Recent advances indicate that the widespread use of biomarkers may herald the next major advance in the diagnosis and management of CRC.

Aim Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is pragmatically defined as disordered bowel function after rectal resection leading to a detriment in quality of life. This broad characterization does not allow for precise estimates of prevalence. The LARS score was designed as a simple tool for clinical evaluation of LARS. Although the LARS score has good clinical utility, it may not capture all important aspects that patients may experience. The aim of this collaboration was to develop an international consensus definition of LARS that encompasses all aspects of the condition and is informed by all stakeholders. Method This international patient–provider initiative used an online Delphi survey, regional patient consultation meetings, and an international consensus meeting. Three expert groups participated: patients, surgeons and other health professionals from five regions (Australasia, Denmark, Spain, Great Britain and Ireland, and North America) and in three languages (English, Spanish, and Danish). The primary outcome measured was the priorities for the definition of LARS. Results Three hundred twenty‐five participants (156 patients) registered. The response rates for successive rounds of the Delphi survey were 86%, 96% and 99%. Eighteen priorities emerged from the Delphi survey. Patient consultation and consensus meetings refined these priorities to eight symptoms and eight consequences that capture essential aspects of the syndrome. Sampling bias may have been present, in particular, in the patient panel because social media was used extensively in recruitment. There was also dominance of the surgical panel at the final consensus meeting despite attempts to mitigate this. Conclusion This is the first definition of LARS developed with direct input from a large international patient panel. The involvement of patients in all phases has ensured that the definition presented encompasses the vital aspects of the patient experience of LARS. The novel separation of symptoms and consequences may enable greater sensitivity to detect changes in LARS over time and with intervention.

BackgroundCentralization of specialist surgical services can improve patient outcomes. The aim of this cohort study was to compare liver resection rates and survival in patients with primary colorectal cancer and synchronous metastases limited to the liver diagnosed at hepatobiliary surgical units (hubs) with those diagnosed at hospital Trusts without hepatobiliary services (spokes).MethodsThe study included patients from the National Bowel Cancer Audit diagnosed with primary colorectal cancer between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2014 who underwent colorectal cancer resection in the English National Health Service. Patients were linked to Hospital Episode Statistics data to identify those with liver metastases and those who underwent liver resection. Multivariable random‐effects logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio of liver resection by presence of specialist hepatobiliary services on site. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method.ResultsOf 4547 patients, 1956 (43·0 per cent) underwent liver resection. The 1081 patients diagnosed at hubs were more likely to undergo liver resection (adjusted odds ratio 1·52, 95 per cent c.i. 1·20 to 1·91). Patients diagnosed at hubs had better median survival (30·6 months compared with 25·3 months for spokes; adjusted hazard ratio 0·83, 0·75 to 0·91). There was no difference in survival between hubs and spokes when the analysis was restricted to patients who had liver resection (P = 0·620) or those who did not undergo liver resection (P = 0·749).ConclusionPatients with colorectal cancer and synchronous metastases limited to the liver who are diagnosed at hospital Trusts with a hepatobiliary team on site are more likely to undergo liver resection and have better survival.

No abstract

The outcomes in colorectal surgery continue to steadily improve. The training of specialized colorectal surgeons is a major contributing factor towards this improvement.