Neoadjuvant treatment of colorectal cancer: comprehensive review.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant therapy has an established role in the treatment of patients with colorectal cancer. However, its role continues to evolve due to both advances in the available treatment modalities, and refinements in the indications for neoadjuvant treatment and subsequent surgery. METHODS: A narrative review of the most recent relevant literature was conducted. RESULTS: Short-course radiotherapy and long-course chemoradiotherapy have an established role in improving local but not systemic disease control in patients with rectal cancer. Total neoadjuvant therapy offers advantages over short-course radiotherapy and long-course chemoradiotherapy, not only in terms of increased local response but also in reducing the risk of systemic relapses. Non-operative management is increasingly preferred to surgery in patients with rectal cancer and clinical complete responses but is still associated with some negative impacts on functional outcomes. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be of some benefit in patients with locally advanced colon cancer with proficient mismatch repair, although patient selection is a major challenge. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy in patients with deficient mismatch repair cancers in the colon or rectum is altering the treatment paradigm for these patients. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant treatments for patients with colon or rectal cancers continue to evolve, increasing the complexity of decision-making for patients and clinicians alike. This review describes the current guidance and most recent developments.

Protocolized care pathways in emergency general surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with significant postoperative morbidity and mortality. The delivery of standardized pathways in this setting may have the potential to transform clinical care and improve patient outcomes. METHODS: The OVID SP versions of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched between January 1950 and October 2022. All randomized and non-randomized cohort studies comparing protocolized care streams with standard care protocols in adult patients (>18 years old) undergoing major emergency abdominal surgery with 30-day follow-up data were included. Studies were excluded if they reported on standardized care protocols in the trauma or elective setting. Outcomes assessed included length of stay, 30-day postoperative morbidity, 30-day postoperative mortality and 30-day readmission and reoperations rates. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies and RoB-2 for randomized controlled trials. Meta-analysis was performed using random effects modelling. RESULTS: Seventeen studies including 20 927 patients were identified, with 12 359 patients undergoing protocolized care pathways and 8568 patients undergoing standard care pathways. Thirteen unique protocolized pathways were identified, with a median of eight components (range 6-15), with compliance of 24-100%. Protocolized care pathways were associated with a shorter hospital stay compared to standard care pathways (mean difference -2.47, 95% c.i. -4.01 to -0.93, P = 0.002). Protocolized care pathways had no impact on postoperative mortality (OR 0.87, 95% c.i. 0.41 to 1.87, P = 0.72). A reduction in specific postoperative complications was observed, including postoperative pneumonia (OR 0.42 95% c.i. 0.24 to 0.73, P = 0.002) and surgical site infection (OR 0.34, 95% c.i. 0.21 to 0.55, P < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Protocolized care pathways in the emergency setting currently lack standardization, with variable components and low compliance; however, despite this they are associated with short-term clinical benefits.

Using healthcare systems data for outcomes in clinical trials: issues to consider at the design stage.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare system data (HSD) are increasingly used in clinical trials, augmenting or replacing traditional methods of collecting outcome data. This study, PRIMORANT, set out to identify, in the UK context, issues to be considered before the decision to use HSD for outcome data in a clinical trial is finalised, a methodological question prioritised by the clinical trials community. METHODS: The PRIMORANT study had three phases. First, an initial workshop was held to scope the issues faced by trialists when considering whether to use HSDs for trial outcomes. Second, a consultation exercise was undertaken with clinical trials unit (CTU) staff, trialists, methodologists, clinicians, funding panels and data providers. Third, a final discussion workshop was held, at which the results of the consultation were fed back, case studies presented, and issues considered in small breakout groups. RESULTS: Key topics included in the consultation process were the validity of outcome data, timeliness of data capture, internal pilots, data-sharing, practical issues, and decision-making. A majority of consultation respondents (n = 78, 95%) considered the development of guidance for trialists to be feasible. Guidance was developed following the discussion workshop, for the five broad areas of terminology, feasibility, internal pilots, onward data sharing, and data archiving. CONCLUSIONS: We provide guidance to inform decisions about whether or not to use HSDs for outcomes, and if so, to assist trialists in working with registries and other HSD providers to improve the design and delivery of trials.

