Effects of hospital facilities on patient outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, prospective, observational study

Background Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide.Methods A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study-a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital.Findings Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.85 [95% CI 2.58-5.75]; p<0.0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63.0% vs 82.7%; OR 0.35 [0.23-0.53]; p<0.0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer.Interpretation Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised

Global variation in postoperative mortality and complications after cancer surgery: a multicentre, prospective cohort study in 82 countries

Background: 80% of individuals with cancer will require a surgical procedure, yet little comparative data exist on early outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared postoperative outcomes in breast, colorectal, and gastric cancer surgery in hospitals worldwide, focusing on the effect of disease stage and complications on postoperative mortality. Methods: This was a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients undergoing surgery for primary breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer requiring a skin incision done under general or neuraxial anaesthesia. The primary outcome was death or major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested models of patients within hospitals and countries. Hospital-level infrastructure effects were explored with three-way mediation analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03471494. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019, we enrolled 15 958 patients from 428 hospitals in 82 countries (high income 9106 patients, 31 countries; upper-middle income 2721 patients, 23 countries; or lower-middle income 4131 patients, 28 countries). Patients in LMICs presented with more advanced disease compared with patients in high-income countries. 30-day mortality was higher for gastric cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 3·72, 95% CI 1·70–8·16) and for colorectal cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (4·59, 2·39–8·80) and upper-middle-income countries (2·06, 1·11–3·83). No difference in 30-day mortality was seen in breast cancer. The proportion of patients who died after a major complication was greatest in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (6·15, 3·26–11·59) and upper-middle-income countries (3·89, 2·08–7·29). Postoperative death after complications was partly explained by patient factors (60%) and partly by hospital or country (40%). The absence of consistently available postoperative care facilities was associated with seven to 10 more deaths per 100 major complications in LMICs. Cancer stage alone explained little of the early variation in mortality or postoperative complications. Interpretation: Higher levels of mortality after cancer surgery in LMICs was not fully explained by later presentation of disease. The capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention. Early death after cancer surgery might be reduced by policies focusing on strengthening perioperative care systems to detect and intervene in common complications. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit

An international assessment of the adoption of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) principles across colorectal units in 2019–2020

AimThe Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guidelines aim to standardize perioperative care in colorectal surgery via 25 principles. We aimed to assess the variation in uptake of these principles across an international network of colorectal units.MethodAn online survey was circulated amongst European Society of Coloproctology members in 2019–2020. For each ERAS principle, respondents were asked to score how frequently the principle was implemented in their hospital, from 1 (‘rarely’) to 4 (‘always’). Respondents were also asked to recall whether practice had changed since 2017. Subgroup analyses based on hospital characteristics were conducted.ResultsOf hospitals approached, 58% responded to the survey (195/335), with 296 individual responses (multiple responses were received from some hospitals). The majority were European (163/195, 83.6%). Overall, respondents indicated they ‘most often’ or ‘always’ adhered to most individual ERAS principles (18/25, 72%). Variability in the uptake of principles was reported, with universal uptake of some principles (e.g., prophylactic antibiotics; early mobilization) and inconsistency from ‘rarely’ to ‘always’ in others (e.g., no nasogastric intubation; no preoperative fasting and carbohydrate drinks). In alignment with 2018 ERAS guideline updates, adherence to principles for prehabilitation, managing anaemia and postoperative nutrition appears to have increased since 2017.ConclusionsUptake of ERAS principles varied across hospitals, and not all 25 principles were equally adhered to. Whilst some principles exhibited a high level of acceptance, others had a wide variability in uptake indicative of controversy or barriers to uptake. Further research into specific principles is required to improve ERAS implementation.AimThe Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guidelines aim to standardize perioperative care in colorectal surgery via 25 principles. We aimed to assess the variation in uptake of these principles across an international network of colorectal units.MethodAn online survey was circulated amongst European Society of Coloproctology members in 2019–2020. For each ERAS principle, respondents were asked to score how frequently the principle was implemented in their hospital, from 1 (‘rarely’) to 4 (‘always’). Respondents were also asked to recall whether practice had changed since 2017. Subgroup analyses based on hospital characteristics were conducted.ResultsOf hospitals approached, 58% responded to the survey (195/335), with 296 individual responses (multiple responses were received from some hospitals). The majority were European (163/195, 83.6%). Overall, respondents indicated they ‘most often’ or ‘always’ adhered to most individual ERAS principles (18/25, 72%). Variability in the uptake of principles was reported, with universal uptake of some principles (e.g., prophylactic antibiotics; early mobilization) and inconsistency from ‘rarely’ to ‘always’ in others (e.g., no nasogastric intubation; no preoperative fasting and carbohydrate drinks). In alignment with 2018 ERAS guideline updates, adherence to principles for prehabilitation, managing anaemia and postoperative nutrition appears to have increased since 2017.ConclusionsUptake of ERAS principles varied across hospitals, and not all 25 principles were equally adhered to. Whilst some principles exhibited a high level of acceptance, others had a wide variability in uptake indicative of controversy or barriers to uptake. Further research into specific principles is required to improve ERAS implementation.A

