The association of time between diagnosis and major resection with poorer colorectal cancer survival: a retrospective cohort study

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.

Treatment interval in curative treatment of colon cancer, does it impact (cancer free) survival? A non-inferiority analysis

BACKGROUND

In treatment of colon cancer, strict waiting-time targets are enforced, leaving professionals no room to lengthen treatment intervals when advisable, for instance to optimise a patient's health status by means of prehabilitation. Good quality studies supporting these targets are lacking. With this study we aim to establish whether a prolonged treatment interval is associated with a clinically relevant deterioration in overall and cancer free survival.

METHODS

This retrospective multicenter non-inferiority study includes all consecutive patients who underwent elective oncological resection of a biopsy-proven primary non-metastatic colon carcinoma between 2010 and 2016 in six hospitals in the Southern Netherlands. Treatment interval was defined as time between diagnosis and surgical treatment. Cut-off points for treatment interval were ≤35 days and ≤49 days.

FINDINGS

3376 patients were included. Cancer recurred in 505 patients (15.0%) For cancer free survival, a treatment interval >35 days and >49 days was non-inferior to a treatment interval ≤35 days. Results for overall survival were inconclusive, but no association was found.

CONCLUSION

For cancer free survival, a prolonged treatment interval, even over 49 days, is non-inferior to the currently set waiting-time target of ≤35 days. Therefore, the waiting-time targets set as fundamental objective in current treatment guidelines should become directional instead of strict targets.

Where are the inequalities in colorectal cancer care in a country with universal healthcare? A systematic review and narrative synthesis

OBJECTIVE

Patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer living in more deprived areas experience worse survival than those in more affluent areas. Those living in more deprived areas face barriers to accessing timely, quality healthcare. These barriers may contribute to socioeconomic inequalities in survival. We evaluated the literature for any association between socioeconomic group, hospital delay and treatments received among patients with colorectal cancer in the UK, a country with universal healthcare.

DESIGN

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, SCIE, AMED and PsycINFO were searched from inception to January 2023. Grey literature, including HMIC, BASE and Google Advanced Search, and forward and backward citation searches were conducted. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles, abstracts and full-text articles. Observational UK-based studies were included if they reported socioeconomic measures and an association with either hospital delay or treatments received. The QUIPS tool assessed bias risk, and a narrative synthesis was conducted. The review is reported to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020.

RESULTS

41 of the 7209 identified references were included. 12 studies evaluated 7 different hospital intervals. There was a significant association between area-level deprivation and a longer time from first presentation in primary care to diagnosis. 32 studies evaluated treatments received. There were socioeconomic inequalities in surgery and chemotherapy but not radiotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Patients with colorectal cancer face inequalities across the cancer care continuum. Further research is needed to understand why and what evidence-based actions can reduce these inequalities in treatment. Qualitative research of patients and clinicians conducted across various settings would provide a rich understanding of the complex factors that drive these inequalities. Further research should also consider using a causal approach to future studies to considerably strengthen the interpretation. Clinicians can try and mitigate some potential causes of colorectal cancer inequalities, including signposting to financial advice and patient transport schemes.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022347652.

Near-infrared fluorescence tattooing: a new approach for endoscopic marking of tumors in minimally invasive colorectal surgery using a persistent near-infrared marker

INTRODUCTION

Intraoperative accurate localization of tumors in the lower gastrointestinal tract is essential to ensure oncologic radicality. In minimally invasive colon surgery, tactile identification of tumors is challenging due to diminished or absent haptics. In clinical practice, preoperative endoscopic application of a blue dye (ink) to the tumor site has become the standard for marking and identification of tumors in the colon. However, this method has the major limitation that accidental intraperitoneal spillage of the dye can significantly complicate the identification of anatomical structures and surgical planes. In this work, we describe a new approach of NIR fluorescent tattooing using a near-infrared (NIR) fluorescent marker instead of a blue dye (ink) for endoscopic tattooing.