IDEAL Stage 2a/b prospective cohort study of transanal transection and single-stapled anastomosis for rectal cancer.

AIM: There are several anastomotic techniques available to facilitate restorative rectal cancer surgery after total mesorectal excision (TME), including double-stapled anastomosis (DST) and handsewn coloanal anastomosis (CAA). However, to date no one technique is superior with regard to anastomotic leakage (AL) or functional outcomes. Transanal transection single-stapled anastomosis (TTSS) aims to overcome some of the technical challenges and offer comparable clinical and functional outcomes to traditional anastomotic techniques. The aim of this study was to explore the role of TTSS in modern rectal cancer surgery and to provide comparative clinical and functional outcome data with DST and CAA. METHOD: A prospective cohort study was undertaken to assess the safety and clinical and patient-reported outcomes associated with the TTSS procedure. All patients undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer with an anastomosis performed within 6 cm of the anal verge between January 2016 and April 2021 were prospectively enrolled into this study. Clinical and patient-reported outcome data, including low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) assessment, were collected. The primary endpoint was anastomotic leakage within 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 275 patients participated in this study, with 70 (25%) patients undergoing a TTSS, 110 (40%) undergoing a DST and 95 (35%) undergoing a CAA. Patients undergoing a CAA had more distal tumours than those having a TTSS or DST, with a median tumour height of 5, 7 and 9 cm (p < 0.001), respectively. We observed a statistically significant reduction in AL in the TTSS group compared with the DST group, with rates of 8.6% versus 20.9% (p = 0.028). There was no difference in LARS scores between patients undergoing TTSS and DST (p = 0.228), while patients with a CAA had worse LARS scores than TTSS patients (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: TTSS is a technically safe and feasible anastomotic technique in rectal cancer surgery as an alternative to DST and CAA. Its advantages over DST are a reduced AL rate and, over CAA, improved function. It should therefore be considered as an alternative technique to improve clinical and patient-reported outcomes in restorative rectal cancer surgery.

Evaluation of an established colorectal robotic programme at an NHS district general hospital: audit of outcomes and systematic review of published data.

INTRODUCTION: Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) offers potential advantages over traditional surgical approaches. This study aimed to assess outcomes from a district general hospital (DGH) robotic colorectal programme against published data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The robotic programme was established following simulator, dry/wet lab training, and proctoring. We performed a case series analysing technical, patient, and oncological outcomes extracted from a prospective database of colorectal RAS cases (2015-2022). A registered systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42022300773; PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE) of single-centre colorectal series from established robotic centres (n>200 cases) was completed and compared to local data using descriptive summary statistics. Risk of bias assessment was performed using an adapted version of the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-two RAS cases were performed including 122 anterior resections, 56 APERs, 19 rectopexies, and 15 Hartmann's procedures. The median duration was 325 (IQR 265-400) min. Blood loss was < 100 ml in 97% of cases with 2 (0.9%) cases converted to open. Complications (Clavien-Dindo 3-5) occurred in 19 (8%) patients, with 3 (1.3%) deaths in < 30 days. Length of stay was 7 (IQR 5-11) days. In 169 rectal cancer cases, there were 9 (5.3%) cases with a positive circumferential or distal margin and lymph node yield of 17 (IQR 13-24). A systematic review of 1648 abstracts identified 13 studies from established robotic centres, totaling 4930 cases, with technical, patient, and oncological outcomes comparable to our own case series. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes from our robotic colorectal programme at a UK DGH are comparable with the largest published case series from world-renowned centres. Training and proctoring together with rolling audit must accompany the expansion of robotic surgery to safeguard outcomes.

Formation of a conceptual framework during the development of a patient-reported outcome measure for early gastrointestinal recovery: phase I of the PRO-diGi study.

