Impact of delaying surgery after chemoradiation in rectal cancer: outcomes from a tertiary cancer centre in India

Predictors and outcomes of delays between diagnosis and definitive surgery for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer (NAPRC) recommends definitive treatment of rectal cancer commence within 60 days from diagnosis. This study aimed to assess predictors of >60 days delay between diagnosis and definitive surgery of rectal cancer and the impact on survival and short-term outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort analysis of patients with stage I-III rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent proctectomy without preoperative neoadjuvant treatment from the National Cancer Database (2015-2019). Based on the time interval between diagnosis and definitive surgery, patients were divided into timely non-adherent (>60 days) and timely-adherent (≤60 days) groups. Multivariate analysis determined predictors of delayed definitive surgery.

RESULTS

9479 patients (57.5 % males; mean age: 63.7 years) had a 41-day median time between diagnosis and definitive surgery. Non-adherence was noted in 27.9 % of patients. Independent predictors of non-adherence were male sex (Odds ratio [OR]: 1.25; p < 0.001), Black (OR: 1.65; p < 0.001) or Asian (OR: 1.33; p = 0.014) race, Charlson score 2 (OR: 1.33; p = 0.005) or 3 (OR: 1.55; p < 0.001), urban residence (OR: 1.21; p = 0.003), abdominoperineal resection (OR: 1.69; p < 0.001), pelvic exenteration (OR: 1.7; p = 0.002), and robotic-assisted surgery (OR: 1.22; p = 0.001). Medicare (OR: 0.725; p = 0.003) and private insurance (OR: 0.711; p < 0.001) were associated with better adherence. 30-day and 90-day mortality, unplanned readmission, and overall survival were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Male Black or Asian patients with high Charlson scores, and undergoing abdominoperineal resection, pelvic exenteration, and robotic-assisted surgery were more likely non-adherent with NAPRC standards with >60 days delay before definitive surgery for rectal cancer. Hopefully, recognition for these reasons for delay of definitive surgery will lead to an improvement in adherence to the standards.

Surgical Outcomes in Total Neoadjuvant Therapy for Rectal Cancer Versus Standard Long-course Chemoradiation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis seeks to evaluate the impact of total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) for rectal cancers on surgical complications and surgical pathology when compared with standard long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCRT).

BACKGROUND

The oncological benefits of TNT are well published in previous meta-analyses, but there is little synthesized information on how it affects surgical outcomes. A recent study has suggested an increase in local recurrence and higher rates of breached total mesorectal excision (TME) plane in TNT patients.

METHODS

This study conformed to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A search was performed in Medline (via PubMed), Cochrane databases, EMBASE and CINAHL to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes between TNT and LCRT. Meta-analyses of pooled proportions between TNT and LCRT were performed, comparing primary outcomes of surgical mortality, morbidity and all reported complications; surgical-pathology differences, namely mesorectal quality, R0 resection rates, circumferential resection margin positive rates, and sphincter preservation rates. Death and progression of disease during neoadjuvant treatment period was also compared. Risk of bias of RCTs was performed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool by 2 independent reviewers.

RESULTS

A total of 3185 patients with rectal cancer from 11 RCTs were included in the analysis: 1607 received TNT and 1578 received LCRT, of which 1422 (TNT arm) and 1391 (LCRT arm) underwent surgical resection with curative intent. There was no significant difference in mortality [risk ratio (RR)=0.86, 95% CI: 0.13-5.52, P =0.88, I2 =52%] or major complications (RR=1.04, 95% CI: 0.86-1.26, P =0.70, I2 =0%) between TNT and LCRT. There was a significantly higher risk of breached TME in TNT group on pooled analysis (RR=1.49, 95% CI: 1.03-12.16, P =0.03, I2 =0%), and on subgroup analysis there is higher risk of breached TME in those receiving extended duration of neoadjuvant treatment (>17 weeks from start of treatment to surgery) when compared with LCRT (RR=1.61, 95% CI: 1.06-2.44, P =0.03). No difference in R0 resection rates (RR=0.85, 95% CI: 0.66-1.10, P =0.21, I2 =15%), circumferential resection margin positive rates (RR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.65-1.16, P =0.35, I2 =10%) or sphincter preservation rates (RR=1.02, 95% CI: 0.83-1.25, P =0.88, I2 =57%) were observed. There was a significantly lower risk of progression of disease to an unresectable stage during the neoadjuvant treatment period in TNT patients (RR=0.60, 95% CI: 0.39-0.92, P =0.03, I2 =18%). On subgroup analysis, it appears to favor those receiving extended duration of neoadjuvant treatment (RR=0.44, 95% CI: 0.26-0.80, P =0.002), and those receiving induction-type chemotherapy in TNT (RR=0.25, 95% CI: 0.07-0.88, P =0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

TNT increases rates of breached TME which can contribute to higher local recurrence rates. TNT, however, improves systemic control by reducing early progression of disease during neoadjuvant treatment period. Further research is warranted to identify patients that will benefit from this strategy.