METHODS

AFS81x is a newly developed NIR fluorescent marker. In an experimental study with four domestic pigs, the newly developed NIR fluorescent marker (AFS81x) was used for endoscopic tattooing of the colon. 7-12 endoscopic submucosal injections of AFS81x were placed per animal in the colon. On day 0, day 1, and day 10 after endoscopic tattooing with AFS81x, the visualization of the fluorescent markings in the colon was evaluated during laparoscopic surgery by two surgeons and photographically documented.

RESULTS

The detection rate of the NIR fluorescent tattoos at day 0, day 1, and day 10 after endoscopic tattooing was 100%. Recognizability of anatomical structures during laparoscopy was not affected in any of the markings, as the markings were not visible in the white light channel of the laparoscope, but only in the NIR channel or in the overlay of the white light and the NIR channel of the laparoscope. The brightness, the sharpness, and size of the endoscopic tattoos did not change significantly on day 1 and day 10, but remained almost identical compared to day 0.

CONCLUSION

The new approach of endoscopic NIR fluorescence tattooing using the newly developed NIR fluorescence marker AFS81x enables stable marking of colonic sites over a long period of at least 10 days without compromising the recognizability of anatomical structures and surgical planes in any way.

The impact of time to surgery on oncological outcomes in stage I-III dMMR colon cancer - A nationwide cohort study

INTRODUCTION

One of the considerations when investigating neoadjuvant interventions is the prolonging of time from diagnosis to curative surgery (i.e. the treatment interval [TI]). The aim of this study was to investigate the association between the length of TI and overall survival and disease-free survival in patients with deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) colon cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective propensity score-adjusted study included all patients of ≥18 years of age undergoing elective curative surgery for stage I-III, dMMR colon cancer. Data were extracted from four Danish patient databases. Outcomes were investigated in groups with TIs of ≤14 days versus >14 days. Propensity scores were computed using all demographics, diagnoses and measurements. Matching was done in a 1:1 ratio.

RESULTS

A total of 4130 patients were included in the study with a mean age of 73.8 years and a median follow-up time of 43.9 months. After matching, 2794 patients were included in the analysis of overall survival. No significant difference in overall survival was seen between patients with TIs of ≤14 days versus >14 days (hazard ratio [HR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-1.17; p = 0.78). In the analysis of disease-free survival, 1798 patients were included after matching. This showed no significant difference between patients with TIs of ≤14 days versus >14 days (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.69-1.06; p = 0.14).

CONCLUSION

No associations were found between TI and overall survival and disease-free survival in patients with stage I-III, dMMR colon cancer undergoing elective curative surgery.

Recurrence and Postoperative Death in Patients with Colorectal Cancer: A New Perspective via Semi-competing Risk Framework

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Cancer studies suffer from an overestimation of prediction of survival when both recurrence and death are of interest. This longitudinal study aimed to mitigate this problem utilizing a semi-competing risk approach evaluating the factors affecting recurrence and postoperative death in patients with colorectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This longitudinal prospective study was conducted in 284 patients with resected colorectal cancer who were referred to the Imam Khomeini Clinic in Hamadan, Iran, during 2001-2017. Primary outcomes were postoperative outcomes and patient survival, including time to recurrence (of colorectal cancer), time to death, and time to death after recurrence. All patients who were alive at the end of the study were censored for death and who did not experience recurrence of colorectal cancer were also censored for recurrent colorectal cancer. The relationship between underlying demographics and clinical factors and the outcomes was assessed using a semicompeting risk approach.

RESULTS

The results of the multivariable analysis showed that having metastasis to other sites (hazard ratio = 36.03; 95% CI = 19.48- 66.64) and higher pathological node (pN) stage (hazard ratio = 2.46; 95% CI = 1.32-4.56) were associated with a raised hazard of recurrence. The fewer chemotherapies (hazard ratio = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.17-0.88) and higher pN stages (hazard ratio = 4.32; 95% CI = 1.27-14.75) showed significantly higher hazards of death without recurrence. Having metastasis to other sites (hazard ratio = 2.67; 95% CI = 1.24-5.74) and higher pN stages (hazard ratio = 1.91; 95% CI = 1.02-3.61) were linked with the higher hazard of death after recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Considering findings on death /recu rrenc e-spe cific predictors obtained in this study to manage the outcomes in patients with colorectal cancer, tailored strategies for preventive and interventional plans should be deliberated.