AIM: Patients admitted to hospital for abdominal surgery often experience gastrointestinal dysfunction. Many studies have reported outcomes following gastrointestinal dysfunction, yet there is no unified definition of recovery or a validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM). The first stage of PROM development requires formation of a conceptual framework to identify key themes to patients. The aim of this study was to utilize semistructured interviews to identify core themes and concepts relevant to patients to facilitate development of a conceptual framework. METHOD: Adult patients admitted to hospital for major gastrointestinal, urological or gynaecological surgery, in an emergency or elective setting, were eligible to participate. Patients treated nonoperatively for small bowel obstruction were also eligible. Interviews were conducted by telephone, audio-recorded, transcribed, coded and analysed using NVivo software by two researchers and reviewed by lay members of the steering group. Interviews continued until data saturation was reached. Ethical approval was gained prior to interviews (21/WA/0231). RESULTS: Twenty nine interviews were completed (17 men, median age 64 years) across three specialties (20 gastrointestinal, six gynaecological, three urological). Two overarching themes of 'general recovery' and 'gastrointestinal symptoms' were identified. General recovery included three themes: 'life impact', 'mental impact', including anxiety, and 'physical impact', including fatigue. Gastrointestinal symptoms included three themes: 'abdominal symptoms' such as pain, 'diet and appetite' and 'expulsory function', such as stool frequency. A total of 18 gastrointestinal symptoms were identified during patient recovery-many of which lasted several weeks following discharge. CONCLUSION: This study reports a range of gastrointestinal and nongastrointestinal symptoms experienced by patients during early gastrointestinal recovery. Identified symptoms have been synthesized into a conceptual framework to enable development of a definitive PROM for early gastrointestinal recovery.

Patient and multidisciplinary team perspectives on watch and wait in rectal cancer.

This article adopts a multidisciplinary approach, including surgery, oncology, radiology and patient perspectives, to discuss the key points of debate surrounding a watch and wait approach. In an era of shared decision-making, discussion of watch and wait as an option in the context of complete clinical response is appropriate, although it is not the gold standard treatment. Key challenges are the difficulty in assessing for a complete clinical response, prediction of recurrence and access to timely diagnostics for surveillance. Salvage surgery has good results if regrowth is detected early but does have imperfect outcomes, with only a 90% salvage rate. Good communication with patients about the risks and alternatives is essential. Patients undergoing watch and wait should ideally be enrolled in prospective registries or clinical trials.

Bridging that gap: a qualitative study of perceptions of equality, diversity and inclusivity in colorectal surgery in the UK and Ireland.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing recognition on the importance of equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) within surgery and the need to diversify the surgical community and its various organisations, in a bidto reflect the diverse populations they serve. To create, sustain and encourage a diverse surgical workforce requires an in-depth understanding of the current makeup of key surgical institutions, relevant issues pertaining to EDI and appropriate solutions and strategies to ensure tangible change. OBJECTIVES: Following on from the recent Kennedy Review into Diversity and Inclusion commissioned by the Royal College of Surgeons of England, the aim of this qualitative study was to understand the EDI issues which affected the membership of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, while seeking appropriate solutions to address them. DESIGN: Dedicated, online and qualitative focus groups. PARTICIPANTS: Colorectal surgeons, trainees and nurse specialists were recruited using a volunteer sampling strategy. METHODS: A series of online, dedicated, qualitative focus groups across the 20 chapter regions were held. Each focus group was run informed by a structured topic guide. All participants who were given the opportunity to remain anonymous were offered a debriefing at the end. This study has been reported in keeping with the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research. RESULTS: Between April and May 2021, a total number of 20 focus groups were conducted, with a total of 260 participants across 19 chapter regions. Seven themes and one standalone code pertaining to EDI were identified: support, unconscious behaviours, psychological consequences, bystander behaviour, preconceptions, inclusivity and meritocracy and the one standalone code was institutional accountability. Five themes were identified pertaining to potential strategies and solutions: education, affirmative action, transparency, professional support and mentorship. CONCLUSION: The evidence presented here is of a range of EDI issues which affect the working lives of those within colorectal surgery in the UK and Ireland, and of potential strategies and solutions which can help build a more inclusive, equitable and diverse colorectal community.

Development and validation of a patient reported outcome measure for health-related quality of life for locally recurrent rectal cancer: a multicentre, three-phase, mixed-methods, cohort study.