An international assessment of the adoption of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) principles across colorectal units in 2019–2020

Aim: The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guidelines aim to standardize perioperative care in colorectal surgery via 25 principles. We aimed to assess the variation in uptake of these principles across an international network of colorectal units. Method: An online survey was circulated amongst European Society of Coloproctology members in 2019–2020. For each ERAS principle, respondents were asked to score how frequently the principle was implemented in their hospital, from 1 (‘rarely’) to 4 (‘always’). Respondents were also asked to recall whether practice had changed since 2017. Subgroup analyses based on hospital characteristics were conducted. Results: Of hospitals approached, 58% responded to the survey (195/335), with 296 individual responses (multiple responses were received from some hospitals). The majority were European (163/195, 83.6%). Overall, respondents indicated they ‘most often’ or ‘always’ adhered to most individual ERAS principles (18/25, 72%). Variability in the uptake of principles was reported, with universal uptake of some principles (e.g., prophylactic antibiotics; early mobilization) and inconsistency from ‘rarely’ to ‘always’ in others (e.g., no nasogastric intubation; no preoperative fasting and carbohydrate drinks). In alignment with 2018 ERAS guideline updates, adherence to principles for prehabilitation, managing anaemia and postoperative nutrition appears to have increased since 2017. Conclusions: Uptake of ERAS principles varied across hospitals, and not all 25 principles were equally adhered to. Whilst some principles exhibited a high level of acceptance, others had a wide variability in uptake indicative of controversy or barriers to uptake. Further research into specific principles is required to improve ERAS implementation

An international assessment of the adoption of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) principles across colorectal units in 2019–2020

Aim: The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guidelines aim to standardize perioperative care in colorectal surgery via 25 principles. We aimed to assess the variation in uptake of these principles across an international network of colorectal units. Method: An online survey was circulated amongst European Society of Coloproctology members in 2019–2020. For each ERAS principle, respondents were asked to score how frequently the principle was implemented in their hospital, from 1 (‘rarely’) to 4 (‘always’). Respondents were also asked to recall whether practice had changed since 2017. Subgroup analyses based on hospital characteristics were conducted. Results: Of hospitals approached, 58% responded to the survey (195/335), with 296 individual responses (multiple responses were received from some hospitals). The majority were European (163/195, 83.6%). Overall, respondents indicated they ‘most often’ or ‘always’ adhered to most individual ERAS principles (18/25, 72%). Variability in the uptake of principles was reported, with universal uptake of some principles (e.g., prophylactic antibiotics; early mobilization) and inconsistency from ‘rarely’ to ‘always’ in others (e.g., no nasogastric intubation; no preoperative fasting and carbohydrate drinks). In alignment with 2018 ERAS guideline updates, adherence to principles for prehabilitation, managing anaemia and postoperative nutrition appears to have increased since 2017. Conclusions: Uptake of ERAS principles varied across hospitals, and not all 25 principles were equally adhered to. Whilst some principles exhibited a high level of acceptance, others had a wide variability in uptake indicative of controversy or barriers to uptake. Further research into specific principles is required to improve ERAS implementation

Safety of primary anastomosis following emergency left sided colorectal resection: an international, multi-centre prospective audit.

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: group, T. E. S. o. C. c. (2018). "Safety of primary anastomosis following emergency left sided colorectal resection: an international, multi-centre prospective audit." Colorectal Disease 20(S6): 47-57., which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.1437. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived VersionsINTRODUCTION: Some evidence suggests that primary anastomosis following left sided colorectal resection in the emergency setting may be safe in selected patients, and confer favourable outcomes to permanent enterostomy. The aim of this study was to compare the major postoperative complication rate in patients undergoing end stoma vs primary anastomosis following emergency left sided colorectal resection. METHODS: A pre-planned analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology 2017 audit. Adult patients (> 16 years) who underwent emergency (unplanned, within 24 h of hospital admission) left sided colonic or rectal resection were included. The primary endpoint was the 30-day major complication rate (Clavien-Dindo grade 3 to 5). RESULTS: From 591 patients, 455 (77%) received an end stoma, 103 a primary anastomosis (17%) and 33 primary anastomosis with defunctioning stoma (6%). In multivariable models, anastomosis was associated with a similar major complication rate to end stoma (adjusted odds ratio for end stoma 1.52, 95%CI 0.83-2.79, P = 0.173). Although a defunctioning stoma was not associated with reduced anastomotic leak (12% defunctioned [4/33] vs 13% not defunctioned [13/97], adjusted odds ratio 2.19, 95%CI 0.43-11.02, P = 0.343), it was associated with less severe complications (75% [3/4] with defunctioning stoma, 86.7% anastomosis only [13/15]), a lower mortality rate (0% [0/4] vs 20% [3/15]), and fewer reoperations (50% [2/4] vs 73% [11/15]) when a leak did occur. CONCLUSIONS: Primary anastomosis in selected patients appears safe after left sided emergency colorectal resection. A defunctioning stoma might mitigate against risk of subsequent complications

The impact of conversion on the risk of major complication following laparoscopic colonic surgery: an international, multicentre prospective audit.

