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

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

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

Trimodality treatment in malignant pleural mesothelioma – Ordeal or real deal?

BackgroundManagement of MPM is complex and controversial as there is a paucity of good quality evidence. We report the toxicity and outcomes in patients who received trimodality treatment for non-metastatic MPM at our institution.Methods & materialsWe reviewed the electronic medical records of surgically managed MPM patients at our institution in the last decade. Dosimetric parameters of target volume and organs at risk were documented by the treatment planning workstation. SPSS was used for statistical analysis.ResultsBetween January 2008 and October 2018, 21 patients underwent surgery for MPM – all but 2 patients underwent extra-pleural pneumonectomy (EPP); epithelioid MPM was the most common histology. All patients, except 2, received neoadjuvant Pemetrexed/platinum doublet chemotherapy. Fourteen patients received adjuvant hemithoracic RT; ten patients were treated with a conformal technique at our institute and dosimetric data was available for analysis. Average time to start RT after surgery was 51 days (range 32–82 days). All patients were treated with a conformal technique using IMRT/VMAT to a dose of 45Gy in 25 fractions. Mean overall RT duration was 35 days (range 30–42 days). Grade I/II Pneumonitis was seen in 4 patients. One patient developed grade III acute lung toxicity unrelated to RT. At a median follow up of 25 months, 8 patients had died, of whom six died due to the disease and two died in the immediate post op period. Two-year DFS and OS were 58% and 73%, respectively.ConclusionIn spite of the extensive surgery and complex hemithoracic RT, we demonstrated excellent dosimetry, toxicity profile and favorable outcomes in non-metastatic MPM

National Cancer Grid Virtual Tumor Boards of Head and Neck Cancers: An Innovative Approach to Multidisciplinary Care

PURPOSEVirtual tumor board (VTB) via videoconference facility involving multiple specialists in the decision making for various tumors is well accepted, especially in high-income countries. Information on virtual tumor boards for head and neck cancers especially from low- and middle-income countries is sparse. In this study, we have audited the findings of the National Cancer Grid VTBs performed for head and neck cancers.METHODSAll patients discussed in the head and neck VTBs at our center between December 2016 and February 2022 were included in the study. Details such as the type of institute sending patients for discussion, its location, subsites within the head and neck region, histopathology, treatment setting or question for the VTB, and availability of guidelines for such patient scenarios were assessed. Also, a survey was sent to assess the usefulness of the VTBs.RESULTSA total of 208 patients were discussed in 54 VTB sessions. The most common head and neck sites discussed in the VTBs were the oral cavity (n = 64, 30.7%) followed by skull base/nose and paranasal sinuses/eyelid-orbit tumors (n = 49, 23.5%). Nonsquamous cell carcinoma was the most common histopathology discussed; recurrent cancers/residual diseases were the most common treatment settings (n = 134, 64.4%) for which there were no existing guidelines. Survey results showed that most VTB decisions were implementable, and respondents felt that VTBs were a useful educational tool as well.CONCLUSIONOur study affirms the feasibility of VTBs in low- and middle-income countries' health care systems for managing uncommon malignancies and clinical situations, which act as an important educational platform

Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Esophagectomy: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS^®) Society Recommendations.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs provide a format for multidisciplinary care and has been shown to predictably improve short term outcomes associated with surgical procedures. Esophagectomy has historically been associated with significant levels of morbidity and mortality and as a result routine application and audit of ERAS guidelines specifically designed for esophageal resection has significant potential to improve outcomes associated with this complex procedure. A team of international experts in the surgical management of esophageal cancer was assembled and the existing literature was identified and reviewed prior to the production of the guidelines. Well established procedure specific components of ERAS were reviewed and updated with changes relevant to esophagectomy. Procedure specific, operative and technical sections were produced utilizing the best current level of evidence. All sections were rated regarding the level of evidence and overall recommendation according to the evaluation (GRADE) system. Thirty-nine sections were ultimately produced and assessed for quality of evidence and recommendations. Some sections were completely new to ERAS programs due to the fact that esophagectomy is the first guideline with a thoracic component to the procedure. The current ERAS society guidelines should be reviewed and applied in all centers looking to improve outcomes and quality associated with esophageal resection

Cancer Medicines: What Is Essential and Affordable in India?

PURPOSEThe WHO essential medicines list (EML) guides selection of drugs for national formularies. Here, we evaluate which medicines are considered highest priority by Indian oncologists and the extent to which they are available in routine practice.METHODSThis is a secondary analysis of an electronic survey developed by the WHO EML Cancer Medicine Working Group. The survey was distributed globally using a hierarchical snowball method to physicians who prescribe systemic anticancer therapy. The survey captured the 10 medicines oncologists considered highest priority for population health and their availability in routine practice.RESULTSThe global study cohort included 948 respondents from 82 countries; 98 were from India and 67 were from other low- and middle-income countries. Compared with other low- and middle-income countries, the Indian cohort was more likely to be medical oncologist (70% v 31%, P < .001) and work exclusively in the private health system (52% v 17%, P < .001). 14/20 most commonly selected medicines were conventional cytotoxic drugs. Universal access to these medicines was reported by a minority of oncologists; risks of significant out-of-pocket expenditures for each medicine were reported by 19%-58% of oncologists. Risk of catastrophic expenditure was reported by 58%-67% of oncologists for rituximab and trastuzumab. Risks of financial toxicity were substantially higher within the private health system compared with the public system.CONCLUSIONMost high-priority cancer medicines identified by Indian oncologists are generic chemotherapy agents that provide substantial improvements in survival and are already included in WHO EML. Access to these treatments remains limited by major financial burdens experienced by patients. This is particularly acute within the private health system. Strategies are urgently needed to ensure that high-quality cancer care is affordable and accessible to all patients in India