The association between referral source and outcome in patients with colorectal cancer

Association of time to resection with survival in patients with colon cancer

PURPOSE

Colon cancer (CC) remains a leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, for which colectomy represents the standard of care. Yet, the impact of delayed resection on survival outcomes remains controversial. We assessed the association between time to surgery and 10-year survival in a national cohort of CC patients.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study identified all adults who underwent colectomy for Stage I-III CC in the 2004-2020 National Cancer Database. Those who required neoadjuvant therapy or emergent resection < 7 days from diagnosis were excluded. Patients were classified into Early (< 25 days) and Delayed (≥ 25 days) cohorts after an adjusted analysis of the relationship between time to surgery and 10-year survival. Survival at 1-, 5-, and 10-years was assessed via Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox proportional hazard modeling, adjusting for age, sex, race, income quartile, insurance coverage, Charlson-Deyo comorbidity index, disease stage, location of tumor, receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, as well as hospital type, location, and case volume.

RESULTS

Of 165,991 patients, 84,665 (51%) were classified as Early and 81,326 (49%) Delayed. Following risk adjustment, Delayed resection was associated with similar 1-year [hazard ratio (HR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97-1.04, P = 0.72], but inferior 5- (HR 1.24, CI 1.22-1.26; P < 0.001) and 10-year survival (HR 1.22, CI 1.20-1.23; P < 0.001). Black race [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.36, CI 1.31-1.41; P < 0.001], Medicaid insurance coverage (AOR 1.34, CI 1.26-1.42; P < 0.001), and care at high-volume hospitals (AOR 1.12, 95%CI 1.08-1.17; P < 0.001) were linked with greater likelihood of Delayed resection.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with CC who underwent resection ≥ 25 days following diagnosis demonstrated similar 1-year, but inferior 5- and 10-year survival, compared to those who underwent surgery within 25 days. Socioeconomic factors, including race and Medicaid insurance, were linked with greater odds of delayed resection. Efforts to balance appropriate preoperative evaluation with expedited resection are needed to optimize patient outcomes.

Evaluation of treatment delays in hepatopancreatico-biliary surgery during the first COVID-19 wave

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused oncological services worldwide to face unprecedented challenges resulting in treatment disruption for surgical patients. Hepatopancreatico-biliary (HPB) cancers are characterised by rapid disease progression. This study aims to assess delays in receiving surgery for this patient cohort during the first COVID-19 wave.

METHODS

Patients undergoing surgery between April and July 2020 (COVID-19 period) were compared with a control group from the preceding year. Delay in receiving surgery was defined as more than 50 days between referral and surgery date. Statistical analysis was carried out to evaluate predictors of delay and short-term outcomes.

RESULTS

During the COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 periods, 94 and 115 patients underwent surgery, respectively. No patients contracted COVID-19 postoperatively. Some 118 patients waited more than 50 days for surgery versus 91 who received surgery within 50 days from referral. Independent predictors for surgical delay were undergoing surgery in the COVID-19 era (odds ratio (OR) 2.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-4.1; p=0.015), referral pathway (OR 35.1, 95% CI 4.2-296; p=0.001) and presenting pathology (OR 8.3, 95% CI 1.2-56.1; p=0.03). Short-term outcomes were comparable between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient referral pathway and presenting pathology may contribute to delays in undergoing HPB cancer surgery during COVID-19 outbreaks. It is hoped that a better understanding of these factors will aid in designing shifts in healthcare policy during future pandemic outbreaks.

Outcome of Operated Colorectal Cancers in Relation to the Type of Initial Referral

Aim

Since the introduction of the target referral system, there has been controversy about its value and whether it affected the short- and long-term outcomes of colorectal cancer surgeries. With contradicting results, this study highlights differences in personal and tumour characteristics, management differences, and outcomes in each referral pathway, including target pathway referrals for suspected cancers, emergency presentations, routine referrals, and incidentally discovered cancers during screening.

Methods

A retrospective study of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients operated on between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2014, with records dating to the end of the five-year follow-up, was extracted anonymously from the database of CRC outcomes at the North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust, London. The total number of patients operated on through the four pathways was 176, with full records and competent follow-ups. Patients were classified according to the mode of referral: two-week wait (2WW or target), routine, emergency, and incidental discovery referrals. Comparisons were made between these groups with regard to personal and tumour characteristics, management, and outcome.

