Social inequality in cancer survivorship:Educational differences in health‐related quality of life among 27,857 cancer survivors in Denmark

BackgroundWith a growing population of cancer survivors in Denmark, the evaluation of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) has become increasingly important. We describe variations in HRQoL between educational groups in a national population of cancer survivors.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire study among breast, prostate, lung, and colon cancer survivors diagnosed in 2010–2019 in Denmark. We used the EORTC QLQ-C30 to assess HRQoL including physical, role, emotional, cognitive, social functioning, and symptoms (fatigue, nausea and vomiting, pain, dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea, and financial difficulties). Information on educational level and clinical data were extracted from national registers and clinical databases. Levels of impaired functioning and severe symptoms were identified using newly established thresholds for clinical importance. Multivariate logistic regression was used to examine associations between education and HRQoL. All statistical tests were 2-sided.ResultsIn total, 27,857 (42%) participated in the study. Up to 72% and 75% of cancer survivors with short education (≤9 years) reported impaired functioning and severe symptoms, respectively. Cancer survivors with short compared to long education (>12 years) were more likely to report impaired functioning and severe symptoms, with for example significantly higher odds ratios (ORs) for impaired physical function (breast OR = 2.41, 99% CI = 2.01–2.89; prostate OR = 1.81, 99% CI = 1.48–2.21; lung OR = 2.97, 99% CI = 1.95–4.57; and colon cancer OR = 1.69, 99% CI = 1.28–2.24).ConclusionsCancer survivors with short education are at greater risk of impaired HRQoL than survivors with long education 2–12 years after diagnosis. This underscores the need for systematic screening and symptom management in cancer aftercare, in order to reach all cancer survivors, also cancer survivors with short education

Combined endoscopic and laparoscopic surgery (CELS) for early colon cancer in high-risk patients

Background Local excision of early colon cancers could be an option in selected patients with high risk of complications and no sign of lymph node metastasis (LNM). The primary aim was to assess feasibility in high-risk patients with early colon cancer treated with Combined Endoscopic and Laparoscopic Surgery (CELS). Methods A non-randomized prospective feasibility study including 25 patients with Performance Status score ≥ 1 and/or American Society of Anesthesiologists score ≥ 3, and clinical Union of International Cancer Control stage-1 colon cancer suitable for CELS resection. The primary outcome was failure of CELS resection, defined as either: Incomplete resection (R1/R2), local recurrence within 3 months, complication related to CELS within 30 days (Clavien–Dindo grade ≥ 3), death within 30 days or death within 90 days due to complications to surgery. Results Fifteen patients with clinical T1 (cT1) and ten with clinical T2 (cT2) colon cancer and without suspicion of metastases were included. Failure occurred in two patients due to incomplete resections. Histopathological examination classified seven patients as having pT1, nine as pT2, six as pT3 adenocarcinomas, and three as non-invasive tumors. In three patients, the surgical strategy was changed intraoperatively to conventional colectomy due to tumor location or size. Median length of stay was 1 day. Seven patients had completion colectomy performed due to histological high-risk factors. None had LNM. Conclusions In selected patients, CELS resection was feasible, and could spare some patients large bowel resection

International consensus definition of low anterior resection syndrome

Aim: Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is pragmatically defined as disordered bowel function after rectal resection leading to a detriment in quality of life. This broad characterization does not allow for precise estimates of prevalence. The LARS score was designed as a simple tool for clinical evaluation of LARS. Although the LARS score has good clinical utility, it may not capture all important aspects that patients may experience. The aim of this collaboration was to develop an international consensus definition of LARS that encompasses all aspects of the condition and is informed by all stakeholders. Method: This international patient–provider initiative used an online Delphi survey, regional patient consultation meetings, and an international consensus meeting. Three expert groups participated: patients, surgeons and other health professionals from five regions (Australasia, Denmark, Spain, Great Britain and Ireland, and North America) and in three languages (English, Spanish, and Danish). The primary outcome measured was the priorities for the definition of LARS. Results: Three hundred twenty-five participants (156 patients) registered. The response rates for successive rounds of the Delphi survey were 86%, 96% and 99%. Eighteen priorities emerged from the Delphi survey. Patient consultation and consensus meetings refined these priorities to eight symptoms and eight consequences that capture essential aspects of the syndrome. Sampling bias may have been present, in particular, in the patient panel because social media was used extensively in recruitment. There was also dominance of the surgical panel at the final consensus meeting despite attempts to mitigate this. Conclusion: This is the first definition of LARS developed with direct input from a large international patient panel. The involvement of patients in all phases has ensured that the definition presented encompasses the vital aspects of the patient experience of LARS. The novel separation of symptoms and consequences may enable greater sensitivity to detect changes in LARS over time and with intervention