Comparing Time to Diagnosis and Treatment Between Younger and Older Adults With Colorectal Cancer: A Population-Based Study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Younger adults (aged <50 years) with colorectal cancer (CRC) may have prolonged delays to diagnosis and treatment that are associated with adverse outcomes. We compared delay intervals by age for patients with CRC in a large population.

METHODS

This was a population-based study of adults diagnosed with CRC in Ontario, Canada, from 2003 to 2018. We measured the time between presentation and diagnosis (diagnostic interval), diagnosis and treatment start (treatment interval), and the time from presentation to treatment (overall interval). We compared interval lengths between adults aged <50 years, 50 to 74 years, and 75 to 89 years using multivariable quantile regression.

RESULTS

Included were 90,225 patients with CRC. Of these, 6853 patients (7.6%) were aged <50 years. Younger patients were more likely to be women, present emergently, have stage IV disease, and have rectal cancer compared with middle-aged patients. Factors associated with significantly longer overall intervals included female sex (8.7 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.6-10.9 days) and rectal cancer compared with proximal colon cancer (9.8 days; 95% CI, 7.4-2.2 days). After adjustment, adults aged <50 years had significantly longer diagnostic intervals (4.3 days; 95% CI. 1.3-7.3 days) and significantly shorter treatment intervals (-4.5 days; 95% CI, -5.3 to -3.7 days) compared with middle-aged patients. However, there was no significant difference in the overall interval (-0.6 days; 95% CI, -4.3 to 3.2 days). In stratified models, younger adults with stage IV disease who presented emergently and patients aged >75 years had longer overall intervals.

CONCLUSIONS

Younger adults present more often with stage IV CRC but have overall similar times from presentation to treatment as screening-eligible older adults.

Clinical Delays and Comparative Outcomes in Younger and Older Adults with Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review

Outcome disparities between adults <50 with colorectal cancer (CRC) and older adults may be explained by clinical delays. This study synthesized the literature comparing delays and outcomes between younger and older adults with CRC. Databases were searched until December 2021. We included studies published after 1990 reporting delay in adults <50 that made comparisons to older adults. Comparisons were described narratively and stage between age groups was meta-analyzed. 39 studies were included representing 185,710 younger CRC patients and 1,422,062 older patients. Sixteen delay intervals were compared. Fourteen studies (36%) found significantly longer delays among younger adults, and nine (23%) found shorter delays among younger patients. Twelve studies compared time from symptom onset to diagnosis (N younger = 1538). Five showed significantly longer delays for younger adults. Adults <50 years also had higher odds of advanced stage (16 studies, pooled OR for Stage III/IV 1.76, 95% CI 1.52-2.03). Ten studies compared time from diagnosis to treatment (N younger = 171,726) with 4 showing significantly shorter delays for younger adults. All studies showing longer delays for younger adults examined pre-diagnostic intervals. Three studies compared the impact of delay on younger versus older adult. One showed longer delays were associated with advanced stage and worse survival in younger but not older adults. Longer delays among younger adults with CRC occur in pre-diagnostic intervals.

The prognostic impact of lead times in colorectal cancer patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC

Background

National lead time goals have been implemented across Sweden to standardize and improve cancer patient care. However, the prognostic impact of lead times has not yet been studied in patients with colorectal cancer and peritoneal metastases scheduled for cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS + HIPEC).

Aim

To study the correlation between lead times and overall survival and operability.

Methods

One hundred forty-eight patients with peritoneal metastases originating from colorectal cancer and scheduled for CRS + HIPEC from June 2012 to December 2019 were identified using a HIPEC register at Uppsala University Hospital. Data were collected from medical records concerning operability, overall survival, recurrence and time from diagnosis, and decision to operate to the date of surgery. Patients who had neoadjuvant therapy or no malignant cells in the resected specimens were excluded. Statistical calculations were made with the chi-squared test, Cox regression analysis, and log-rank test.

