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

A Prospective Randomized Study of Clinical Assessment versus Computed Tomography for the Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis

Background: The objective of this study was to determine if routine use of computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis of appendicitis is warranted. Methods: During a one-year study period, all patients who presented to the surgical service with possible appendicitis were studied. One hundred eighty-two patients with possible appendicitis were randomized to clinical assessment (CA) alone, or clinical evaluation and abdominal/pelvic CT. A true-positive case resulted in a laparotomy that revealed a lesion requiring operation. A true-negative case did not require operation at one-week follow-up evaluation. Hospital length of stay, hospital charges, perforation rates, and times to operation were recorded. Results: The age and gender distributions were similar in both groups. Accuracy was 90% in the CA group and 92% for CT. Sensitivity was 100% for the CA group and 91% for the CT group. Specificity was 73% for CA and 93% for CT. There were no statistically significant differences in hospital length of stay (CA = 2.4 ± 3.2 days vs. CT = 2.2 ± 2.2 days, p = 0.55), hospital charges (CA = $10,728 ± 10,608 vs. CT =$10,317 ± 7,173, p = 0.73) or perforation rates (CA = 6% vs. CT = 9%, p = 0.4). Time to the operating room was shorter in the CA group, 10.6 ± 8.4 h vs. CT, 19.0 ± 19.0 h (p \u3c 0.01). Conclusions: Clinical assessment unaided by CT reliably identifies patients who need operation for acute appendicitis, and they undergo surgery sooner. Routine use of abdominal/pelvic CT is not warranted. Further research is needed to identify sub-groups of patients who may benefit from CT. Computed tomography should not be considered the standard of care for the diagnosis of appendicitis

A Prospective Randomized Study of Clinical Assessment versus Computed Tomography for the Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis

Background: The objective of this study was to determine if routine use of computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis of appendicitis is warranted. Methods: During a one-year study period, all patients who presented to the surgical service with possible appendicitis were studied. One hundred eighty-two patients with possible appendicitis were randomized to clinical assessment (CA) alone, or clinical evaluation and abdominal/pelvic CT. A true-positive case resulted in a laparotomy that revealed a lesion requiring operation. A true-negative case did not require operation at one-week follow-up evaluation. Hospital length of stay, hospital charges, perforation rates, and times to operation were recorded. Results: The age and gender distributions were similar in both groups. Accuracy was 90% in the CA group and 92% for CT. Sensitivity was 100% for the CA group and 91% for the CT group. Specificity was 73% for CA and 93% for CT. There were no statistically significant differences in hospital length of stay (CA = 2.4 ± 3.2 days vs. CT = 2.2 ± 2.2 days, p = 0.55), hospital charges (CA = $10,728 ± 10,608 vs. CT =$10,317 ± 7,173, p = 0.73) or perforation rates (CA = 6% vs. CT = 9%, p = 0.4). Time to the operating room was shorter in the CA group, 10.6 ± 8.4 h vs. CT, 19.0 ± 19.0 h (p \u3c 0.01). Conclusions: Clinical assessment unaided by CT reliably identifies patients who need operation for acute appendicitis, and they undergo surgery sooner. Routine use of abdominal/pelvic CT is not warranted. Further research is needed to identify sub-groups of patients who may benefit from CT. Computed tomography should not be considered the standard of care for the diagnosis of appendicitis

A Prospective Randomized Study of Clinical Assessment Versus Computed Tomography for the Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to determine if routine use of computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis of appendicitis is warranted. METHODS: During a one-year study period, all patients who presented to the surgical service with possible appendicitis were studied. One hundred eighty-two patients with possible appendicitis were randomized to clinical assessment (CA) alone, or clinical evaluation and abdominal/pelvic CT. A true-positive case resulted in a laparotomy that revealed a lesion requiring operation. A true-negative case did not require operation at one-week follow-up evaluation. Hospital length of stay, hospital charges, perforation rates, and times to operation were recorded. RESULTS: The age and gender distributions were similar in both groups. Accuracy was 90% in the CA group and 92% for CT. Sensitivity was 100% for the CA group and 91% for the CT group. Specificity was 73% for CA and 93% for CT. There were no statistically significant differences in hospital length of stay (CA = 2.4 +/- 3.2 days vs. CT = 2.2 +/- 2.2 days, p = 0.55), hospital charges (CA = 10,728 US dollars +/- 10,608 vs. CT = 10,317 US dollars +/- 7,173, p = 0.73) or perforation rates (CA = 6% vs. CT = 9%, p = 0.4). Time to the operating room was shorter in the CA group, 10.6 +/- 8.4 h vs. CT, 19.0 +/- 19.0 h (p \u3c 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical assessment unaided by CT reliably identifies patients who need operation for acute appendicitis, and they undergo surgery sooner. Routine use of abdominal/pelvic CT is not warranted. Further research is needed to identify sub-groups of patients who may benefit from CT. Computed tomography should not be considered the standard of care for the diagnosis of appendicitis

Elective cancer surgery in COVID-19-free surgical pathways during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic : an international, multicenter, comparative cohort study

PURPOSE As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19-free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19-free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19-free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19-free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score-matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19-free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

Outcomes from elective colorectal cancer surgery during the SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic

Aim This study aimed to describe the change in surgical practice and the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on mortality after surgical resection of colorectal cancer during the initial phases of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Method This was an international cohort study of patients undergoing elective resection of colon or rectal cancer without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Centres entered data from their first recorded case of COVID-19 until 19 April 2020. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included anastomotic leak, postoperative SARS-CoV-2 and a comparison with prepandemic European Society of Coloproctology cohort data. Results From 2073 patients in 40 countries, 1.3% (27/2073) had a defunctioning stoma and 3.0% (63/2073) had an end stoma instead of an anastomosis only. Thirty-day mortality was 1.8% (38/2073), the incidence of postoperative SARS-CoV-2 was 3.8% (78/2073) and the anastomotic leak rate was 4.9% (86/1738). Mortality was lowest in patients without a leak or SARS-CoV-2 (14/1601, 0.9%) and highest in patients with both a leak and SARS-CoV-2 (5/13, 38.5%). Mortality was independently associated with anastomotic leak (adjusted odds ratio 6.01, 95% confidence interval 2.58–14.06), postoperative SARS-CoV-2 (16.90, 7.86–36.38), male sex (2.46, 1.01–5.93), age >70 years (2.87, 1.32–6.20) and advanced cancer stage (3.43, 1.16–10.21). Compared with prepandemic data, there were fewer anastomotic leaks (4.9% versus 7.7%) and an overall shorter length of stay (6 versus 7 days) but higher mortality (1.7% versus 1.1%). Conclusion Surgeons need to further mitigate against both SARS-CoV-2 and anastomotic leak when offering surgery during current and future COVID-19 waves based on patient, operative and organizational risks

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AimThe 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsOverall, 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 ConclusionOne 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

Delaying surgery for patients with a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection

Not availabl