International consensus definition of low anterior resection syndrome

Aim: Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is pragmatically defined as disordered bowel function after rectal resection leading to a detriment in quality of life. This broad characterization does not allow for precise estimates of prevalence. The LARS score was designed as a simple tool for clinical evaluation of LARS. Although the LARS score has good clinical utility, it may not capture all important aspects that patients may experience. The aim of this collaboration was to develop an international consensus definition of LARS that encompasses all aspects of the condition and is informed by all stakeholders. Method: This international patient–provider initiative used an online Delphi survey, regional patient consultation meetings, and an international consensus meeting. Three expert groups participated: patients, surgeons and other health professionals from five regions (Australasia, Denmark, Spain, Great Britain and Ireland, and North America) and in three languages (English, Spanish, and Danish). The primary outcome measured was the priorities for the definition of LARS. Results: Three hundred twenty-five participants (156 patients) registered. The response rates for successive rounds of the Delphi survey were 86%, 96% and 99%. Eighteen priorities emerged from the Delphi survey. Patient consultation and consensus meetings refined these priorities to eight symptoms and eight consequences that capture essential aspects of the syndrome. Sampling bias may have been present, in particular, in the patient panel because social media was used extensively in recruitment. There was also dominance of the surgical panel at the final consensus meeting despite attempts to mitigate this. Conclusion: This is the first definition of LARS developed with direct input from a large international patient panel. The involvement of patients in all phases has ensured that the definition presented encompasses the vital aspects of the patient experience of LARS. The novel separation of symptoms and consequences may enable greater sensitivity to detect changes in LARS over time and with intervention

Danish Colorectal Cancer Group Database

Peter Ingeholm,1,2 Ismail Gögenur,1,3 Lene H Iversen1,4 1Danish Colorectal Cancer Group Database, Copenhagen, 2Department of Pathology, Herlev University Hospital, Herlev, 3Department of Surgery, Roskilde University Hospital, Roskilde, 4Department of Surgery P, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus C, Denmark Aim of database: The aim of the database, which has existed for registration of all patients with colorectal cancer in Denmark since 2001, is to improve the prognosis for this patient group. Study population: All Danish patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer who are either diagnosed or treated in a surgical department of a public Danish hospital. Main variables: The database comprises an array of surgical, radiological, oncological, and pathological variables. The surgeons record data such as diagnostics performed, including type and results of radiological examinations, lifestyle factors, comorbidity and performance, treatment including the surgical procedure, urgency of surgery, and intra- and postoperative complications within 30 days after surgery. The pathologists record data such as tumor type, number of lymph nodes and metastatic lymph nodes, surgical margin status, and other pathological risk factors. Descriptive data: The database has had >95% completeness in including patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma with >54,000 patients registered so far with approximately one-third rectal cancers and two-third colon cancers and an overrepresentation of men among rectal cancer patients. The stage distribution has been more or less constant until 2014 with a tendency toward a lower rate of stage IV and higher rate of stage I after introduction of the national screening program in 2014. The 30-day mortality rate after elective surgery has been reduced from >7% in 2001–2003 to <2% since 2013. Conclusion: The database is a national population-based clinical database with high patient and data completeness for the perioperative period. The resolution of data is high for description of the patient at the time of diagnosis, including comorbidities, and for characterizing diagnosis, surgical interventions, and short-term outcomes. The database does not have high-resolution oncological data and does not register recurrences after primary surgery. The Danish Colorectal Cancer Group provides high-quality data and has been documenting an increase in short- and long-term survivals since it started in 2001 for both patients with colon and rectal cancers. Keywords: clinical quality database, quality indicator, disease register, colon neoplasms, rectal neoplasm