Geographical variations in long term colorectal cancer outcomes in England: a contemporary population analysis revealing the north–south divide in colorectal cancer survival

BACKGROUND: Regional variations in healthcare outcomes in England have been historically reported. This study analyses the variations in long term colorectal cancer survival across different regions in England. METHODS: Relative survival analysis of population data obtained from all cancer registries in England between 2010 and 2014. RESULTS: Totally, 167,501 patients were studied. Regions in the southern England had better outcomes with Southwest and Oxford registries having 63.5 and 62.7% 5 year relative survival. In contrast, Trent and Northwest cancer registries had 58.1% relative survival (p < 0.01). The regions in the north fared below the national average. The survival outcomes reflected socio-economic deprivation status, the best performing regions in the south having low levels of deprivation (5.3 and 6.5% having maximum deprivation in Southwest and Oxford, respectively). The regions with worst long term cancer outcomes had high levels of deprivation with 25% and 17% having high levels of deprivation in Northwest and Trent regions. CONCLUSION: There are significant variations in long term colorectal cancer survival between different regions in England, southern England had better relative survival when compared with the northern regions. Disparities in socio-economic depravation status in different regions may be associated with worse colorectal cancer outcomes

Young-onset colorectal cancer: Insights from an English population-based study.

AIM: Young colorectal cancer (CRC) patients are reported to have more aggressive disease, an advanced stage at diagnosis and conflicting survival outcomes. The aim of this study was to analyse the demographics, clinicopathological features and prognosis of young CRC at a population-based level in England. METHOD: This is a retrospective review of all CRC patients using data from Public Health England collated from regional cancer registries in England between 2010 and 2014. Those aged 40 years and below were classified as young and those over 40 were classified as older. RESULTS: Overall, 167,501 patients had CRC. Of these, 3757 patients (2.2%) were young. Right-sided cancers were more common in younger patients (48.2% vs. 32.9%, p < 0.001). Favourable histological grade (well or moderately differentiated) was present in 83.1% and 73.5% of young and older patients, respectively. The percentage of young and older patients being diagnosed at an early stage (Stages 1 and 2) was similar at 40.6% vs. 42.9%. The 5-year age- and gender-adjusted relative survival (cancer specific) was significantly better for young patients when compared with older patients diagnosed with CRC. Additionally, overall 5-year survival was better for younger patients (71.6% and 47.2%, p < 0.001 in young and older CRC patients respectively). CONCLUSION: The increased right-sided colon cancer in young CRC patients in England warrants attention. Contrary to previous reports, they do not present at later stage. Young CRC patients have better overall and relative survival than older patients with CRC

The First Modified Delphi Consensus-Building Exercise on Surgical Ward Rounds in the United Kingdom National Health Service

BACKGROUND: The ward round is an integral part of everyday surgical practice. It is a complex clinical activity that requires both sound clinical management and communication skills. This study reports the results of a consensus-building exercise on the common aspects of the general surgical ward rounds. METHODS: The consensus-building committee involving a range of stakeholders from 16 United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service trusts took part in this consensus exercise. The members discussed and suggested a series of statements concerning surgical ward round. An agreement of ≥ 70% among members was regarded as a consensus. RESULTS: Thirty-two members voted on 60 statements. There was a consensus on fifty-nine statements after the first round of voting, and one statement was modified before it reached consensus in the second round. The statements covered nine sections: a preparation phase, team allocation, multidisciplinary approach to the ward round, structure of the round, teaching considerations, confidentiality and privacy, documentation, post-round arrangements, and weekend round. There was a consensus on spending time to prepare for the round, a consultant-led round, involvement of the nursing staff, an MDT round at the beginning and end of the week, a minimum of 5 min allocated to each patient, utilisation of a round checklist, afternoon virtual round, and a clear handover and plan for the weekend. CONCLUSION: The consensus committee achieved agreement on several aspects concerning the surgical ward rounds in the UK NHS. This should help improve the care of surgical patients in the UK.unknownRD&E staff can access the full-text of this article by clicking on the 'Additional Link' above and logging in with NHS OpenAthens if prompted

The first modified Delphi consensus building exercise on ward rounds in the UK National Health Service

Background The ward round is an integral part of everyday surgical practice. It is a complex clinical activity that requires both sound clinical management and communication skills. This study reports the results of a consensus-building exercise on the common aspects of the general surgical ward rounds. Methods The consensus-building committee involving a range of stakeholders from 16 United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service trusts took part in this consensus exercise. The members discussed and suggested a series of statements concerning surgical ward round. An agreement of ≥ 70% among members was regarded as a consensus. Results Thirty-two members voted on 60 statements. There was a consensus on fifty-nine statements after the first round of voting, and one statement was modified before it reached consensus in the second round. The statements covered nine sections: a preparation phase, team allocation, multidisciplinary approach to the ward round, structure of the round, teaching considerations, confidentiality and privacy, documentation, post-round arrangements, and weekend round. There was a consensus on spending time to prepare for the round, a consultant-led round, involvement of the nursing staff, an MDT round at the beginning and end of the week, a minimum of 5 minutes allocated to each patient, utilisation of a round checklist, afternoon virtual round, and a clear handover and plan for the weekend. Conclusion The consensus committee achieved agreement on several aspects concerning the surgical ward rounds in the UK NHS. This should help improve the care of surgical patients in the UK

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