Guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of Faecal Incontinence-A UEG/ESCP/ESNM/ESPCG collaboration

Introduction The goal of this project was to create an up-to-date joint European clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of faecal incontinence (FI), using the best available evidence. These guidelines are intended to help guide all medical professionals treating adult patients with FI (e.g., general practitioners, surgeons, gastroenterologists, other healthcare workers) and any patients who are interested in information regarding the diagnosis and management of FI. Methods These guidelines have been created in cooperation with members from the United European Gastroenterology (UEG), European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP), European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility (ESNM) and the European Society for Primary Care Gastroenterology (ESPCG). These members made up the guideline development group (GDG). Additionally, a patient advisory board (PAB) was created to reflect and comment on the draft guidelines from a patient perspective. Relevant review questions were established by the GDG along with a set of outcomes most important for decision making. A systematic literature search was performed using these review questions and outcomes as a framework. For each predefined review question, the study or studies with the highest level of study design were included. If evidence of a higher-level study design was available, no lower level of evidence was sought or included. Data from the studies were extracted by two reviewers for each predefined important outcome within each review question. Where possible, forest plots were created. After summarising the results for each review question, a systematic quality assessment using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) approach was performed. For each review question, we assessed the quality of evidence for every predetermined important outcome. After evidence review and quality assessment were completed, recommendations could be formulated. The wording used for each recommendation was dependent on the level of quality of evidence. Lower levels of evidence resulted in weaker recommendations and higher levels of evidence resulted in stronger recommendations. Recommendations were discussed within the GDG to reach consensus. Results These guidelines contain 45 recommendations on the classification, diagnosis and management of FI in adult patients. Conclusion These multidisciplinary European guidelines provide an up-to-date comprehensive evidence-based framework with recommendations on the diagnosis and management of adult patients who suffer from FI

Guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of Faecal Incontinence-A UEG/ESCP/ESNM/ESPCG collaboration

Introduction The goal of this project was to create an up-to-date joint European clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of faecal incontinence (FI), using the best available evidence. These guidelines are intended to help guide all medical professionals treating adult patients with FI (e.g., general practitioners, surgeons, gastroenterologists, other healthcare workers) and any patients who are interested in information regarding the diagnosis and management of FI. Methods These guidelines have been created in cooperation with members from the United European Gastroenterology (UEG), European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP), European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility (ESNM) and the European Society for Primary Care Gastroenterology (ESPCG). These members made up the guideline development group (GDG). Additionally, a patient advisory board (PAB) was created to reflect and comment on the draft guidelines from a patient perspective. Relevant review questions were established by the GDG along with a set of outcomes most important for decision making. A systematic literature search was performed using these review questions and outcomes as a framework. For each predefined review question, the study or studies with the highest level of study design were included. If evidence of a higher-level study design was available, no lower level of evidence was sought or included. Data from the studies were extracted by two reviewers for each predefined important outcome within each review question. Where possible, forest plots were created. After summarising the results for each review question, a systematic quality assessment using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) approach was performed. For each review question, we assessed the quality of evidence for every predetermined important outcome. After evidence review and quality assessment were completed, recommendations could be formulated. The wording used for each recommendation was dependent on the level of quality of evidence. Lower levels of evidence resulted in weaker recommendations and higher levels of evidence resulted in stronger recommendations. Recommendations were discussed within the GDG to reach consensus. Results These guidelines contain 45 recommendations on the classification, diagnosis and management of FI in adult patients. Conclusion These multidisciplinary European guidelines provide an up-to-date comprehensive evidence-based framework with recommendations on the diagnosis and management of adult patients who suffer from FI

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