: stage 1, based on titles and abstracts; and stage 2, based on full texts. Information on study details, measurement properties, pragmatic qualities, and/or clinical utility metrics will be charted in duplicate onto standardized data collection forms. The results will be presented using descriptive summaries, frequency tables, and visual plots that highlight the extent of evidence and remaining gaps in the validation process of each tool. REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/6nfht.

The impact of unexpected intensive care unit admission after cancer surgery on long-term symptom burden among older adults: a population-based longitudinal analysis.

BACKGROUND: Older adults are at high-risk for a post-operative intensive care unit (ICU) admission, yet little is known about the impact of these admissions on quality of life. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of an unexpected post-operative ICU admission on the burden of cancer symptoms among older adults who underwent high-intensity cancer surgery and survived to hospital discharge. METHODS: We performed a population-based cohort study of older adults (age ≥ 70) who underwent high-intensity cancer surgery and survived to hospital discharge in Ontario, Canada (2007-2017). Using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), a standardized tool that quantifies patient-reported physical, mental, and emotional symptoms, we described the burden of cancer symptoms during the year after surgery. Total symptom scores ≥ 40 indicated a moderate-to-severe symptom burden. Modified log-Poisson analysis was used to estimate the impact of an unexpected post-operative ICU admission (admission not related to routine monitoring) on the likelihood of experiencing a moderate-to-severe symptom burden during the year after surgery, accounting for potential confounders. We then used multivariable generalized linear mixed models to model symptom trajectories among patients with two or more ESAS assessments. A 10-point difference in total symptom scores was considered clinically significant. RESULTS: Among 16,560 patients (mean age 76.5 years; 43.4% female), 1,503 (9.1%) had an unexpected ICU admission. After accounting for baseline characteristics, patients with an unexcepted ICU admission were more likely to experience a moderate-to-severe symptom burden relative to those without an unexpected ICU admission (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.31-2.05). Specifically, among patients with an unexcepted ICU admission the average probability of experiencing moderate-to-severe symptoms ranged from 6.9% (95 CI 5.8-8.3%) during the first month after surgery to 3.2% (95% CI 0.9-11.7%) at the end of the year. Among the 11,229 (67.8%) patients with multiple ESAS assessments, adjusted differences in total scores between patients with and without an unexpected ICU admission ranged from 2.0 to 5.7-points throughout the year (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: While unexpected ICU admissions are associated with a small increase in the likelihood of experiencing a moderate-to-severe symptom burden, most patients do not experience a high overall symptom burden during the year after surgery. These findings support the role of aggressive therapy among older adults after major surgery.

Geriatric assessment and treatment decision-making in surgical oncology.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Present an approach for surgical decision-making in cancer that incorporates geriatric assessment by building upon the common categories of tumor, technical, and patient factors to enable dual assessment of disease and geriatric factors. RECENT FINDINGS: Conventional preoperative assessment is insufficient for older adults missing important modifiable deficits, and inaccurately estimating treatment intolerance, complications, functional impairment and disability, and death. Including geriatric-focused assessment into routine perioperative care facilitates improved communications between clinicians and patients and among interdisciplinary teams. In addition, it facilitates the detection of geriatric-specific deficits that are amenable to treatment. We propose a framework for embedding geriatric assessment into surgical oncology practice to allow more accurate risk stratification, identify and manage geriatric deficits, support decision-making, and plan proactively for both cancer-directed and non-cancer-directed therapies. This patient-centered approach can reduce adverse outcomes such as functional decline, delirium, prolonged hospitalization, discharge to long-term care, immediate postoperative complications, and death. SUMMARY: Geriatric assessment and management has substantial benefits over conventional preoperative assessment alone. This article highlights these advantages and outlines a feasible strategy to incorporate both disease-based and geriatric-specific assessment and treatment when caring for older surgical patients with cancer.