Background: Locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) occurs in 5-10% of patients following previous treatment of rectal cancer. It has a significant impact on patients' overall health-related quality of life (HrQoL). Major advances in surgical treatments have led to improved survival outcomes. However, due to the lack of disease-specific, validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), HrQoL, is variably assessed. The aim of this study is to develop a disease-specific, psychometrically robust, and validated PROM for use in LRRC. Methods: A multicentre, three phase, mixed-methods, observational study was performed across five centres in the UK and Australia. Adult patients (>18 years old) with an existing or previously treated LRRC within the last 2 years were eligible to participate. Patients completed the proposed LRRC-QoL, EORTC QLQ-CR29, and FACT-C questionnaires. Scale structure was analysed using multi-trait scaling analysis and exploratory factor analysis, reliability was assessed using Cronbach's and the intra-class coefficient, convergent validity was assessed using Pearson's correlation, and known-groups comparison was assessed using the student t-test or ANOVA. Findings: Between 01/03/2015 and 31/12/2019, 117 patients with a diagnosis of LRRC were recruited. The final scale structure of the LRRC-QoL consisted of nine multi-item scales (healthcare services, psychological impact, pain, urostomy-related symptoms, lower limb symptoms, stoma, sexual function, sexual interest, and urinary symptoms) and three single items. Cronbach's Alpha and Intraclass correlation values of >0.7 across the majority of scales supported overall reliability. Convergent validity was demonstrated between LRRC-QoL Pain Scale and FACT-C Physical Well Being scale (r = 0.528, p < 0.001), LRRC-QoL Psychological Impact scale with EORTC QLQ CR29 Body Image (r = 0.680, p < 0.001) and the FACT-C Emotional Well Being scale (r = 0.326, p < 0.001), and LRRC-QoL Urinary Symptoms scale with EORTC QLQ-CR29 Urinary Frequency scale (r = 0.310, p < 0.001). Known-groups validity was demonstrated for gender, disease location, treatment intent, and re-recurrent disease. Interpretation: The LRRC-QoL has demonstrated robust psychometric properties and can be used in clinical and academic practice. Funding: None.

Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The availability of high-quality patient-reported outcome (PRO) data is crucial to guiding shared decision-making in the context of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC), where potential treatment benefits must be balanced against the impact of both the disease and treatment on PROs, such as quality of life. This review aimed to identify the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) currently being reported in LRRC and to appraise the methodological quality of studies using these measures. METHODS: PubMed, Embase and CINAHL databases were searched, including studies published up until 14th September 2022. Studies in adults with LRRC reporting PROMS as a primary or secondary outcome measure were included. Data were extracted concerning the methodological quality of the reporting of PROMs using criteria informed by the CONSORT-PRO checklist and the psychometric properties of the PROMs identified using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies including 1914 patients with LRRC were identified. None of the studies included in the review met all eleven criteria for the quality of reporting of PROMs. Seventeen PROMs and two clinician-reported outcome measures were identified, none of which have been validated for use in patients with LRRC. CONCLUSIONS: None of the PROMs which are currently being used to report PROs in LRRC have been validated for use in this cohort of patients. Future studies in this disease area should focus on utilising PROMs that have undergone a robust development process including patients with LRRC, to produce data which is high quality, accurate and relevant.

Short-term outcomes of health-related quality of life in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer: multicentre, international, cross-sectional cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Overall survival rates for locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) continue to improve but the evidence concerning health-related quality of life (HrQoL) remains limited. The aim of this study was to describe the short-term HrQoL differences between patients undergoing surgical and palliative treatments for LRRC. METHODS: An international, cross-sectional, observational study was undertaken at five centres across the UK and Australia. HrQoL in LRRC patients was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-CR29 and functional assessment of cancer therapy - colorectal (FACT-C) questionnaires and subgroups (curative versus palliative) were compared. Secondary analyses included the comparison of HrQoL according to the margin status, location of disease and type of treatment. Scores were interpreted using minimal clinically important differences (MCID) and Cohen effect size (ES). RESULTS: Out of 350 eligible patients, a total of 95 patients participated, 74.0 (78.0 per cent) treated with curative intent and 21.0 (22.0 per cent) with palliative intent. Median time between LRRC diagnosis and HrQoL assessments was 4 months. Higher overall FACT-C scores denoting better HrQoL were observed in patients undergoing curative treatment, demonstrating a MCID with a mean difference of 18.5 (P < 0.001) and an ES of 0.6. Patients undergoing surgery had higher scores denoting a higher burden of symptoms for the EORTC CR29 domains of urinary frequency (P < 0.001, ES 0.3) and frequency of defaecation (P < 0.001, ES 0.4). Higher overall FACT-C scores were observed in patients who underwent an R0 resection versus an R1 resection (P = 0.051, ES 0.6). EORTC CR29 scores identified worse body image in patients with posterior/central disease (P = 0.021). Patients undergoing palliative chemoradiation reported worse HrQoL scores with a higher symptom burden on the frequency of defaecation scale compared with palliative chemotherapy (P = 0.041). CONCLUSION: Several differences in short-term HrQoL outcomes between patients undergoing curative and palliative treatment for LRRC were documented. Patients undergoing curative surgery reported better overall HrQoL and a higher burden of pelvic symptoms.

