Protocol for the ORION trial (RadiO fRequency ablatION for haemorrhoids): a randomised controlled trial

Background Haemorrhoids are common and can significantly impact the personal and working lives of individuals. Those with more severe symptoms and those not responding to conservative management may require surgery. Current surgical techniques are associated with a degree of postoperative discomfort which may delay return to normal activity. Recurrence is lower in more radical procedures but resulting pain is higher. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a new technique that is gaining popularity and has several hypothesised benefits, including reduced pain and recurrence. However, available evidence is limited. A recent overview from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommended more research, in the form of randomised controlled trials, be carried out before further investment is made by national health services. Our aim is to assess whether RFA is at least as good in terms of recurrence as existing surgical interventions, but superior in terms of pain, for patients with symptomatic grade II and III haemorrhoids. Methods The RadiO fRequency ablatION for haemorrhoids (ORION) trial will be a pragmatic multicentre patient/assessorblind parallel group-controlled trial with economic evaluation. The target sample size is 376 participants (188 per arm) and is based on two co-primary endpoints: (i) a non-inferiority design for recurrence and (ii) superiority design for pain at seven days. Participants with grade II or III haemorrhoids will be recruited in 16 National Health Service hospitals and randomised (1:1) to either RFA or surgeon’s choice of surgery. Conclusions Results will inform future practice for the treatment of grade II–III haemorrhoids and provide evidence for national health services on future investments in RFA

Making an IMPACT: A priority setting consultation exercise to improve outcomes in patients with locally advanced, recurrent and metastatic colorectal cancer

Aim: The IMPACT (Improving the Management of Patients with Advanced Colorectal Tumours) initiative was established by the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland in 2017 as a consortium of surgeons (colorectal, hepatobiliary, thoracic), oncologists, radiologists, pathologists, palliative care physicians, patients, carers and charity stakeholders who will work together to improve outcomes in patients with advanced and metastatic colorectal cancer. To establish this initiative, better information is required to establish how further intervention is focused. This paper details the approaches used, and outcomes generated, from a priority setting exercise to inform the design of the IMPACT initiative. Methods: A mixed method approach was employed to set the priorities of patients, clinicians and other key stakeholders in the delivery of optimal care. This consisted of two patient centered consultation events and a questionnaire. Results: A total of 128 participants took part in the consultation exercise; 15 patients, 5 carers/family members, 5 charity representatives and 113 healthcare professionals. Nine key themes for focus were identified, these were: current service provision, specialist services, communication, education, access to care, definitions and standardisation, research and audit, outcome measures, and funding of specialist care. Conclusion: These future priorities will be developed with collaborative engagement in a systematic manner to produce an overall cohesive programme which will deliver a sustainable and efficient clinical and academic service to improving the management of patients with advanced colorectal tumours

Conditional recurrence-free survival of clinical complete responders managed by watch and wait after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer in the International Watch & Wait Database: a retrospective, international, multicentre registry study