Patient-Reported Symptom Burden After Cancer Surgery in Older Adults: A Population-Level Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Older adults have unique needs for supportive care after surgery. We examined symptom trajectories and factors associated with high symptom burden after cancer surgery in older adults. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a population-level study of patients ≥ 70 years old undergoing cancer surgery (2007-2018) using prospectively collected Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) scores. The monthly prevalence of moderate to severe symptoms (ESAS ≥ 4) for anxiety, depression, drowsiness, lack of appetite, nausea, pain, shortness of breath, tiredness, and poor wellbeing was computed over 12 months after surgery. RESULTS: Among 48,748 patients, 234,420 ESAS scores were recorded over 12 months after surgery. Moderate to severe tiredness (57.8%), poor wellbeing (51.9%), and lack of appetite (39.3%) were most common. The proportion of patients with moderate to severe symptoms was stable over the 1 month prior to and 12 months after surgery (< 5% variation for each symptom). There was no clinically significant change (< 5%) in symptom trajectory with the initiation of adjuvant therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-reported symptom burden was stable for up to 1 year after cancer surgery among older adults. Neither surgery nor adjuvant therapy coincided with a worsening in symptom burden. However, the persistence of symptoms at 1 year may suggest gaps in supportive care for older adults. This information on symptom trajectory and predictors of high symptom burden is important to set appropriate expectations and improve patient counseling, recovery care pathways, and proactive symptom management for older adults after cancer surgery.

Frailty assessment tools for use by surgeons when evaluating older adults prior to surgery: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Despite growing evidence, uncertainty persists about which frailty assessment tools are best suited for routine perioperative care. We aim to understand which frailty assessment tools perform well and are feasible to implement. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using a registered protocol following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA), we will conduct a scoping review informed by the Joanna Briggs Institute Guide for Scoping Reviews and reported using PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews recommendations. We will develop a comprehensive search strategy with information specialists using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies checklist, and implement this across relevant databases from 2005 to 13 October 2021 and updated prior to final review publication. We will include all studies evaluating a frailty assessment tool preoperatively in patients 65 years or older undergoing intracavitary, non-cardiac surgery. We will exclude tools not assessed in clinical practice, or using laboratory or radiologic values alone. After pilot testing, two reviewers will independently assess information sources for eligibility first by titles and abstracts, then by full-text review. Two reviewers will independently chart data from included full texts using a piloted standardised electronic data charting. In this scoping review process, we will (1) index frailty assessment tools evaluated in the preoperative clinical setting; (2) describe the level of investigation supporting each tool; (3) describe useability of each tool and (4) describe direct comparisons between tools. The results will inform ready application of frailty assessment tools in routine clinical practice by surgeons and other perioperative clinicians. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethic approval is not required for this secondary data analysis. This scoping review will be published in a peer-review journal. Results will be used to inform an ongoing implementation study focused on geriatric surgery to overcome the current lack of uptake of older adult-oriented care recommendations and ensure broad impact of research findings.

Functional Improvement Trajectories After Surgery (FIT After Surgery) study: protocol for a multicentre prospective cohort study to evaluate significant new disability after major surgery in older adults.

INTRODUCTION: Older adults prioritise surviving surgery, but also preservation of their functional status and quality of life. Current approaches to measure postoperative recovery, which focus on death, complications and length of hospitalisation, may miss key relevant domains. We propose that postoperative disability is an important patient-centred outcome to measure intermediate-to-long recovery after major surgery in older adults. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Functional Improvement Trajectories After Surgery (FIT After Surgery) study is a multicentre cohort study of 2000 older adults (≥65 years) having major non-cardiac surgery. Its objectives are to characterise the incidence, trajectories, risk factors and impact of new significant disability after non-cardiac surgery. Disability is assessed using WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 instrument and participants' level-of-care needs. Disability assessments occur before surgery, and at 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after surgery. The primary outcome is significantly worse WHODAS score or death at 6 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes are (1) significantly worse WHODAS score or death at 1 year after surgery, (2) increased care needs or death at 6 months after surgery and (3) increased care needs or death at 1 year after surgery. We will use multivariable logistic regression models to determine the association of preoperative characteristics and surgery type with outcomes, joint modelling to characterise longitudinal time trends in WHODAS scores over 12 months after surgery, and longitudinal latent class mixture models to identify clusters following similar trajectories of disability. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The FIT After Surgery study has received research ethics board approval at all sites. Recruitment began in December 2019 but was placed on hold in March 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Recruitment was gradually restarted in October 2020, with 1-year follow-up expected to finish in 2023. Publication of the primary results is anticipated to occur in 2024.

