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

Laparoscopic Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy for Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was proposed as an oncologically safe approach for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: A systematic review of the studies comparing laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy was conducted. The primary endpoint was an R0 resection rate. The secondary endpoints were intra- and postoperative results, tumour size, mean harvested lymph node, number of patients eligible for adjuvant therapy and overall survival. RESULTS: Five comparative case control studies involving 261 patients (30.7% laparoscopic and 69.3% open) who underwent a distal pancreatectomy were included. The R0 resection rate was similar between the two groups (P = 0.53). The laparoscopic group had longer operative times (P = 0.04), lesser blood loss (P = 0.01), a shorter hospital stay (P < 0.001) and smaller tumour size (P = 0.04) as compared with the laparotomic group. Overall morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula, reoperation, mortality and number of patients eligible for adjuvant therapy were similar. The mean harvested lymph nodes were comparable in the two groups (P = 0.33). The laparoscopic approach did not affect the overall survival rate (P = 0.32). CONCLUSION: Even if the number of patients compared is underpowered, the laparoscopic approach in the treatment of PDAC seems to be safe and efficacious. However, additional prospective, randomised, multicentric trials are needed to correctly evaluate the laparoscopic approach in PDAC