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

Timing of Cholecystectomy After Moderate and Severe Acute Biliary Pancreatitis

IMPORTANCE Considering the lack of equipoise regarding the timing of cholecystectomy in patients with moderately severe and severe acute biliary pancreatitis (ABP), it is critical to assess this issue.OBJECTIVE To assess the outcomes of early cholecystectomy (EC) in patients with moderately severe and severe ABP.DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS This cohort study retrospectively analyzed real-life data from the MANCTRA-1 (Compliance With Evidence-Based Clinical Guidelines in the Management of Acute Biliary Pancreatitis) data set, assessing 5304 consecutive patients hospitalized between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020, for ABP from 42 countries. A total of 3696 patients who were hospitalized for ABP and underwent cholecystectomy were included in the analysis; of these, 1202 underwent EC, defined as a cholecystectomy performed within 14 days of admission. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify prognostic factors of mortality and morbidity. Data analysis was performed from January to February 2023.MAIN OUTCOMES Mortality and morbidity after EC.RESULTS Of the 3696 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.5 [17.8] years; 1907 [51.5%] female) included in the analysis, 1202 (32.5%) underwent EC and 2494 (67.5%) underwent delayed cholecystectomy (DC). Overall, EC presented an increased risk of postoperative mortality (1.4% vs 0.1%, P &lt;.001) and morbidity (7.7% vs 3.7%, P &lt; .001) compared with DC. On the multivariable analysis, moderately severe and severe ABP were associated with increased mortality (odds ratio [OR], 361.46; 95% CI, 2.28-57 212.31; P = .02) and morbidity (OR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.35-5.19; P = .005). In patients with moderately severe and severe ABP (n = 108), EC was associated with an increased risk of mortality (16 [15.6%] vs 0 [0%], P &lt; .001), morbidity (30 [30.3%] vs 57 [5.5%], P &lt; .001), bile leakage (2 [2.4%] vs 4 [0.4%], P = .02), and infections (12 [14.6%] vs 4 [0.4%], P &lt; .001) compared with patients with mild ABP who underwent EC. In patients with moderately severe and severe ABP (n = 108), EC was associated with higher mortality (16 [15.6%] vs 2 [1.2%], P &lt; .001), morbidity (30 [30.3%] vs 17 [10.3%], P &lt; .001), and infections (12 [14.6%] vs 2 [1.3%], P &lt; .001) compared with patients with moderately severe and severe ABP who underwent DC. On the multivariable analysis, the patient's age (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.02-1.36; P = .03) and American Society of Anesthesiologists score (OR, 5.91; 95% CI, 1.06-32.78; P = .04) were associated with mortality; severe complications of ABP were associated with increased mortality (OR, 50.04; 95% CI, 2.37-1058.01; P = .01) and morbidity (OR, 33.64; 95% CI, 3.19-354.73; P = .003).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This cohort study's findings suggest that EC should be considered carefully in patients with moderately severe and severe ABP, as it was associated with increased postoperative mortality and morbidity. However, older and more fragile patients manifesting severe complications related to ABP should most likely not be considered for EC

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