Self-management interventions for issues identified in a geriatric assessment: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: With the development of electronic geriatric assessment (GA), recommendations for self-management can be provided to patients without the presence of health care providers. Our research question was to identify what self-management interventions can be used by patients to address issues identified in GA and to determine their effect on patient-centered outcomes such as quality of life, health, mood, cognition, and functional status. METHODS: Searches were conducted on July 13, 2021, by a health sciences librarian in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and the Cochrane Library. A combination of database-specific subject headings and text word searches was used such as self-management, a key word for each of the geriatric assessment domains and older adults. Two independent reviewers reviewed abstracts and full texts for inclusion and abstracted data. Narrative synthesis was used to summarize findings. RESULTS: Among 28,520 abstracts reviewed, 34 randomized controlled trials were included. The most frequently studied geriatric domains were mood (n = 13 studies), mobility/falls (n = 12), quality of life (n = 11), and functional status (n = 7). The majority of studies demonstrated positive effects on mobility/falls (9 of 12), pain (3 of 5), comorbidity (4 of 4), and medication management (4 of 4). Most studies were of low to moderate quality. All geriatric domains were targeted in at least one study. CONCLUSIONS: Low- to moderate-quality studies show a variety of effective self-efficacy-targeted interventions exist for older adults to improve several important geriatric domains and related outcomes. However, long-term effects, validation, and scalability of these interventions remain largely unknown.

Apical lymphadenectomy during low ligation of the IMA during rectosigmoid resection for cancer.

BACKGROUND: Low ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery with preservation of the left colic artery may decrease the risk of colorectal anastomotic ischemia compared to high ligation at its origin. Low ligation leaves apical nodes in situ and is therefore paired with apical lymphadenectomy. We sought to compare relevant oncologic outcomes between high ligation and low ligation plus apical lymphadenectomy in rectosigmoid resection for colorectal cancer. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study. Patients receiving a rectosigmoid resection for cancer between January 2012 and July 2018 were included. Patients with metastatic disease and those who underwent low ligation without apical lymphadenectomy were excluded. Our primary outcome was nodal yield/metastasis. Secondary outcomes included perioperative complications, local recurrence, and overall survival. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients underwent high ligation and 89 low ligation plus apical lymphadenectomy (median follow-up 20 months). In the low-ligation group, a median of 2 (interquartile range = 1-3) apical nodes was resected; 4.1% were malignant, increasing pathologic stage in 25% of these patients. There were no differences in nodal yield, complications, anastomotic leak, local recurrence, or overall survival. CONCLUSION: No differences were identified between high ligation and low ligation plus apical lymphadenectomy with respect to relevant clinical outcomes. Prospective trial data are needed to robustly establish the oncologic benefit and safety of the low ligation plus apical lymphadenectomy technique.

Improving the reporting of non-inferiority trials by incorporating non-efficacy benefits: not all non-inferiority trials are created equal.

Non-inferiority trials are used to test if a novel intervention is not worse than a standard treatment by more than a prespecified amount, the non-inferiority margin (ΔNI). The ΔNI indicates the amount of efficacy loss in the primary outcome that is acceptable in exchange for non-efficacy benefits in other outcomes. However, non-inferiority designs are sometimes used when non-efficacy benefits are absent. Without non-efficacy benefits, loss in efficacy cannot be easily justified. Further, non-efficacy benefits are scarcely defined or considered by trialists when determining the magnitude of and providing justification for the non-inferiority margin. This is problematic as the importance of a treatment's non-efficacy benefits are critical to understanding the results of a non-inferiority study. Here we propose the routine reporting in non-inferiority trial protocols and publications of non-efficacy benefits of the novel intervention along with the reporting of non-inferiority margins and their justification. The justification should include the specific trade-off between the accepted loss in efficacy (ΔNI) and the non-efficacy benefits of the novel treatment and should describe whether patients and other relevant stakeholders were involved in the definition of the ΔNI.