Results

The median age was 66 years (27–82). Ninety-five were women and 53 were men. One hundred six underwent CRS + HIPEC, 13 CRS only, and 29 were inoperable (open-close). No difference in overall survival was seen when comparing patients with lead times ≤ 34 days and ≥ 35 days from the decision to operate at the multidisciplinary conference to the surgery but there was a higher frequency of open-close (p = 0.023) in the group with longer lead time. Factors that impacted overall survival were open-close (p < 0.001), liver metastases (p = 0.003), and peritoneal cancer index score ≥ 20 (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

A long lead time from multidisciplinary conference to surgery has no direct impact on overall survival but can result in more cases of inoperability. In a larger cohort, this might translate into decreased survival, and efforts should therefore be made to complete preoperative work up as soon as possible and reduce overall time span. Important factors for survival are related to patient selection and extent of disease.

Time to diagnosis and treatment in younger adults with colorectal cancer: A systematic review

Background

The incidence of colorectal cancer is rising in adults <50 years of age. As a primarily unscreened population, they may have clinically important delays to diagnosis and treatment. This study aimed to review the literature on delay intervals in patients <50 years with colorectal cancer (CRC), and explore associations between longer intervals and outcomes.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS were searched until December 2, 2021. We included studies published after 1990 reporting any delay interval in adults <50 with CRC. Interval measures and associations with stage at presentation or survival were synthesized and described in a narrative fashion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, Institute of Health Economics Case Series Quality Appraisal Checklist, and the Aarhus Checklist for cancer delay studies.

Results

55 studies representing 188,530 younger CRC patients were included. Most studies used primary data collection (64%), and 47% reported a single center. Sixteen unique intervals were measured. The most common interval was symptom onset to diagnosis (21 studies; N = 2,107). By sample size, diagnosis to treatment start was the most reported interval (12 studies; N = 170,463). Four studies examined symptoms onset to treatment start (total interval). The shortest was a mean of 99.5 days and the longest was a median of 217 days. There was substantial heterogeneity in the measurement of intervals, and quality of reporting. Higher-quality studies were more likely to use cancer registries, and be population-based. In four studies reporting the relationship between intervals and cancer stage or survival, there were no clear associations between longer intervals and adverse outcomes.

Discussion

Adults <50 with CRC may have intervals between symptom onset to treatment start greater than 6 months. Studies reporting intervals among younger patients are limited by inconsistent results and heterogeneous reporting. There is insufficient evidence to determine if longer intervals are associated with advanced stage or worse survival.

Other

This study’s protocol was registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number CRD42020179707).

The Association Between Treatment Interval and Survival in Patients With Colon or Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Surgery for colon or rectal cancer is associated with a high incidence of complications, especially in patients with a low aerobic fitness. Those patients might benefit from a comprehensive preoperative workup including prehabilitation. However, time between diagnosis and treatment is often limited due to current treatment guidelines. To date, it is unclear whether the treatment interval can be extended without compromising survival.

METHODS

A systematic review concerning the association between treatment intervals and survival in patients who underwent elective curative surgery for colon or rectal cancer was performed. A search up to December 2020 was conducted in PubMed, Cinahl and Embase. Original research articles were eligible. Quality assessment was performed using the Downs and Black checklist.

RESULTS

Eleven observational studies were included (897 947 patients). In colon cancer, treatment intervals that were statistically significant associated with reduced overall survival or cancer-specific survival ranged between > 30 and > 84 days. In rectal cancer, only one out of four studies showed that treatment intervals > 49 days was associated with reduced cancer-specific survival.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review identified that studies investigating the association between treatment intervals and survival are heterogeneous with regard to treatment interval definitions, treatment interval time intervals and used outcome measures. These aspects need standardization before a reliable estimate of an optimal treatment interval can be made. In addition, further research should focus on establishing optimal treatment intervals in patients at high risk for postoperative complications, as particularly these patients might benefit from extended diagnosis to treatment intervals permitting comprehensive preoperative preparation.

Longer time-to-treatment but better survival for colorectal cancer patients presumptively not diagnosed in a hospital

PURPOSE

To evaluate time-to-treatment and survival time in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who presumptively were not diagnosed in a hospital.