Clinical Robotic Surgery Association (India Chapter) and Indian rectal cancer expert group’s practical consensus statements for surgical management of localized and locally advanced rectal cancer

Introduction

There are standard treatment guidelines for the surgical management of rectal cancer, that are advocated by recognized physician societies. But, owing to disparities in access and affordability of various treatment options, there remains an unmet need for personalizing these international guidelines to Indian settings.

Methods

Clinical Robotic Surgery Association (CRSA) set up the Indian rectal cancer expert group, with a pre-defined selection criterion and comprised of the leading surgical oncologists and gastrointestinal surgeons managing rectal cancer in India. Following the constitution of the expert Group, members identified three areas of focus and 12 clinical questions. A thorough review of the literature was performed, and the evidence was graded as per the levels of evidence by Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. The consensus was built using the modified Delphi methodology of consensus development. A consensus statement was accepted only if ≥75% of the experts were in agreement.

Results

Using the results of the review of the literature and experts’ opinions; the expert group members drafted and agreed on the final consensus statements, and these were classified as “strong or weak”, based on the GRADE framework.

Conclusion

The expert group adapted international guidelines for the surgical management of localized and locally advanced rectal cancer to Indian settings. It will be vital to disseminate these to the wider surgical oncologists and gastrointestinal surgeons’ community in India.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Colorectal Cancer Screening: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

After the World Health Organization (WHO) announcing about global pandemic of COVID-19 in March 2020 and relocation of health care resources for controlling this infection, cancer screening programs especially colorectal cancer (CRC) have been suspended in many countries. According to GLOBOCAN 2020 data, CRC is the third prevalent and second deadliest cancer in the world. So, early detection through screening is essential to reduce the mortality associated with this cancer. The present study was designed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on colorectal cancer screening.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A comprehensive search performed on June 2021 in various databases, including Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus. Keywords such as "Early Detection," "Cancer," "Cancer Screening," "Cancer Screening Tests," "Coronavirus Disease-19," "COVID 19," "Coronavirus Disease," "SARS-CoV-2 Infection," "SARS-CoV-2," "2019-nCoV," "coronavirus, 2019 Novel," "SARS COV 2 Virus," "Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2," "COVID-19," "COVID-19, Coronavirus Disease 19," "SARS Coronavirus 2","Colorectal neoplasm" and "Colorectal Cancer" were used individually or in combination to search. All articles were entered into Endnote X7 software that remove duplicates. Then, studies were first selected by title and then by abstract and at the end full texts were investigated.

RESULTS

Of the 850 identified studies, 25 were identified as eligible. The results of studies show that in general, colorectal cancer screening has decreased from 28 to 100% in different countries and at different times after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. During this period, only 2 to 2.5% of hospitals and screening centers with 100% capacity continued to operate, and more than 77% of them limited their activities to less than 10% of their normal capacity. Also, completion of colonoscopies requiring examination showed a decrease of 65.7%, surveillance colonoscopy showed a decrease of 44.6 to 79%, prescription colonoscopy decreased 60 to 81%, and referrals to colonoscopy showed a 43% decline. However, emergency colonoscopy shows a 2 to 9% increase. The use of the Fecal immunochemical test (FIT) test is also generally declining but is increasing in areas used as a colonoscopy alternative.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering that the reduction in colorectal cancer screening following COVID-19 pandemic is due to the restrictions imposed for the high prevalence of COVID-19 disease and the lack of referrals due to the fear of developing COVID-19 infection; compensating for the decline and preventing the continuation of this decreasing trend requires serious and effective interventions to maintain the capacity of screening services during the COVID-19 crisis, increase the capacity of screening centers during the lifting of restrictions and reduce fear in the public.

The time Interval Between the End of Radiotherapy and Surgery Does Not Affect Outcomes in Rectal Cancer

INTRODUCTION

The ideal time interval between the completion of chemoradiotherapy and subsequent surgical resection of advanced stage rectal tumors is highly debated. Our aim is to study the effect of the time interval between the completion of chemoradiotherapy and surgical resection on postoperative and oncologic outcomes in rectal cancer.