Long-term outcomes of resection for locoregional recurrence of colon cancer: A retrospective descriptive cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Resection for isolated distant recurrence of colon cancer is well accepted. Resection for locoregionally recurrent colon cancer (LRCC) is not well studied. We evaluated the long-term outcomes of curative-intent resection for LRCC. METHODS: All patients undergoing curative-intent resection for LRCC at three specialized cancer centers affiliated with the University of Toronto were identified (1993-2017). Follow-up included serial clinical assessment, colonoscopy, CEA, and cross-sectional imaging. Overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and time to re-recurrence were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method and cumulative incidence function. The association between resection margins and outcome was assessed with Cox models. RESULTS: 117 patients were included in the study cohort. Median follow-up was 53 months (IQR: 34-101). OS was 75% (95% CI: 68-84) at 5 years, and 69% (95% CI: 59-79) at 10 years. CSS was 78% (95% CI: 70-86) at 5 years and 72% (95% CI: 63-83) at 10 years. The rate of re-recurrence was 22% (95% CI: 14-31) at 5 years, and 27% (95% CI: 16-39) at 10 years. Negative resection margin (R0) was associated with improved OS (HR 3.33, 95% CI: 1.85-6.00, p < 0.01). There were no postoperative deaths; complications with Clavien-Dindo grade > II occurred in 12% of patients. Perioperative chemotherapy was used in 63% of patients and radiotherapy in 37%. CONCLUSION: In selected patients with LRCC, excellent OS, CSS and low re-recurrence rates were observed, and R0 resection predicted better outcomes. These findings support consideration of resection for LRCC in fit patients after review at a multidisciplinary cancer conference.

All-Cause and Cancer-Specific Death of Older Adults Following Surgery for Cancer.

Importance: Cancer care has inherent complexities in older adults, including balancing risks of cancer and noncancer death. A poor understanding of cause-specific outcomes may lead to overtreatment and undertreatment. Objective: To examine all-cause and cancer-specific death throughout 5 years for older adults after cancer resection. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study was conducted in Ontario, Canada, using the administrative databases stored at ICES (formerly the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences). All adults 70 years or older who underwent resection for a new diagnosis of cancer between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2017, were included. Patients were followed up until death or censored at date of last contact of December 31, 2018. Exposures: Cancer resection. Main Outcome and Measures: Using a competing risks approach, the cumulative incidence of cancer and noncancer death was estimated and stratified by important prognostic factors. Multivariable subdistribution hazard models were fit to explore prognostic factors. Results: Of 82 037 older adults who underwent surgery (all older than 70 years; 52 119 [63.5%] female), 16 900 of 34 044 deaths (49.6%) were cancer related at a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 46 (23-80) months. At 5 years, estimated cumulative incidence of cancer death (20.7%; 95% CI, 20.4%-21.0%) exceeded noncancer death (16.5%; 95% CI, 16.2%-16.8%) among all patients. However, noncancer deaths exceeded cancer deaths starting at 3 years after surgery in breast, prostate, and melanoma skin cancers, patients older than 85 years, and those with frailty. Cancer type, advancing age, and frailty were independently associated with cause-specific death. Conclusions and Relevance: At the population level, the relative burden of cancer deaths exceeds noncancer deaths for older adults selected for surgery. No subgroup had a higher burden of noncancer death early after surgery, even in more vulnerable patients. This cause-specific overall prognosis information should be used for patient counseling, to assess patterns of over- or undertreatment in older adults with cancer at the system level, and to guide targets for system-level improvements to refine selection criteria and perioperative care pathways for older adults with cancer.

Predicting treatment toxicity in older adults with cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To provide an overview of the recent advancements in predicting toxicity associated with cancer treatment in older patients. RECENT FINDINGS: Various screening tools and validated risk calculators have been shown to help predict toxicity from surgery and chemotherapy. Radiation therapy has been more challenging to select the appropriate tool to reliably predict patients at risk for toxicity and noncompliance. Ongoing work on electronic geriatric assessment tools is showing promise in making comprehensive assessment more feasible. SUMMARY: Selecting appropriate cancer therapy is particularly important in older patients, and validated tools have been developed to guide clinicians for surgery and chemotherapy; however, radiotherapy toxicity remains an area for further development, as does the uptake of existing tools into routine oncology practice.