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

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

Death following pulmonary complications of surgery before and during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

Background: This study aimed to determine the impact of pulmonary complications on death after surgery both before and during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Methods: This was a patient-level, comparative analysis of two, international prospective cohort studies: one before the pandemic (January-October 2019) and the second during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (local emergence of COVID-19 up to 19 April 2020). Both included patients undergoing elective resection of an intra-abdominal cancer with curative intent across five surgical oncology disciplines. Patient selection and rates of 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications were compared. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative mortality. Mediation analysis using a natural-effects model was used to estimate the proportion of deaths during the pandemic attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results: This study included 7402 patients from 50 countries; 3031 (40.9 per cent) underwent surgery before and 4371 (59.1 per cent) during the pandemic. Overall, 4.3 per cent (187 of 4371) developed postoperative SARS-CoV-2 in the pandemic cohort. The pulmonary complication rate was similar (7.1 per cent (216 of 3031) versus 6.3 per cent (274 of 4371); P = 0.158) but the mortality rate was significantly higher (0.7 per cent (20 of 3031) versus 2.0 per cent (87 of 4371); P < 0.001) among patients who had surgery during the pandemic. The adjusted odds of death were higher during than before the pandemic (odds ratio (OR) 2.72, 95 per cent c.i. 1.58 to 4.67; P < 0.001). In mediation analysis, 54.8 per cent of excess postoperative deaths during the pandemic were estimated to be attributable to SARS-CoV-2 (OR 1.73, 1.40 to 2.13; P < 0.001). Conclusion: Although providers may have selected patients with a lower risk profile for surgery during the pandemic, this did not mitigate the likelihood of death through SARS-CoV-2 infection. Care providers must act urgently to protect surgical patients from SARS-CoV-2 infection

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

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