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...

BackgroundIleus is common after gastrointestinal surgery and has been identified as a research priority. Several issues have limited previous research, including a widely accepted definition and agreed outcome measure. This review is the first stage in the development of a core outcome set for the return of bowel function after gastrointestinal surgery. It aims to characterize the extent of variation in current outcome reporting.MethodsA systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and the Cochrane Library was performed for 1990–2017. RCTs of adults undergoing gastrointestinal surgery, including at least one reported measure relating to return of bowel function, were eligible. Trial registries were searched across the same period for ongoing and completed (but not published) RCTs. Definitions of ileus and outcome measures describing the return of bowel function were extracted.ResultsOf 5670 manuscripts screened, 215 (reporting 217 RCTs) were eligible. Most RCTs involved patients undergoing colorectal surgery (161 of 217, 74·2 per cent). A total of 784 outcomes were identified across all published RCTs, comprising 73 measures (clinical: 63, 86 per cent; radiological: 6, 8 per cent; physiological: 4, 5 per cent). The most commonly reported outcome measure was ‘time to first passage of flatus’ (140 of 217, 64·5 per cent). The outcomes ‘ileus’ and ‘prolonged ileus’ were defined infrequently and variably.ConclusionOutcome reporting for the return of bowel function after gastrointestinal surgery is variable and not fit for purpose. An agreed core outcome set will improve the consistency, reliability and clinical value of future studies.

The reduction of the incidence, detection and treatment of anastomotic leakage (AL) continues to challenge the colorectal surgical community. AL is not consistently defined and reported in clinical studies, its occurrence is variably reported and its impact on longterm morbidity and health-care resources has received relatively little attention. Controversy continues regarding the best strategies to reduce the risk. Diagnostic tests lack sensitivity and specificity, resulting in delayed diagnosis and increased morbidity. Intra-operative fluorescence angiography has recently been introduced as a means of real-time assessment of anastomotic perfusion and preliminary evidence suggests that it may reduce the rate of AL. In addition, concepts are emerging about the role of the rectal mucosal microbiome in AL and the possible role of new prophylactic therapies. In January 2016 a meeting of expert colorectal surgeons and pathologists was held in London, UK, to identify the ongoing controversies surrounding AL in colorectal surgery. The outcome of the meeting is presented in the form of research challenges that need to be addressed.

No abstract

Introduction: A variety of factors have been identified in the literature which influence survival following resection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Much of this literature is historical, and its relevance to contemporary practice is not known. The aim of this study was to identify those factors which influence survival during the era of preoperative chemotherapy in patients undergoing resection of CRLM in a UK centre. Methods: All patients having liver resection for CRLM during an 11-year period up to 2011 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Prognostic factors analysed included tumour size (≥5 or <5 cm), lymph node status of the primary tumour, margin positivity (R1; <1 mm), neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (for liver), tumour differentiation, number of liver metastases (≥4), preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA; ≥200 ng/ml) and whether metastases were synchronous (i.e. diagnosed within 12 months of colorectal resection) or metachronous to the primary tumour. Overall survival (OS) was compared using Kaplan-Meier plots and a log rank test for significance. Multivariate analysis was performed using a Cox regression model. Statistical analysis was performed in SPSS v19, and p < 0.05 was considered to be significant. Results: 432 patients underwent resection of CRLM during this period (67% male; mean age 64.5 years), and of these, 54 (13.5%) had re-resections. The overall 5-year survival in this series was 43% with an actuarial 10-year survival of 40%. A preoperative CEA ≥200 ng/ml was present in 10% of patients and was associated with a poorer 5-year OS (24 vs. 45%; p < 0.001). A positive resection margin <1 mm was present in 16% of patients, and this had a negative impact on 5-year OS (15 vs. 47%; p < 0.001). Tumour differentiation, number, biliary or vascular invasion, size, relationship to primary disease, nodal status of the primary disease or the use of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy had no impact on OS. Multivariate analysis identified only the presence of a positive resection margin (OR 1.75; p < 0.05) and a preoperative CEA ≥200 ng/ml (OR 1.88; p < 0.01) as independent predictors of poor OS. Conclusion: Despite the wide variety of prognostic factors reported in the literature, this study was only able to identify a preoperative CEA ≥200 ng/ml and the presence of tumour within 1 mm of the resection margin as being of value in predicting survival. These variables are likely to identify patients who may benefit from intensive follow-up to enable early aggressive treatment of recurrent disease.