METHODS

Patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for resected locally advanced rectal tumors between 2004 and 2015 were included in this analysis. The time interval was calculated from the date of radiation completion to date of surgery. Patients were split into 2 groups based on the time interval (<8 weeks and >8 weeks). Postoperative outcomes (anastomotic leak, pathologic complete response (pCR), and readmission) and survival were assessed with multivariable logistic regression and Cox regression models while adjusting for relevant confounders.

RESULTS

200 patients (62% male) underwent resection with a median time interval of 8 weeks from completion of radiotherapy. On multivariable logistic regression, there was no significant increase in odds between time interval to surgery and anastomotic leak (aOR = .8 [.27-2.7], P = .8), pCR (aOR = 1.2[.58-2.6] P = .6), or readmission (aOR = 1.02, 95% CI:0.49-2.24, P = .9). Time interval to surgery was not an independent prognostic factor for overall (HR = 1.04 CI = .4-2.65, P = .9) and disease-free survival (HR = 1.2 CI = .5-2.9, P = .6).

CONCLUSION

The time interval between neoadjuvant radiotherapy completion and surgical resection does not affect anastomotic leak rate, achievement of pCR, or overall and disease-free survival in patients with rectal cancer. Extended periods of time to surgical resection are relatively safe.

Could diagnostic and therapeutic delay affect the prognosis of gastrointestinal primary malignancies in the COVID-19 pandemic era? A literature review

BACKGROUND

Emergency situations, as the Covid-19 pandemic that is striking the world nowadays, stress the national health systems which are forced to rapidly reorganizing their sources. Therefore, many elective diagnostic and surgical procedures are being suspended or significantly delayed. Moreover, patients might find it difficult to refer to physicians and delay the diagnostic and even the therapeutic procedures because of emotional or logistic problems. The effect of diagnostic and therapeutic delay on survival in patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies is still unclear.

METHODS

We carried out a review of the available literature, in order to determine whether the delay in performing diagnosis and curative-intent surgical procedures affects the oncological outcomes in patients with oesophageal, gastric, colorectal cancers, and colorectal liver metastasis.

RESULTS

The findings indicate that for oesophageal, gastric and colon cancers delaying surgery up to 2 months after the end of the staging process does not worsen the oncological outcomes. Oesophageal cancer should undergo surgery within 7-8 weeks after the end of neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Rectal cancers should undergo surgery within 31 days after the diagnostic process and within 12 weeks after neoadjuvant therapy. Adjuvant therapy should start within 4 weeks after surgery, especially in gastric cancer; a delay up to 42 days may be allowed for oesophageal cancer undergoing adjuvant radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Gastrointestinal malignancies can be safely managed taking into account that reasonable delays of planned treatments appear a generally safe approach, not having a significant impact on long-term oncological outcome.

Gastrointestinal Malignancies and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence-Based Triage to Surgery

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to widespread cancelation of electively scheduled surgeries, including for colorectal, pancreatic, and gastric cancer. The American College of Surgeons and the Society of Surgical Oncology have released guidelines for triage of these procedures. We seek to synthesize available evidence on delayed resection and oncologic outcomes, while also providing a critical assessment of the released guidelines.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to identify literature between 2005 and 2020 investigating the impact of time to surgery on oncologic outcomes in colorectal, pancreatic, and gastric cancer.

RESULTS

For colorectal cancer, 1066 abstracts were screened and 43 papers were included. In primarily resected colon cancer, delay over 30 to 40 days is associated with lower survival. In rectal cancer, time to surgery over 7 to 8 weeks following neoadjuvant therapy is associated with decreased survival. Three hundred ninety-four abstracts were screened for pancreatic cancer and nine studies were included. Two studies demonstrate increased unexpected progression with delayed surgery over 30 days. Out of 633 abstracts screened for gastric cancer, six studies were included. No identified study demonstrated worse survival with increased time to surgery.

CONCLUSION

Moderate evidence suggests that delayed resection of colorectal cancer worsens survival; the impact of time to surgery on gastric and pancreatic cancer outcomes is uncertain. Early resection of gastrointestinal malignancies provides the best chance for curative therapy. During the COVID-19 pandemic, prioritization of procedures should account for available evidence on time to surgery and oncologic outcomes.