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

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

A127 TIMING OF CHOLECYSTECTOMY AFTER ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY IN A TERTIARY CENTRE: EVALUATION OF OUTCOMES

Abstract Background Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the treatment of choice for patients with choledocholithiasis. Early cholecystectomy (within 24 to 72 hours) is recommended after the initial ERCP to reduce the risk of subsequent biliary events. Purpose To investigate the timing of cholecystectomy after ERCP in patients with choledocholithiasis and its associated outcomes in a single tertiary care centre. Method This is a retrospective analysis of adult patients who underwent cholecystectomy after ERCP from August 2021 to April 2022 at the University of Alberta Hospital. Outcomes data were stratified according to the length of time between ERCP and cholecystectomy, within 72 hours (early) or after 72 hours (delayed). Result(s) During the study period, 55 subjects were examined. Indications for ERCP included gallstone pancreatitis (24/55, 44%), choledocholithiasis (19/55, 34%), and acute cholangitis (12/55, 21%). In total, 30 (55%) subjects received cholecystectomy within 72 hours, while 25 (45%) subjects received cholecystectomy after 72 hours. The two groups were comparable in age, sex ratios, and comorbidities. Out of the patients who received cholecystectomy after 72 hours, 8 (32%) subjects received their cholecystectomy on a subsequent admission. Of these, 2 subjects developed recurrent biliary events before their cholecystectomy, and 1 subject required a conversion to open cholecystectomy. There were no recurrent biliary events amongst the individuals with early cholecystectomy. Subjects who received early cholecystectomy had a shorter total hospital stay compared to those with delayed cholecystectomy (4.5 days vs 7.3 days, p=0.0002). There was no significant difference between early and late cholecystectomy in conversion rate (3% vs 8%, p=0.58), average operating time (86min vs 83min, p=0.79), intraoperative complications including adhesions (13% vs 12%, p&amp;gt;0.05) and empyema (27% vs 28%, p&amp;gt;0.05), as well as histological rate of chronic cholecystitis (88% vs 92%, p=0.68). Reasons associated with significantly delayed (&amp;gt;7 days) cholecystectomy after ERCP (n=12) include requiring coordination/consultation with other services prior to operation (3 subjects), prolonged course of gallstone pancreatitis (3 subjects), poor candidate for operation due to comorbidities (2 subjects), surgical cancellation/delays (2 subjects), post-ERCP pancreatitis (1 subject), and patient preference (1 subject). Image Conclusion(s) Early cholecystectomy is associated with a shorter length of hospital stay and absence of recurrent biliary events. Other post-cholecystectomy outcomes were comparable. Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy should continue to be encouraged through an interdisciplinary approach. Please acknowledge all funding agencies by checking the applicable boxes below None Disclosure of Interest None Declared </jats:sec