Patient-reported outcome measures of the impact of cancer on patient’s everyday lives: a systematic review

Purpose: Patients with advanced disease are living longer and commonly used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) may miss relevant elements of the quality of extended survival. This systematic review examines the measures used to capture aspects of the quality of survival including impact on patients’ everyday lives such as finances, work and family roles. Methods: Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO restricted to English language articles. Information on study characteristics, instruments and outcomes was systematically extracted and synthesised. A predefined set of criteria was used to rate the quality of studies. Results: From 2761 potentially relevant articles, 22 met all inclusion criteria, including 10 concerning financial distress, 3 on roles and responsibilities and 9 on multiple aspects of social well-being. Generally, studies were not of high quality; many lacked bias free participant selection, had confounding factors and had not accounted for all participants. High levels of financial distress were reported and were associated with multiple demographic factors such as age and income. There were few reports concerned with impacts on patients’ roles/responsibilities in everyday life although practical and emotional struggles with parenting were identified. Social difficulties were common and associated with multiple factors including being a caregiver. Many studies were single time-point surveys and used non-validated measures. Exceptions were employment of the COST and Social Difficulties Inventory (SDI), validated measures of financial and social distress respectively. Conclusions: Impact on some important parts of patients’ everyday lives is insufficiently and inconsistently captured. Further PROM development focussing on roles and responsibilities, including work and caring for dependents, is warranted. Implications for Cancer Survivors: Factors such as finances, employment and responsibility for caring for dependents (e.g. children and elderly relatives) can affect the well-being of cancer survivors. There is a need to ensure that any instruments used to assess patients’ social well-being are broad enough to include these areas so that any difficulties arising can be better understood and appropriately supported

Surgical management of primary colonic lymphoma: Big data for a rare problem

Background and ObjectivesPrimary colonic lymphoma (PCL) is rare, heterogeneous, and presents a therapeutic challenge for surgeons. Optimal treatment strategies are difficult to standardize, leading to variation in therapy. Our objective was to describe the patient characteristics, short‐term outcomes, and five‐year survival of patients undergoing nonpalliative surgery for PCL.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort analysis in the National Cancer Database. Included patients underwent surgery for PCL between 2004 to 2014. Patients with metastases and palliative operations were excluded. Univariate predictors of overall survival were analyzed using multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis.ResultsWe identified 2153 patients. Median patient age was 68. Diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma accounted for 57% of tumors. 30‐ and 90‐Day mortality were high (5.6% and 11.1%, respectively). Thirty‐nine percent of patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. For patients surviving 90 days, 5‐year survival was 71.8%. Chemotherapy improved survival (surgery+chemo, 75.4% vs surgery, 68.6%; P = .01). Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with overall survival after controlling for age, comorbidity, and lymphoma subtype (HR 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07‐1.51; P = .01).ConclusionsPatients undergoing surgery for PCL have high rates of margin positivity and high short‐term mortality. Chemotherapy improves survival, but <50% receive it. These data suggest the opportunity for improvement of care in patients with PCL.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/150597/1/jso25582_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/150597/2/jso25582.pd

Cervical spondylosis with spinal cord encroachment: should preventive surgery be recommended?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It has been stated that individuals who have spondylotic encroachment on the cervical spinal cord without myelopathy are at increased risk of spinal cord injury if they experience minor trauma. Preventive decompression surgery has been recommended for these individuals. The purpose of this paper is to provide the non-surgical spine specialist with information upon which to base advice to patients. The evidence behind claims of increased risk is investigated as well as the evidence regarding the risk of decompression surgery.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A literature search was conducted on the risk of spinal cord injury in individuals with asymptomatic cord encroachment and the risk and benefit of preventive decompression surgery.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Three studies on the risk of spinal cord injury in this population met the inclusion criteria. All reported increased risk. However, none were prospective cohort studies or case-control studies, so the designs did not allow firm conclusions to be drawn. A number of studies and reviews of the risks and benefits of decompression surgery in patients with cervical myelopathy were found, but no studies were found that addressed surgery in asymptomatic individuals thought to be at risk. The complications of decompression surgery range from transient hoarseness to spinal cord injury, with rates ranging from 0.3% to 60%.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>There is insufficient evidence that individuals with spondylotic spinal cord encroachment are at increased risk of spinal cord injury from minor trauma. Prospective cohort or case-control studies are needed to assess this risk. There is no evidence that prophylactic decompression surgery is helpful in this patient population. Decompression surgery appears to be helpful in patients with cervical myelopathy, but the significant risks may outweigh the unknown benefit in asymptomatic individuals. Thus, broad recommendations for decompression surgery in suspected at-risk individuals cannot be made. Recommendations to individual patients must consider possible unique circumstances.</p

Perioperative management and anaesthetic considerations in pelvic exenterations using Delphi methodology: Results from the PelvEx Collaborative