Results

It has been demonstrated by this study that target referrals present mainly with stage I cancers as compared to emergency referrals that present with more stage II (IIa+ IIb+ IIc). The highest percentage of cancer locations within the large bowel was rectal, followed by sigmoid in both target and emergency groups; 8.8% of target patients needed neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in the form of FOLFOX (folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) chemotherapy protocol with the addition of radiotherapy in patients with advanced rectal cancers, compared to 13.3% of emergency patients.

Conclusion

The colorectal 2WW system was the main pathway supplying colorectal cancer operations; it mostly showed earlier cancers than the other referral groups; its cancers were mostly rectosigmoid with less need for adjuvant chemotherapy; fewer recurrences; and it also showed a lower five-year mortality rate than the emergency group.

Determinants of emergency presentation in patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Colorectal cancer remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, even despite curative treatment. A significant proportion of patients present emergently and have poorer outcomes compared to elective presentations, independent of TNM stage. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, differences between elective/emergency presentations of colorectal cancer were examined to determine which factors were associated with emergency presentation. A literature search was carried out from 1990 to 2018 comparing elective and emergency presentations of colon and/or rectal cancer. All reported clinicopathological variables were extracted from identified studies. Variables were analysed through either systematic review or, if appropriate, meta-analysis. This study identified multiple differences between elective and emergency presentations of colorectal cancer. On meta-analysis, emergency presentations were associated with more advanced tumour stage, both overall (OR 2.05) and T/N/M/ subclassification (OR 2.56/1.59/1.75), more: lymphovascular invasion (OR 1.76), vascular invasion (OR 1.92), perineural invasion (OR 1.89), and ASA (OR 1.83). Emergencies were more likely to be of ethnic minority (OR 1.58). There are multiple tumour/host factors that differ between elective and emergency presentations of colorectal cancer. Further work is required to determine which of these factors are independently associated with emergency presentation and subsequently which factors have the most significant effect on outcomes.

Systematic review with meta-analysis of over 90 000 patients. Does fast-track review diagnose colorectal cancer earlier?

BACKGROUND

National UK data on colorectal cancer (CRC) stage at diagnosis is incomplete. Site-specific fast-track (2-week wait) cancer data are not collected directly by NHS England. Policy making based on these data alone can lead to inaccuracy.

AIMS

To review available data on key outcomes (cancer conversion rate and stage at diagnosis) for the UK's lower gastrointestinal 2-week wait pathway.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted between 2000 and 2017. Primary outcomes were cancer conversion rate and cancer stage at diagnosis. Results were expressed as proportions with 95% CIs. A random effects model was used for meta-analysis; heterogeneity was assessed by I² .

RESULTS

Of 95 papers reviewed, 49 were included in analysis with a total study population of 93,655. Cancer conversion rate was 7.7% (95% CI: 6.9-8.5). The proportion presenting at Dukes A = 11.2% (95% CI 7.4-15.6), B = 36.7% (95% CI 30.8-42.8), C = 35.7% (95% CI: 30.8-40.8) and D = 11.1% (95% CI 7.3-15.5). No colonic pathology was diagnosed in 54.6% (95% CI: 46.2-62.8).

CONCLUSIONS

Only 7.7% of patients referred by the 2-week wait pathway were found to have CRC. No beneficial effect on stage at diagnosis was found compared to non-2-week wait referral pathways. Over half of patients had no colonic pathology and detection of adenomas was very low. These results should prompt a reconsideration of the benefits of the 2-week wait pathway in CRC diagnosis and outcomes, with more focus on strategies to improve patient selection.

Impact of ‘two-week wait’ referral pathway on the diagnosis, treatment and survival in upper and lower gastrointestinal cancers

Background

The ‘two-week wait’(2WW) referral pathway was introduced in the United Kingdom to reduce waiting times for treatment of cancer. There has been a debate regarding the efficacy of 2WW pathway since its implementation.

Methods

A singleinstitutional analysis of upper gastrointestinal(UGI) and lower gastrointestinal(LGI) malignancies treated between 1April 2015 and 31March 2017 was undertaken to analyse the impact of 2WWreferral pathway on the diagnosis, treatment and survival.

