Compliance with the 62-day target does not improve long-term survival.

AIMS: Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) guidelines require patients with colorectal cancer to wait no longer than 62 days from first referral to initiation of definitive treatment. We previously demonstrated that failure to meet with these guidelines did not appear to lead to poor outcomes in the short term. This study investigates whether this holds true over a longer period. METHODS: The survival status of 1,012 patients treated for colorectal cancer between January 1999 and June 2005 was reviewed. As in the previous audit, patients were placed into four groups, standard met (elective), standard met (emergency), standard failed (elective) and standard failed (emergency). Parameters analysed were pathological staging, 30-day mortality, long-term survival and cause of death. Data was analysed using log rank and chi-squared tests. RESULTS: Operative mortality was higher in patients meeting the standard (7% elective, 20% emergency) compared to those who did not meet the standard (4% elective, 7% emergency). The proportion of early stage disease (Dukes' A and B) was highest in elective patients who failed the standard (50%) and lowest in emergencies meeting the standard (30%). Long-term survival was greatest in elective patients who failed the standard with 52% alive in October 2011 compared to 34% of elective cases meeting the standard. The most common cause of recorded death was colorectal cancer in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who were not treated within the time frame set by the SIGN guidelines survived for longer following surgery. Reasons for this are likely to be multifactorial and include pathological cancer stage.

Colorectal cancer in the elderly and the influence of lead time bias: better survival does not equate with improved life expectancy.

AIMS: Poorer outcomes in those aged ≥80 years who undergo colorectal cancer surgery have been previously reported. Little is known about the natural history of those managed non-operatively. We explored outcomes in all patients with colorectal cancer aged ≥80 years at time of diagnosis based on treatment received. METHODS: Patients ≥80 years diagnosed with colorectal cancer in one hospital trust between 1998 and 2011 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Primary endpoints were age at diagnosis, age at death/censor and mortality at 30, 90 and 365 days. RESULTS: Six hundred sixty-eight patients were identified. Four hundred twelve (61.7%) underwent surgery, 44 (6.6%) received endoscopic therapy and 212 (31.7%) had no active treatment. Of those who underwent surgery, 359 (87.1%) had resectional surgery, 34 (8.3%) defunctioning only, 13 (3.2%) received bypass surgery and 6 (1.5%) had an open and close laparotomy. The mean age at diagnosis was younger in those who underwent surgical resection (83.7 years) compared to those having defunctioning surgery (84.9 years, P = 0.043), endoscopic therapy (85.1 years, P = 0.008) or no surgical intervention (85.6 years, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the mean age of death or censor between groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in age at death or censor between treatment groups among patients aged ≥80 years presenting with colorectal cancer, suggesting that differences in the observed survival time are heavily influenced by lead time bias. Age at death or censor should be reported in addition to survival times in this age group to enable fair comparison of outcomes.