The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Are you ready for the challenge? Social Media Health Challenges for Behaviour Change

Challenges are one of the most common strategies used by Opinion Leaders on Social Media to engage users. They are often found in different areas; in the Health field, the use of challenges is growing, namely through initiatives aiming at eating behaviour change. Instagram is considered to be one of the most used Social Media applications to develop these initiatives, allowing Opinion Leaders to communicate and engage with their online followers. Despite this scenario, little is known regarding how Health Challenges are being used and what is their impact on behaviour change. Previous research has already shown how Opinion Leaders use Instagram to promote eating behaviour change. The purpose of this paper is to conceptualize, describe and discuss Social Media Health Challenges, aiming to analyse Instagram challenges on healthy eating. The study was organized in two phases: the first one is a literature review based on Prisma method that supported the conceptualisation of SocialMedia Challenges and the design for the second phase where Social Media Health Challenges of Opinion Leaders, such as Nutritionists, Health Lifestylers and Patient Opinion Leaders (POLS) were analysed. Results showed that most of the challenges are promoted by Patient Opinion Leaders and Health Lifestylers. Followers adhere to Social Media Health Challenges related to weight loss, engaging with Opinion Leaders. The psychological-cognitive components (such as habits, motivation, and self-control) were found in the analysed challenges, and Instagram is one of the used tools to promote these Initiatives. These results point to new paths regarding future research on other behaviour change online initiatives.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Lasting Symptoms After Esophageal Resection (LASER): European Multicenter Cross-sectional Study

Objective:To identify the most prevalent symptoms and those with greatest impact upon health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among esophageal cancer survivors.Background:Long-term symptom burden after esophagectomy, and associations with HRQOL, are poorly understood.Patients and Methods:Between 2010 and 2016, patients from 20 European Centers who underwent esophageal cancer surgery, and were disease-free at least 1 year postoperatively were asked to complete LASER, EORTC-QLQ-C30, and QLQ-OG25 questionnaires. Specific symptom questionnaire items that were associated with poor HRQOL as identified by EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OG25 were identified by multivariable regression analysis and combined to form a tool.Results:A total of 876 of 1081 invited patients responded to the questionnaire, giving a response rate of 81%. Of these, 66.9% stated in the last 6 months they had symptoms associated with their esophagectomy. Ongoing weight loss was reported by 10.4% of patients, and only 13.8% returned to work with the same activities.Three LASER symptoms were correlated with poor HRQOL on multivariable analysis; pain on scars on chest (odds ratio (OR) 1.27; 95% CI 0.97-1.65), low mood (OR 1.42; 95% CI 1.15-1.77) and reduced energy or activity tolerance (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.18-1.59). The areas under the curves for the development and validation datasets were 0.81 ± 0.02 and 0.82 ± 0.09 respectively.Conclusion:Two-thirds of patients experience significant symptoms more than 1 year after surgery. The 3 key symptoms associated with poor HRQOL identified in this study should be further validated, and could be used in clinical practice to identify patients who require increased support