Current data about the benefit of prehabilitation for colorectal cancer patients undergoing surgery are not sufficient to alter the NHS cancer waiting targets

Conflicting Guidelines: A Systematic Review on the Proper Interval for Colorectal Cancer Treatment

BACKGROUND

Timely treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) is a quality indicator in oncological care. However, patients with CRC might benefit more from preoperative optimization rather than rapid treatment initiation. The objectives of this study are (1) to determine the definition of the CRC treatment interval, (2) to study international recommendations regarding this interval and (3) to study whether length of the interval is associated with outcome.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of the literature in June 2020 through MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases, complemented with a web search and a survey among colorectal surgeons worldwide. Full-text papers including subjects with CRC and a description of the treatment interval were included.

RESULTS

Definition of the treatment interval varies widely in published studies, especially due to different starting points of the interval. Date of diagnosis is often used as start of the interval, determined with date of pathological confirmation. The end of the interval is rather consistently determined with date of initiation of any primary treatment. Recommendations on the timeline of the treatment interval range between and within countries from two weeks between decision to treat and surgery, to treatment within seven weeks after pathological diagnosis. Finally, there is no decisive evidence that a longer treatment interval is associated with worse outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The interval from diagnosis to treatment for CRC treatment could be used for prehabilitation to benefit patient recovery. It may be that this strategy is more beneficial than urgently proceeding with treatment.

Artificial Neural Network Individualised Prediction of Time to Colorectal Cancer Surgery

Aim

Colorectal cancer pathway targets mandate prompt treatment although practicalities may mean patients wait for surgery. This variable period could be utilised for patient optimisation; however, there is currently no reliable predictive system for time to surgery. If individualised surgical waits were prospectively known, tailored prehabilitation could be introduced.

Methods

A dedicated, prospectively populated elective laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer with a curative intent database was utilised. Primary endpoint was the prediction of the individualised waiting time for surgery. A multilayered perceptron artificial neural network (ANN) model was trained and tested alongside uni- and multivariate analyses.

Results

668 consecutive patients were included. 8.5% underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The mean time from diagnosis to surgery was 53 days (95% CI 48.3-57.8). ANN correctly identified those having surgery in <8 (97.7% and 98.8%) and <12 weeks (97.1% and 98.8%) of the training and testing cohorts with area under the receiver operating curves of 0.793 and 0.865, respectively. After neoadjuvant treatment, an ASA physical status score was the most important potentially modifiable risk factor for prolonged waits (normalised importance 64%, OR 4.9, 95% CI 1.5-16). The ANN findings were accurately cross-validated with a logistic regression model.

Conclusion

Artificial neural networks using demographic and diagnostic data successfully predict individual time to colorectal cancer surgery. This could assist the personalisation of preoperative care including the incorporation of prehabilitation interventions.

Short-term pre-operative high-intensity interval training does not improve fitness of colorectal cancer patients

Background

Pre‐operative cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients has been shown to affect post‐operative outcomes. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility of high‐intensity interval training (HIIT) for improving fitness in pre‐operative CRC patients within the 31‐day cancer waiting‐time targets imposed in the UK.

Methods

Eighteen CRC patients (13 males, mean age: 67 years (range: 52‐77 years) participated in supervised HIIT on cycle ergometers 3 or 4 times each week prior to surgery. Exercise intensity during 5 × 1‐minute HIIT intervals (interspersed with 90‐second recovery) was 100%‐120% maximum wattage achieved at a baseline cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET). CPET before and after HIIT was used to assess CRF.

Results

Patients completed a mean of eight HIIT sessions (range 6‐14) over 19 days (SD 7). There was no significant increase in VO₂ peak (23.9 ± 7.0 vs 24.2 ± 7.8 mL/kg/min (mean ± SD), P = 0.58) or anaerobic threshold (AT: 14.0 ± 3.4 vs 14.5 ± 4.5 mL/kg/min, P = 0.50) after HIIT. There was a significant reduction in resting systolic blood pressure (152 ± 19 vs 142 ± 19 mm Hg, P = 0.0005) and heart rate at submaximal exercise intensities after HIIT.

Conclusions

Our pragmatic HIIT exercise protocol did not improve the pre‐operative fitness of CRC patients within the 31‐day window available in the UK to meet cancer surgical waiting‐time targets.

Time from colorectal cancer diagnosis to laparoscopic curative surgery-is there a safe window for prehabilitation?

BACKGROUND

There is a growing interest in the adoption of formal prehabilitation programmes prior to elective surgery but regulatory targets mandate prompt treatment following cancer diagnosis. We aimed to investigate if time from diagnosis to surgery is linked to short- and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

An exploratory analysis was performed utilising a dedicated, prospectively populated database. Inclusion criteria were biopsy-proven colorectal adenocarcinoma undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery with curative intent. Demographics, date of diagnosis and surgery was captured with patients dichotomised using 4-, 8- and 12-week time points. All patients were followed in a standardised pathway for 5 years. Overall survival was assessed with the Kaplan-Meier log-rank method.

RESULTS

Six hundred sixty-eight consecutive patients met inclusion criteria. Mean time from diagnosis to surgery was 53 days (95% CI 48.3-57.8). Identified risk factors for longer time to surgery were males (OR 1.92 [1.2-3.1], p = 0.008), age ≤ 65 (OR 1.9 [1.2-3], p = 0.01), higher ASA scores (p = 0.01) stoma formation (OR 6.9 [4.1-11], p < 0.001) and neoadjuvant treatment (OR 5.06 [3.1-8.3], p < 0.001). There was no association between time to surgery and BMI (p = 0.36), conversion (16.3%, p = 0.5), length of stay (p = 0.33) and readmission or reoperation (p = 0.3). No differences in five-year survival were seen in those operated within 4, 8 and 12 weeks (p = 0.397, p = 0.962 and p = 0.611, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed time from diagnosis to surgery was not associated with five-year overall survival (HR 0.99, p = 0.52).

CONCLUSION

Time from colorectal cancer diagnosis to curative laparoscopic surgery did not impact on overall survival. This finding may allow preoperative pathway alteration without compromising safety.