METHODS

Colorectal tumor-level data from Georgia Cancer Registry (GCR) was merged with American Hospital Association data for 2010-2015 using hospital identification number. Patients with tumors lacking a diagnosis hospital in the GCR were classified as presumptive non-hospital diagnosis (PNHD). Cox proportional hazard models were used to model PNHD and time-to-treatment and time-to-death following cancer diagnosis, stratified by race and controlling for personal and tumor characteristics.

RESULTS

PNHD (n = 6,885, 29.6%) was associated with a lower likelihood of treatment at a given point in time (i.e., longer time-to-treatment), but did not differ for Black (HR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.73, 0.82) and White (HR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.71, 0.76) patients. Time-to-death was longer (i.e., better survival) with PNHD, which also did not differ for Black (HR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.64, 0.76) and White (HR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.67, 0.75) patients. These results were not explained by confounding factors or differences in tumor stage at diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

These observations warrant further research to understand whether there are potentially modifiable factors associated with the diagnosing location that can be used to benefit patient treatment trajectory and survival.

Colorectal Cancer Surgery Quality in Manitoba: A Population-Based Descriptive Analysis

Unwarranted clinical variation in healthcare impacts access, productivity, performance, and outcomes. A strategy proposed for reducing unwarranted clinical variation is to ensure that population-based data describing the current state of health care services are available to clinicians and healthcare decision-makers. The objective of this study was to measure variation in colorectal cancer surgical treatment patterns and surgical quality in Manitoba and identify areas for improvement. This descriptive study included individuals aged 20 years or older who were diagnosed with invasive cancer (adenocarcinoma) of the colon or rectum between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2014. Laparoscopic surgery was higher in colon cancer (24.1%) compared to rectal cancer (13.6%). For colon cancer, the percentage of laparoscopic surgery ranged from 12.9% to 29.2%, with significant differences by regional health authority (RHA) of surgery. In 86.1% of colon cancers, ≥12 lymph nodes were removed. In Manitoba, the negative circumferential resection margin for rectal cancers was 96.9%, and ranged from 96.0% to 100.0% between RHAs. The median time between first colonoscopy and resection was 40 days for individuals with colon cancer. This study showed that high-quality colorectal cancer surgery is being conducted in Manitoba along with some variation and gaps in quality. As a result of this work, a formal structure for ongoing measuring and reporting surgical quality has been established in Manitoba. Quality improvement initiatives have been implemented based on these findings and periodic assessments of colorectal cancer surgery quality will continue.

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.

Logistic regression and machine learning predicted patient mortality from large sets of diagnosis codes comparably

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to compare the performance of logistic regression and boosted trees for predicting patient mortality from large sets of diagnosis codes in electronic healthcare records.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We analyzed national hospital records and official death records for patients with myocardial infarction (n = 200,119), hip fracture (n = 169,646), or colorectal cancer surgery (n = 56,515) in England in 2015-2017. One-year mortality was predicted from patient age, sex, and socioeconomic status, and 202 to 257 International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision codes recorded in the preceding year or not (binary predictors). Performance measures included the c-statistic, scaled Brier score, and several measures of calibration.

RESULTS

One-year mortality was 17.2% (34,520) after myocardial infarction, 27.2% (46,115) after hip fracture, and 9.3% (5,273) after colorectal surgery. Optimism-adjusted c-statistics for the logistic regression models were 0.884 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.882, 0.886), 0.798 (0.796, 0.800), and 0.811 (0.805, 0.817). The equivalent c-statistics for the boosted tree models were 0.891 (95% CI: 0.889, 0.892), 0.804 (0.802, 0.806), and 0.803 (0.797, 0.809). Model performance was also similar when measured using scaled Brier scores. All models were well calibrated overall.

CONCLUSION

In large datasets of electronic healthcare records, logistic regression and boosted tree models of numerous diagnosis codes predicted patient mortality comparably.

Preoperative endoscopic marking of the gastrointestinal tract using fluorescence imaging: submucosal indocyanine green tattooing versus a novel fluorescent over-the-scope clip in a survival experimental study

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative localization of endoluminal lesions is can be difficult during laparoscopy. Preoperative endoscopic marking is therefore necessary. Current methods include submucosal tattooing using visible dyes, which in case of transmural injection can impair surgical dissection. Tattooing using indocyanine green (ICG) coupled to intraoperative near-infrared (NIR) laparoscopy has been described. ICG is only visible under NIR-light, therefore, it doesn't impair the surgical workflow under white light even if there is spillage. However, ICG tattoos have rapid diffusion and short longevity. We propose fluorescent over-the-scope clips (FOSC), using a novel biocompatible fluorescent paint, as durable lesion marking.