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: The and E. S. o. C. c. groups (2018). "The impact of conversion on the risk of major complication following laparoscopic colonic surgery: an international, multicentre prospective audit." Colorectal Disease 20(S6): 69-89., which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.14371. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions.BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy has now been implemented as a standard of care for elective colonic resection around the world. During the adoption period, studies showed that conversion may be detrimental to patients, with poorer outcomes than both laparoscopic completed or planned open surgery. The primary aim of this study was to determine whether laparoscopic conversion was associated with a higher major complication rate than planned open surgery in contemporary, international practice. METHODS: Combined analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology 2017 and 2015 audits. Patients were included if they underwent elective resection of a colonic segment from the caecum to the rectosigmoid junction with primary anastomosis. The primary outcome measure was the 30-day major complication rate, defined as Clavien-Dindo grade III-V. RESULTS: Of 3980 patients, 64% (2561/3980) underwent laparoscopic surgery and a laparoscopic conversion rate of 14% (359/2561). The major complication rate was highest after open surgery (laparoscopic 7.4%, converted 9.7%, open 11.6%, P < 0.001). After case mix adjustment in a multilevel model, only planned open (and not laparoscopic converted) surgery was associated with increased major complications in comparison to laparoscopic surgery (OR 1.64, 1.27-2.11, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate laparoscopic conversion should not be considered a treatment failure in modern practice. Conversion does not appear to place patients at increased risk of complications vs planned open surgery, supporting broadening of selection criteria for attempted laparoscopy in elective colonic resection

An international multicentre prospective audit of elective rectal cancer surgery; operative approach versus outcome, including transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME)

IntroductionTransanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has rapidly emerged as a novel approach for rectal cancer surgery. Safety profiles are still emerging and more comparative data is urgently needed. This study aimed to compare indications and short-term outcomes of TaTME, open, laparoscopic, and robotic TME internationally.MethodsA pre-planned analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) 2017 audit was performed. Patients undergoing elective total mesorectal excision (TME) for malignancy between 1 January 2017 and 15 March 2017 by any operative approach were included. The primary outcome measure was anastomotic leak.ResultsOf 2579 included patients, 76.2% (1966/2579) underwent TME with restorative anastomosis of which 19.9% (312/1966) had a minimally invasive approach (laparoscopic or robotic) which included a transanal component (TaTME). Overall, 9.0% (175/1951, 15 missing outcome data) of patients suffered an anastomotic leak. On univariate analysis both laparoscopic TaTME (OR 1.61, 1.02-2.48, P=0.04) and robotic TaTME (OR 3.05, 1.10-7.34, P=0.02) were associated with a higher risk of anastomotic leak than non-transanal laparoscopic TME. However this association was lost in the mixed-effects model controlling for patient and disease factors (OR 1.23, 0.77-1.97, P=0.39 and OR 2.11, 0.79-5.62, P=0.14 respectively), whilst low rectal anastomosis (OR 2.72, 1.55-4.77, P<0.001) and male gender (OR 2.29, 1.52-3.44, P<0.001) remained strongly associated. The overall positive circumferential margin resection rate was 4.0%, which varied between operative approaches: laparoscopic 3.2%, transanal 3.8%, open 4.7%, robotic 1%.ConclusionThis contemporaneous international snapshot shows that uptake of the TaTME approach is widespread and is associated with surgically and pathologically acceptable results

Evaluating the incidence of pathological complete response in current international rectal cancer practice: the barriers to widespread safe deferral of surgery

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: , which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.14361. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions."Colorectal Disease © 2018 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland Introduction: The mainstay of management for locally advanced rectal cancer is chemoradiotherapy followed by surgical resection. Following chemoradiotherapy, a complete response may be detected clinically and radiologically (cCR) prior to surgery or pathologically after surgery (pCR). We aim to report the overall complete pathological response (pCR) rate and the reliability of detecting a cCR by conventional pre-operative imaging. Methods: A pre-planned analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) 2017 audit was performed. Patients treated by elective rectal resection were included. A pCR was defined as a ypT0 N0 EMVI negative primary tumour; a partial response represented any regression from baseline staging following chemoradiotherapy. The primary endpoint was the pCR rate. The secondary endpoint was agreement between post-treatment MRI restaging (yMRI) and final pathological staging. Results: Of 2572 patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery in 277 participating centres across 44 countries, 673 (26.2%) underwent chemoradiotherapy and surgery. The pCR rate was 10.3% (67/649), with a partial response in 35.9% (233/649) patients. Comparison of AJCC stage determined by post-treatment yMRI with final pathology showed understaging in 13% (55/429) and overstaging in 34% (148/429). Agreement between yMRI and final pathology for T-stage, N-stage, or AJCC status were each graded as ‘fair’ only (n = 429, Kappa 0.25, 0.26 and 0.35 respectively). Conclusion: The reported pCR rate of 10% highlights the potential for non-operative management in selected cases. The limited strength of agreement between basic conventional post-chemoradiotherapy imaging assessment techniques and pathology suggest alternative markers of response should be considered, in the context of controlled clinical trials