Colorectal Cancer Stage at Diagnosis Before vs During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy

IMPORTANCE Delays in screening programs and the reluctance of patients to seek medical attention because of the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 could be associated with the risk of more advanced colorectal cancers at diagnosis. OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was associated with more advanced oncologic stage and change in clinical presentation for patients with colorectal cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This retrospective, multicenter cohort study included all 17 938 adult patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer from March 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021 (pandemic period), and from January 1, 2018, to February 29, 2020 (prepandemic period), in 81 participating centers in Italy, including tertiary centers and community hospitals. Follow-up was 30 days from surgery. EXPOSURES Any type of surgical procedure for colorectal cancer, including explorative surgery, palliative procedures, and atypical or segmental resections. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was advanced stage of colorectal cancer at diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were distant metastasis, T4 stage, aggressive biology (defined as cancer with at least 1 of the following characteristics: signet ring cells, mucinous tumor, budding, lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, and lymphangitis), stenotic lesion, emergency surgery, and palliative surgery. The independent association between the pandemic period and the outcomes was assessed using multivariate random-effects logistic regression, with hospital as the cluster variable. RESULTS A total of 17 938 patients (10 007 men [55.8%]; mean [SD] age, 70.6 [12.2] years) underwent surgery for colorectal cancer: 7796 (43.5%) during the pandemic period and 10 142 (56.5%) during the prepandemic period. Logistic regression indicated that the pandemic period was significantly associated with an increased rate of advanced-stage colorectal cancer (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95%CI, 1.01-1.13; P = .03), aggressive biology (OR, 1.32; 95%CI, 1.15-1.53; P < .001), and stenotic lesions (OR, 1.15; 95%CI, 1.01-1.31; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This cohort study suggests a significant association between the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the risk of a more advanced oncologic stage at diagnosis among patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer and might indicate a potential reduction of survival for these patients

Effect of centre volume on pathological outcomes and postoperative complications after surgery for colorectal cancer: results of a multicentre national study

Background: The association between volume, complications and pathological outcomes is still under debate regarding colorectal cancer surgery. The aim of the study was to assess the association between centre volume and severe complications, mortality, less-than-radical oncologic surgery, and indications for neoadjuvant therapy.Methods: Retrospective analysis of 16,883 colorectal cancer cases from 80 centres (2018-2021). Outcomes: 30-day mortality; Clavien-Dindo grade >2 complications; removal of >= 12 lymph nodes; non-radical resection; neoadjuvant therapy. Quartiles of hospital volumes were classified as LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH, and VERY HIGH. Independent predictors, both overall and for rectal cancer, were evaluated using logistic regression including age, gender, AJCC stage and cancer site.Results: LOW-volume centres reported a higher rate of severe postoperative complications (OR 1.50, 95% c.i. 1.15-1.096, P = 0.003). The rate of >= 12 lymph nodes removed in LOW-volume (OR 0.68, 95% c.i. 0.56-0.85, P = 12 lymph nodes removed was lower in LOW-volume than in VERY HIGH-volume centres (OR 0.57, 95% c.i. 0.41-0.80, P = 0.001). A lower rate of neoadjuvant chemoradiation was associated with HIGH (OR 0.66, 95% c.i. 0.56-0.77, P < 0.001), MEDIUM (OR 0.75, 95% c.i. 0.60-0.92, P = 0.006), and LOW (OR 0.70, 95% c.i. 0.52-0.94, P = 0.019) volume centres (vs. VERY HIGH).Conclusion: Colorectal cancer surgery in low-volume centres is at higher risk of suboptimal management, poor postoperative outcomes, and less-than-adequate oncologic resections. Centralisation of rectal cancer cases should be taken into consideration to optimise the outcomes

The management of acute venous thromboembolism in clinical practice - study rationale and protocol of the European PREFER in VTE Registry