METHODS

In six pigs, gastric and colonic endoscopic tattoos using 0.05 mg/mL of ICG and markings using the fluorescent OSC were performed (T0). Simultaneously, NIR laparoscopy was executed. Follow-up laparoscopies were conducted at postoperative day (POD) 4-6 (T1) and POD 11-12 (T2). During laparoscopy, fluorescence intensity was assessed. In one human cadaver, FOSC was used to mark a site on the stomach and on the sigmoid colon, respectively. Intraoperative detection during NIR laparoscopy was assessed.

RESULTS

Gastric and colonic ICG tattooing and OSC markings were easily visible using NIR laparoscopy on T0. All FOSC were visible at T1 and T2 in both stomach and colon, whereas the ICG tattooing at T1 was only visible in the stomach of 2 animals and in the colon of 3 animals. At T2, tattoos were not visible in any animal. FOSC were still visible in both stomach and colon of the human cadaver at 10 days.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic marking using FOSC can be an efficient and durable alternative to standard methods.

Endoscopic Preoperative Tattooing and Marking in the Gastrointestinal Tract: A Systematic Review of Alternative Methods

Background: An accurate and reliable localization of endoluminal gastrointestinal (GI) lesions is crucial, particularly during minimally invasive surgery. As an extreme consequence, a misdetected GI lesion can lead to the resection of the wrong segment, especially in colorectal surgery. A preoperative endoscopic marking is recommended in case of GI lesions, which are expected to be difficult to detect from the serosal side. In clinical practice, three preoperative endoscopic marking methods are currently used: India ink, SPOT™, and endoclips with intraoperative fluoroscopy. All of them have substantial limitations. This has encouraged research on alternative solutions. Methods: In the current systematic review, animal and clinical studies about alternative preoperative endoscopic marking methods of GI lesions were analyzed using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Results: Thirty studies were found using PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE/Ovid, and the Cochrane Library for the qualitative analysis. Conclusion: Although several smart solutions have been proposed and tested successfully, all of them seem to have a substantial drawback related either to scarce stability on the marking site or potential spreading on the bowel wall or diffusion into the surgical planes.

Adherence in the Cancer Care Setting: a Systematic Review of Patient Navigation to Traverse Barriers

Patient navigation is an evidence-based intervention involving trained healthcare workers who assist patients in assessing and mitigating personal and environmental factors to promote healthy behaviors. The purpose of this research is to systematically assess the efficacy of patient navigation and similar programs to improve diagnosis and treatment of diseases affecting medically underserved populations. A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and CINAHL to identify potential studies. Eligible studies were those containing original peer-reviewed research reports in English on patient navigation, community health workers, vulnerable and underserved populations, and healthcare disparity. Specific outcomes regarding patient navigator including the effect of the intervention on definitive diagnosis and effect on initiation of treatment were extracted from each study. The search produced 1428 articles, and 16 were included for review. All studies involved patient navigation in the field of oncology in underserved populations. Timing of initial contact with a patient navigator after diagnostic or screening testing is correlated to the effectiveness of the navigator intervention. The majority of the studies reported significantly shorter time intervals to diagnosis and to treatment with patient navigation. Patient navigation expedites oncologic diagnosis and treatment of patients in underserved populations. This intervention is more efficacious when utilized shortly after screening or diagnostic testing.

Do Moderate Surgical Treatment Delays Influence Survival in Colon Cancer?

BACKGROUND

Studies examining treatment delay and survival after surgical treatment of colon cancer have varied in quality and outcome, with little evidence available regarding the safety of longer surgical treatment wait times.

OBJECTIVE

Our study examined the effect of surgical treatment wait times on survival for patients with stage I to III colon cancer.