Background: The multidisciplinary perioperative and anaesthetic management of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration is essential for good surgical outcomes. No clear guidelines have been established, and there is wide variation in clinical practice internationally. This consensus statement consolidates clinical experience and best practice collectively, and systematically addresses key domains in the perioperative and anaesthetic management. Methods: The modified Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus from the PelvEx Collaborative. The process included one round of online questionnaire involving controlled feedback and structured participant response, two rounds of editing, and one round of web-based voting. It was held from December 2019 to February 2020. Consensus was defined as more than 80 per cent agreement, whereas less than 80 per cent agreement indicated low consensus. Results: The final consensus document contained 47 voted statements, across six key domains of perioperative and anaesthetic management in pelvic exenteration, comprising preoperative assessment and preparation, anaesthetic considerations, perioperative management, anticipating possible massive haemorrhage, stress response and postoperative critical care, and pain management. Consensus recommendations were developed, based on consensus agreement achieved on 34 statements. Conclusion: The perioperative and anaesthetic management of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration is best accomplished by a dedicated multidisciplinary team with relevant domain expertise in the setting of a specialized tertiary unit. This consensus statement has addressed key domains within the framework of current perioperative and anaesthetic management among patients undergoing pelvic exenteration, with an international perspective, to guide clinical practice, and has outlined areas for future clinical research

Contemporary results from the PelvEx collaborative: improvements in surgical outcomes for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer

Aim: The PelvEx Collaborative collates global data on outcomes following exenterative surgery for locally advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LARC and LRRC, respectively). The aim of this study is to report contemporary data from within the collaborative and benchmark it against previous PelvEx publications. Method: Anonymized data from 45 units that performed pelvic exenteration for LARC or LRRC between 2017 and 2021 were reviewed. The primary endpoints were surgical outcomes, including resection margin status, radicality of surgery, rates of reconstruction and associated morbidity and/or mortality. Results: Of 2186 patients who underwent an exenteration for either LARC or LRRC, 1386 (63.4%) had LARC and 800 (36.6%) had LRRC. The proportion of males to females was 1232:954. Median age was 62 years (interquartile range 52-71 years) compared with a median age of 63 in both historical LARC and LRRC cohorts. Compared with the original reported PelvEx data (2004-2014), there has been an increase in negative margin (R0) rates from 79.8% to 84.8% and from 55.4% to 71.7% in the LARC and LRRC cohorts, respectively. Bone resection and flap reconstruction rates have increased accordingly in both cohorts (8.2%-19.6% and 22.6%-32% for LARC and 20.3%-41.9% and 17.4%-32.1% in LRRC, respectively). Despite this, major morbidity has not increased. Conclusion: In the modern era, patients undergoing pelvic exenteration for advanced rectal cancer are undergoing more radical surgery and are more likely to achieve a negative resection margin (R0) with no increase in major morbidity

Induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy alone as neoadjuvant treatment for locally recurrent rectal cancer: Study protocol of a multicentre, open-label, parallel-arms, randomized controlled study (PelvEx II)

Background: A resection with clear margins (R0 resection) is the most important prognostic factor in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). However, this is achieved in only 60 per cent of patients. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the addition of induction chemotherapy to neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation improves the R0 resection rate in LRRC. Methods: Thismulticentre, international, open-label, phase III, parallel-arms study will enrol 364 patients with resectable LRRC after previous partial or total mesorectal resection without synchronous distant metastases or recent chemo- and/or radiotherapy treatment. Patients will be randomized to receive either induction chemotherapy (three 3-week cycles of CAPOX (capecitabine, oxaliplatin), four 2- week cycles of FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin) or FOLFORI (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan)) followed by neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery (experimental arm) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery alone (control arm). Tumours will be restaged usingMRI and, in the experimental arm, a further cycle of CAPOX or two cycles of FOLFOX/FOLFIRI will be administered before chemoradiotherapy in case of stable or responsive disease. The radiotherapy dose will be 25 × 2.0 Gy or 28 × 1.8Gy in radiotherapy-naive patients, and 15 × 2.0Gy in previously irradiated patients. The concomitant chemotherapy agent will be capecitabine administered twice daily at a dose of 825mg/m2 on radiotherapy days. The primary endpoint of the study is the R0 resection rate. Secondary endpoints are long-termoncological outcomes, radiological and pathological response, toxicity, postoperative complications, costs, and quality of life. Discussion: This trial protocol describes the PelvEx II study. PelvEx II, designed as a multicentre, open-label, phase III, parallel-arms study, is the first randomized study to compare induction chemotherapy followed by neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation and surgery with neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation and surgery alone in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer, with the aim of improving the number of R0 resections

Contemporary Management of Locally Advanced and Recurrent Rectal Cancer: Views from the PelvEx Collaborative

Pelvic exenteration is a complex operation performed for locally advanced and recurrent pelvic cancers. The goal of surgery is to achieve clear margins, therefore identifying adjacent or involved organs, bone, muscle, nerves and/or vascular structures that may need resection. While these extensive resections are potentially curative, they can be associated with substantial morbidity. Recently, there has been a move to centralize care to specialized units, as this facilitates better multi-disciplinary care input. Advancements in pelvic oncology and surgical innovation have redefined the boundaries of pelvic exenterative surgery. Combined with improved neoadjuvant therapies, advances in diagnostics, and better reconstructive techniques have provided quicker recovery and better quality of life outcomes, with improved survival This article provides highlights of the current management of advanced pelvic cancers in terms of surgical strategy and potential future developments

WSES Guidelines for the management of acute left sided colonic diverticulitis in the emergency setting

Acute left sided colonic diverticulitis is one of the most common clinical conditions encountered by surgeons in acute setting. A World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) Consensus Conference on acute diverticulitis was held during the 3rd World Congress of the WSES in Jerusalem, Israel, on July 7th, 2015. During this consensus conference the guidelines for the management of acute left sided colonic diverticulitis in the emergency setting were presented and discussed. This document represents the executive summary of the final guidelines approved by the consensus conference.Peer reviewe