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major health problem, with over one million events every year in Europe. However, there is a paucity of data on the current management in real life, including factors influencing treatment pathways, patient satisfaction, quality of life (QoL), and utilization of health care resources and the corresponding costs. The PREFER in VTE registry has been designed to address this and to understand medical care and needs as well as potential gaps for improvement. Methods/design: The PREFER in VTE registry was a prospective, observational, multicenter study conducted in seven European countries including Austria, France Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and the UK to assess the characteristics and the management of patients with VTE, the use of health care resources, and to provide data to estimate the costs for 12 months treatment following a first-time and/or recurrent VTE diagnosed in hospitals or specialized or primary care centers. In addition, existing anticoagulant treatment patterns, patient pathways, clinical outcomes, treatment satisfaction, and health related QoL were documented. The centers were chosen to reflect the care environment in which patients with VTE are managed in each of the participating countries. Patients were eligible to be enrolled into the registry if they were at least 18 years old, had a symptomatic, objectively confirmed first time or recurrent acute VTE defined as either distal or proximal deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism or both. After the baseline visit at the time of the acute VTE event, further follow-up documentations occurred at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months. Follow-up data was collected by either routinely scheduled visits or by telephone calls. Results: Overall, 381 centers participated, which enrolled 3,545 patients during an observational period of 1 year. Conclusion: The PREFER in VTE registry will provide valuable insights into the characteristics of patients with VTE and their acute and mid-term management, as well as into drug utilization and the use of health care resources in acute first-time and/or recurrent VTE across Europe in clinical practice. Trial registration: Registered in DRKS register, ID number: DRKS0000479

Surgeons’ practice and preferences for the anal fissure treatment: results from an international survey

The best nonoperative or operative anal fissure (AF) treatment is not yet established, and several options have been proposed. Aim is to report the surgeons' practice for the AF treatment. Thirty-four multiple-choice questions were developed. Seven questions were about to participants' demographics and, 27 questions about their clinical practice. Based on the specialty (general surgeon and colorectal surgeon), obtained data were divided and compared between two groups. Five-hundred surgeons were included (321 general and 179 colorectal surgeons). For both groups, duration of symptoms for at least 6 weeks is the most important factor for AF diagnosis (30.6%). Type of AF (acute vs chronic) is the most important factor which guide the therapeutic plan (44.4%). The first treatment of choice for acute AF is ointment application for both groups (59.6%). For the treatment of chronic AF, this data is confirmed by colorectal surgeons (57%), but not by the general surgeons who prefer the lateral internal sphincterotomy (LIS) (31.8%) (p = 0.0001). Botulin toxin injection is most performed by colorectal surgeons (58.7%) in comparison to general surgeons (20.9%) (p = 0.0001). Anal flap is mostly performed by colorectal surgeons (37.4%) in comparison to general surgeons (28.3%) (p = 0.0001). Fissurectomy alone is statistically significantly most performed by general surgeons in comparison to colorectal surgeons (57.9% and 43.6%, respectively) (p = 0.0020). This analysis provides useful information about the clinical practice for the management of a debated topic such as AF treatment. Shared guidelines and consensus especially focused on operative management are required to standardize the treatment and to improve postoperative results

Delayed colorectal cancer care during covid-19 pandemic (decor-19). Global perspective from an international survey

Background The widespread nature of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been unprecedented. We sought to analyze its global impact with a survey on colorectal cancer (CRC) care during the pandemic. Methods The impact of COVID-19 on preoperative assessment, elective surgery, and postoperative management of CRC patients was explored by a 35-item survey, which was distributed worldwide to members of surgical societies with an interest in CRC care. Respondents were divided into two comparator groups: 1) ‘delay’ group: CRC care affected by the pandemic; 2) ‘no delay’ group: unaltered CRC practice. Results A total of 1,051 respondents from 84 countries completed the survey. No substantial differences in demographics were found between the ‘delay’ (745, 70.9%) and ‘no delay’ (306, 29.1%) groups. Suspension of multidisciplinary team meetings, staff members quarantined or relocated to COVID-19 units, units fully dedicated to COVID-19 care, personal protective equipment not readily available were factors significantly associated to delays in endoscopy, radiology, surgery, histopathology and prolonged chemoradiation therapy-to-surgery intervals. In the ‘delay’ group, 48.9% of respondents reported a change in the initial surgical plan and 26.3% reported a shift from elective to urgent operations. Recovery of CRC care was associated with the status of the outbreak. Practicing in COVID-free units, no change in operative slots and staff members not relocated to COVID-19 units were statistically associated with unaltered CRC care in the ‘no delay’ group, while the geographical distribution was not. Conclusions Global changes in diagnostic and therapeutic CRC practices were evident. Changes were associated with differences in health-care delivery systems, hospital’s preparedness, resources availability, and local COVID-19 prevalence rather than geographical factors. Strategic planning is required to optimize CRC care