DESIGN

A subset cohort analysis was performed using data from a prospectively maintained database.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at a tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

Data on all of the patients undergoing elective surgery for stage I to III colon cancer from 2006 to 2015 were collected from a prospectively maintained clinical and administrative database.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We examined the impact of prolonged wait time to surgery on disease-free and overall survival. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on a treatment wait time of ≤30 or >30 days and were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model. A subgroup analysis was performed using alternative treatment delay cutoffs of 60 and 90 days.

RESULTS

There were 908 patients with stage I to III colon cancer treated over the study period, with a median treatment wait time of 38 days (interquartile range, 21-61 days); 368 patients were treated within 30 days, and 540 were treated beyond 30 days from diagnosis. In adjusted multivariate analysis, a treatment delay of >30 days was not associated with decreased disease-free survival (HR = 0.89 (95% CI, 0.61-1.3); p = 0.52) or overall survival (HR = 0.82 (95% CI, 0.63-1.1); p = 0.16). Likewise, subgroup analysis using alternative treatment delay cutoffs of 60 and 90 days did not demonstrate an adverse effect on survival.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by retrospective analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite longer median treatment wait times from diagnosis to surgery, with the majority of patients exceeding 30 days and many experiencing delays of 2 to 3 months, no adverse impact on survival was observed. Patients who require additional consultations or investigations preoperatively may safely have their surgery moderately delayed to minimize their perioperative risk without any evidence that this will compromise treatment outcomes. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A397.

The ability of prehabilitation to influence postoperative outcome after intra-abdominal operation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Preoperative physical fitness is predictive of postoperative outcome. Patients with lesser aerobic capacity are at greater risk of postoperative complications, longer hospital stays, and mortality. Prehabilitation may improve physical fitness, but it is unknown whether enhanced fitness translates to an improvement in postoperative outcome.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the ability of prehabilitation to influence postoperative outcome after intra-abdominal operations. Randomized controlled trials with at least 1 group undergoing a preoperative exercise intervention/prehabilitation were included. The following databases were searched: AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed/Medline, and The Cochrane Library. Data extracted from 9 full-articles included author(s), population demographics, type of operation, postoperative measures of outcome, and type of treatment of the prehabilitation and control groups. Methodologic quality was assessed using GRADEpro, and the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to measure study bias.

RESULTS

Prehabilitation consisting of inspiratory muscle training, aerobic exercise, and/or resistance training can decrease all types of postoperative complications after intra-abdominal operations (odds ratio: 0.59, 95% confidence interval: 0.38-0.91, P = .03). It is unclear from our meta-analysis whether prehabilitation can decrease postoperative length of stay, because the number of studies that examined length of stay was small (n = 4). No postoperative mortality was reported in any study, and conclusions could not be drawn on the ability of exercise to influence operative mortality. The methodologic quality of studies was, however, "very low."

CONCLUSION

Prehabilitation appears to be beneficial in decreasing the incidence of postoperative complications; however, more high-quality studies are needed to validate its use in the preoperative setting.

Rapid diagnostic pathways for suspected colorectal cancer: views of primary and secondary care clinicians on challenges and their potential solutions

OBJECTIVES

To ascertain the challenges associated with implementation of the 2-week wait referral criteria and waiting time targets for colorectal cancer and to identify recommendations for improvements to the pathway.

DESIGN

Qualitative research using semistructured interviews and applying thematic analysis using the method of constant comparison.

SETTING

10 primary care surgeries and 6 secondary care centres from 3 geographical areas in the England.

PARTICIPANTS

Purposive sample of 24 clinicians (10 general practitioners (GPs), 7 oncologists and 7 colorectal surgeons).

RESULTS

GPs and specialists highlighted delays in patient help-seeking, difficulties applying the colorectal cancer referral criteria due to their low predictive value, and concerns about the stringent application of targets because of potential impact on individual care and associated penalties for breaching. Promoting patient awareness and early presentation, clarifying predictive symptoms, allowing flexibility, optimising resources and maximising care coordination were suggested as improvements.

CONCLUSIONS

Challenges during diagnosis and treatment persist, with guidelines and waiting time targets producing the perception of unintended harms at individual and organisational levels. This has led to variations in how guidelines are implemented. These require urgent evaluation, so that effective practices can be adopted more widely.