Results

2WW referral does not achieve an earlier diagnosis compared with non-2WW routes of referral in UGI (χ2(3)=2.6, p=0.458) and LGI (χ2(3)=0.884, p=0.829) malignancies. 2WW referral does not lead to an improvement in curative treatment in UGI (OR1.48, 95%CI0.68to3.21, p=0.321) and LGI (OR1.59, 95%CI0.97to2.62, p=0.067) malignancies. No improvement in survival is seen in UGI (HR0.99, 95%CI0.56to1.75, p=0.963) and LGI (HR1.10, 95%CI0.60to1.99, p=0.764) malignancies by virtue of 2WW referral. Emergency presentation is the most common presenting route in UGI malignancy(40%) and is associated with poor survival (HR0.55, 95%CI0.30to0.97, p=0.045).Non-emergency route of presentation is associated with higher rates of curative treatment in UGI malignancies (OR3.49, 95%CI1.57to7.76, p=0.002). Lower rate of curative treatment (OR 0.27, 95%CI0.16to0.43, p<0.001) and poor survival (HR0.44, 95%CI0.26to0.76, p=0.003) is also observed in emergency presentation of LGI malignancy(29%) which is the secondmost common route of presentation in this group.

Conclusion

2WW referral does not achieve early diagnosis nor does it lead to an improvement in the rate of curative treatment in UGI and LGI malignancies. No improvement in short-term survival is seen in UGI malignancies nor in LGI malignancies on multivariate analysis by virtue of 2WW referral.

Prognostic consequences of implementing cancer patient pathways in Denmark: a comparative cohort study of symptomatic cancer patients in primary care

BACKGROUND

Cancer Patient Pathways (CPPs) were introduced in 2000-2015 in several European countries, including Denmark, to reduce the time to diagnosis and treatment initiation and ultimately improve patient survival. Yet, the prognostic consequences of implementing CPPs remain unknown for symptomatic cancer patients diagnosed through primary care. We aimed to compare survival and mortality among symptomatic patients diagnosed through a primary care route before, during and after the CPP implementation in Denmark.

METHODS

Based on data from the Danish Cancer in Primary Care (CaP) Cohort, we compared one- and three-year standardised relative survival (RS) and excess hazard ratios (EHRs) before, during and after CPP implementation for seven types of cancer and all combined (n = 7725) by using life-table estimation and Poisson regression. RS estimates were standardised according to the International Cancer Survival Standard (ICSS) weights. In addition, we compared RS and EHRs for CPP and non-CPP referred patients to consider potential issues of confounding by indication.

RESULTS

In total, 7725 cases were analysed: 1202 before, 4187 during and 2336 after CPP implementation. For all cancers combined, the RS3years rose from 45% (95% confidence interval (CI): 42;47) before to 54% (95% CI: 52;56) after CPP implementation. The excess mortality was higher before than after CPP implementation (EHR3years before vs. after CPP = 1.35 (95% CI: 1.21;1.51)). When comparing CPP against non-CPP referred patients, we found no statistically significant differences in RS, but we found lower excess mortality among the CPP referred (EHR1year CPP vs. non-CPP = 0.86 (95% CI: 0.73;1.01)).

CONCLUSION

We found higher relative survival and lower mortality among symptomatic cancer patients diagnosed through primary care after the implementation of CPPs in Denmark. The observed changes in cancer prognosis could be the intended consequences of finding and treating cancer at an early stage, but they may also reflect lead-time bias and selection bias. The finding of a lower excess mortality among CPP referred compared to non-CPP referred patients indicates that CPPs may have improved the cancer prognosis independently.

Has the 'Fast-Track' referral system affected the route of presentation and/or clinical outcomes in patients with colorectal cancer?

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to determine whether the 'Fast-Track' referral system has changed the route by which patients present with colorectal cancer (CRC) and whether the route of presentation has any effect on clinical outcome.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with CRC under the care of two consultant colorectal surgeons between April 2006 and December 2012. The route by which patients presented was categorised as Fast-Track (FT), non-Fast-Track (non-FT) or acute. Outcome variables were operative intent, disease stage and 2- and 5-year survival.

RESULTS

A total of 558 patients were identified. One hundred ninety-seven patients (35.3 %) were referred as FT, 108 (19.4 %) presented acutely and 253 patients (45.3 %) presented via other routes (non-FT). Over the study period, the route of presentation did not change significantly (P = 0.135). There was no significant difference between FT and non-FT groups in terms of the proportion of patients undergoing potentially curative surgery (70.6 vs 74.3 %, P = 0.092) or with node-negative disease (48.2 vs 52.2 %, P = 0.796) nor was there any difference in 2-year or 5-year survival (74.1 vs 73.9 %, P = 0.837 and 52.3 vs 53.8 %, P = 0.889, respectively). Patients who presented acutely were less likely to undergo curative resection, had more advanced disease and had worse 2- and 5-year survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The Fast-Track referral system has not affected the route by which patients present with CRC nor has it had any effect on clinical outcomes. Alternative strategies are required if the desired improvement in outcomes is to be achieved.