Background: Watch and wait is a novel management strategy in patients with rectal cancer who have a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Surveillance of these patients is generally intensive, because local regrowth (with the potential for salvage) occurs in 25% of patients, and distant metastases occur in 10% of patients. It is unclear for how long these patients should be followed up. To address this issue, we did conditional survival modelling using the International Watch & Wait Database (IWWD), which is a large-scale registry of patients with a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy who have been managed by a watch-and-wait strategy. Methods: We did a retrospective, multicentre registry study using a dataset from the IWWD, which includes data from 47 clinics across 15 countries. We selected patients (aged 6518 years) with rectal cancer who had a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and who were subsequently managed by a watch-and-wait strategy between Nov 25, 1991, and Dec 31, 2015. Patients who had not achieved a clinical complete response or who had undergone any surgical procedure were excluded. The criteria used for defining a clinical complete response and the specific surveillance strategies were at the discretion of each participating centre. We used conditional survival modelling to estimate the probability of patients remaining free of local regrowth or distant metastasis for an additional 2 years after sustaining a clinical complete response or being distant metastasis-free for 1, 3, and 5 years from the date of the decision to commence watch and wait. The primary outcomes were conditional local regrowth-free survival at 3 years, and conditional distant metastasis-free survival at 5 years. Findings: We identified 793 patients in the IWWD with clinical complete response who had been managed by a watch-and-wait strategy. Median follow-up was 55\ub72 months (IQR 36\ub70\u201375\ub76). The probability of remaining free from local regrowth for an additional 2 years if a patient had a sustained clinical complete response for 1 year was 88\ub71% (95% CI 85\ub78\u201390\ub79), for 3 years was 97\ub73% (95\ub72\u201398\ub76), and for 5 years was 98\ub76% (97\ub76\u2013100\ub70). The probably of remaining free from distant metastasis for a further 2 years in patients who had a clinical complete response without distant metastasis for 1 year was 93\ub78% (92\ub73\u201395\ub79), for 3 years was 97\ub78% (96\ub76\u201399\ub73), and for 5 years was 96\ub76% (94\ub70\u201398\ub79). Interpretation: These results suggest that the intensity of active surveillance in patients with rectal cancer managed by a watch-and-wait approach could be reduced if they achieve and maintain a clinical complete response within the first 3 years of starting this approach. Funding: European Registration of Cancer Care, financed by the European Society of Surgical Oncology, the Champalimaud Foundation Lisbon, the Bas Mulder Award, granted by the Alpe d'HuZes Foundation and the Dutch Cancer Society, the European Research Council Advanced Grant, and the National Institute of Health and Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre

Can we Save the rectum by watchful waiting or TransAnal surgery following (chemo)Radiotherapy versus Total mesorectal excision for early REctal Cancer (STAR‐TREC)? Protocol for the international, multicentre, rolling phase II/III partially randomised patient preference trial evaluating long course concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus short course radiotherapy organ preservation approaches

International audienceAim: Organ-saving treatment for early-stage rectal cancer can reduce patient-reported side effects compared to standard total mesorectal excision (TME) and preserve quality of life. An optimal strategy for achieving organ preservation and longer-term oncological outcomes are unknown; thus there is a need for high quality trials.Method: Can we Save the rectum by watchful waiting or TransAnal surgery following (chemo)Radiotherapy versus Total mesorectal excision for early REctal Cancer (STAR-TREC) is an international three-arm multicentre, partially randomized controlled trial incorporating an external pilot. In phase III, patients with cT1-3b N0 tumours, ≤40 mm in diameter, who prefer organ preservation are randomized 1:1 between mesorectal long-course chemoradiation versus mesorectal short-course radiotherapy, with selective transanal microsurgery. Patients preferring radical surgery receive TME. STAR-TREC aims to recruit 380 patients to organ preservation and 120 to TME surgery. The primary outcome is the rate of organ preservation at 30 months. Secondary clinician-reported outcomes include acute treatment-related toxicity, rate of non-operative management, non-regrowth pelvic tumour control at 36 months, non-regrowth disease-free survival at 36 months and overall survival at 60 months, and patient-reported toxicity, health-related quality of life at baseline, 12 and 24 months. Exploratory biomarker research uses circulating tumour DNA to predict response and relapse.Discussion: STAR-TREC will prospectively evaluate contrasting therapeutic strategies and implement new measures including a smaller mesorectal target volume, two-step response assessment and non-operative management for complete response. The trial will yield important information to guide routine management of patients with early-stage rectal cancer

Effect of COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns on planned cancer surgery for 15 tumour types in 61 countries: an international, prospective, cohort study

Background: Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods: This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index <20), moderate lockdowns (20–60), and full lockdowns (>60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings: Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation: Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Effect of COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns on planned cancer surgery for 15 tumour types in 61 countries: an international, prospective, cohort study

BackgroundSurgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction.MethodsThis international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index <20), moderate lockdowns (20-60), and full lockdowns (>60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926.FindingsOf eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16-30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77-0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50-0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80-0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54-0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays.InterpretationCancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

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

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