Use of the English urgent referral pathway for suspected cancer and mortality in patients with cancer: cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the overall effect of the English urgent referral pathway on cancer survival.

SETTING

8049 general practices in England.

DESIGN

Cohort study. Linked information from the national Cancer Waiting Times database, NHS Exeter database, and National Cancer Register was used to estimate mortality in patients in relation to the propensity of their general practice to use the urgent referral pathway.

PARTICIPANTS

215,284 patients with cancer, diagnosed or first treated in England in 2009 and followed up to 2013.

OUTCOME MEASURE

Hazard ratios for death from any cause, as estimated from a Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

During four years of follow-up, 91,620 deaths occurred, of which 51,606 (56%) occurred within the first year after diagnosis. Two measures of the propensity to use urgent referral, the standardised referral ratio and the detection rate, were associated with reduced mortality. The hazard ratio for the combination of high referral ratio and high detection rate was 0.96 (95% confidence interval 0.94 to 0.99), applying to 16% (n=34,758) of the study population. Patients with cancer who were registered with general practices with the lowest use of urgent referral had an excess mortality (hazard ratio 1.07 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.08); 37% (n=79,416) of the study population). The comparator group for these two hazard ratios was the remaining 47% (n=101,110) of the study population. This result in mortality was consistent for different types of cancer (apart from breast cancer) and with other stratifications of the dataset, and was not sensitive to adjustment for potential confounders and other details of the statistical model.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the urgent referral pathway could be efficacious. General practices that consistently have a low propensity to use urgent referrals could consider increasing the use of this pathway to improve the survival of their patients with cancer.

Diagnostic intervals and its association with breast, prostate, lung and colorectal cancer survival in England: historical cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink

Rapid diagnostic pathways for cancer have been implemented, but evidence whether shorter diagnostic intervals (time from primary care presentation to diagnosis) improves survival is lacking. Using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, we identified patients diagnosed with female breast (8,639), colorectal (5,912), lung (5,737) and prostate (1,763) cancers between 1998 and 2009, and aged >15 years. Presenting symptoms were classified as alert or non-alert, according to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. We used relative survival and excess risk modeling to determine associations between diagnostic intervals and five-year survival. The survival of patients with colorectal, lung and prostate cancer was greater in those with alert, compared with non-alert, symptoms, but findings were opposite for breast cancer. Longer diagnostic intervals were associated with lower mortality for colorectal and lung cancer patients with non-alert symptoms, (colorectal cancer: Excess Hazards Ratio, EHR >6 months vs <1 month: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.72-1.00; Lung cancer: EHR 3-6 months vs <1 month: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.80-0.95; EHR >6 months vs <1 month: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.74-0.89). Prostate cancer mortality was lower in patients with longer diagnostic intervals, regardless of type of presenting symptom. The association between diagnostic intervals and cancer survival is complex, and should take into account cancer site, tumour biology and clinical practice. Nevertheless, unnecessary delay causes patient anxiety and general practitioners should continue to refer patients with alert symptoms via the cancer pathways, and actively follow-up patients with non-alert symptoms in the community.

A differentiated approach to referrals from general practice to support early cancer diagnosis - the Danish three-legged strategy

When aiming to provide more expedited cancer diagnosis and treatment of cancer at an earlier stage, it is important to take into account the symptom epidemiology throughout the pathway, from first bodily sensation until the start of cancer treatment. This has implications for how primary-care providers interpret the presentation and decisions around patient management and investigation. Symptom epidemiology has consequences for how the health-care system might best be organised. This paper argues for and describes the organisation of the Danish three-legged strategy in diagnosing cancer, which includes urgent referral pathways for symptoms suspicious of a specific cancer, urgent referral to diagnostic centres when we need quick and profound evaluation of patients with nonspecific, serious symptoms and finally easy and fast access to ‘No-Yes-Clinics' for cancer investigations for those patients with common symptoms in whom the diagnosis of cancer should not be missed. The organisation of the health-care system must reflect the reality of symptoms presented in primary care. The organisational change is evaluated and monitored with a comprehensive research agenda, data infrastructure and education.