Utilising an accelerated Delphi process to develop consensus on the requirement and components of a pre-procedural core robotic surgery curriculum.

Robot-assisted surgery (RAS) continues to grow globally. Despite this, in the UK and Ireland, it is estimated that over 70% of surgical trainees across all specialities have no access to robot-assisted surgical training (RAST). This study aimed to provide educational stakeholders guidance on a pre-procedural core robotic surgery curriculum (PPCRC) from the perspective of the end user; the surgical trainee. The study was conducted in four Phases: P1: a steering group was formed to review current literature and summarise the evidence, P2: Pan-Specialty Trainee Panel Virtual Classroom Discussion, P3: Accelerated Delphi Process and P4: Formulation of Recommendations. Forty-three surgeons in training representing all surgical specialties and training levels contributed to the three round Delphi process. Additions to the second- and third-round surveys were formulated based on the answers and comments from previous rounds. Consensus opinion was defined as ≥ 80% agreement. There was 100% response from all three rounds. The resulting formulated guidance showed good internal consistency, with a Cronbach alpha of > 0.8. There was 97.7% agreement that a standardised PPCRC would be advantageous to training and that, independent of speciality, there should be a common approach (95.5% agreement). Consensus was reached in multiple areas: 1. Experience and Exposure, 2. Access and context, 3. Curriculum Components, 4 Target Groups and Delivery, 5. Objective Metrics, Benchmarking and Assessment. Using the Delphi methodology, we achieved multispecialty consensus among trainees to develop and reach content validation for the requirements and components of a PPCRC. This guidance will benefit from further validation following implementation.

Parallel, component training in robotic total mesorectal excision.

There has been widespread adoption of robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer in recent years. There is now increasing interest in training robotic novice surgeons in robotic TME surgery using the principles of component-based learning. The aims of our study were to assess the feasibility of delivering a structured, parallel, component-based, training curriculum to surgical trainees and fellows. A prospective pilot study was undertaken between January 2021 and May 2021. A dedicated robotic training pathway was designed with two trainees trained in parallel per each robotic case based on prior experience, training grade and skill set. Component parts of each operation were allocated by the robotic trainer prior to the start of each case. Robotic proficiency was assessed using the Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS) and the EARCS Global Assessment Score (GAS). Three trainees participated in this pilot study, performing a combined number of 52 TME resections. Key components of all 52 TME operations were performed by the trainees. GEARS scores improved throughout the study, with a mean overall baseline score of 17.3 (95% CI 15.1-1.4) compared to an overall final assessment mean score of 23.8 (95% CI 21.6-25.9), p = 0.003. The GAS component improved incrementally for all trainees at each candidate assessment (p < 0.001). Employing a parallel, component-based approach to training in robotic TME surgery is safe and feasible and can be used to train multiple trainees of differing grades simultaneously, whilst maintaining high-quality clinical outcomes.

The current status of robotic colorectal surgery training programmes.

Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) is steadily increasing in popularity with an annual growth in the number of colorectal procedures undertaken robotically. Further upscaling of RACS requires structured and standardised robotic training to safeguard high-quality clinical outcomes. The aims of this systematic review were to assess the structure and assessment metrics of currently established RACS training programmes. A systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines was performed. Searches were performed of the Ovid Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases between 2000 and 27th November 2021 to identify studies reporting on training curricula in RACS. Core components of training programmes and their relevant outcome assessment metrics were extracted. Thirteen studies were identified, with all training programmes designed for the da Vinci platform (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Common elements of multimodal programmes included theoretical knowledge (76.9%), case observation (53.8%), simulation (100%) and proctored training (76.9%). Robotic skills acquisition was assessed primarily during the simulation phase (n = 4, 30.1%) and proctoring phase (n = 10, 76.9%). Performance metrics, consisting of time or assessment scores for VR simulation were only mandated in four (30.1%) studies. Objective assessment following proctored training was variably reported and employed a range of assessment metrics, including direct feedback (n = 3, 23.1%) or video feedback (n = 8, 61.5%). Five (38.4%) training programmes used the Global Assessment Score (GAS) forms. There is a broad consensus on the core multimodal components across current RACS training programmes; however, validated objective assessment is limited and needs to be appropriately standardised to ensure reproducible progression criteria and competency-based metrics are produced to robustly assess progression and competence.

Recruiting to surgical trials in the emergency setting: using a mixed methods study to understand clinician and patient perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Undertaking randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in emergency surgical settings is associated with methodological and practical challenges. This study explored patients' and clinicians' perspectives associated with the conduct of an RCT comparing laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery in the acute setting. METHODS: All eligible patients screened and enrolled for the 'Laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery in the acute setting (LaCeS)' multicentre, randomized clinical feasibility trial in five UK NHS Trusts were invited to respond to a survey. Patients and healthcare professionals were also invited to take part in semi-structured interviews. Survey and interviews explored the acceptability of the feasibility trial. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using thematic analysis. Survey data were analysed descriptively to assess patient views of the trial and intervention. RESULTS: Out of 72 patients enrolled for the LaCeS RCT, survey data were collected from 28 patients (38.9 per cent), and interviews were conducted with 16 patients and 14 healthcare professionals. Thirteen out of 28 patients (46 per cent) had treatment preferences but these were not strong enough to deter participation. Twelve of the patients interviewed believed that their surgeon preferred laparoscopic surgery, but this did not deter them from participating in the trial. Half of the surgeons interviewed expressed the view that laparoscopic surgery was of benefit in this setting, but recognized that the need for research evidence outweighed their personal treatment preferences. Eight of the 14 recruiters reported that the emergency setting affected recruitment, especially in centres with fewer recruiting surgeons. Interviewees reported that recruitment was helped significantly by using surgical trainees to consent patients. CONCLUSION: This study identified specific challenges for the LaCeS trial design to address and adds significant insights to our understanding of recruiting to emergency surgical trials more broadly.

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.

Designing and evaluating a patient decision aid for patients with locally advanced or locally recurrent rectal cancer: a national multicentre mixed methods study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 5%-10% of new rectal cancers are locally advanced (locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC)) at presentation with 4%-8% recurring (locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC)) after initial treatment. Patients with potentially curable disease have to consider many trade-offs when considering major exenterative surgery. There are no decision tools for these patients and current resources have found to not meet minimum international standards. The overall aim of this study is to produce a validated patient decision aid (PtDA) to assist patients considering radical pelvic exenteration for LARC and LRRC created in line with international minimum standards. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a national, multicentre mixed methods project and has been designed in keeping with guidance from the International Patient Decision Aids Standard.This study is in four stages. In stage 1, we will develop the PtDA and its content using agile developmental methodology. In stage 2, we will assess the content and face validity of the PtDA using mixed-methods with key stakeholders. In stage 3, we will assess the feasibility and efficacy of the PtDA. In stage 4, we will establish the barriers and facilitators to the use of a PtDA in the outpatient setting. Questionnaires including the QQ-10, EORTC PATSAT-C33, Preparation for Decision-Making Scale and the NoMAD survey will be analysed during the study. Interviews will be analysed using thematic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics approval from North of Scotland Research Ethics Service 19/NS/0056 (IRAS 257890) has been granted. Results will be published in open access peer-reviewed journals, presented in conferences and distributed through bowel research UK charity. External endorsement will be sought from the International Patient Decision Standards Collaboration inventory of PtDAs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019122933.