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... Show moreAim 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. Show less
BACKGROUND: Core Outcome Sets (COSs) are necessary to standardize reporting in research studies. This is urgently required in the field of chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH), one of the most common... Show moreBACKGROUND: Core Outcome Sets (COSs) are necessary to standardize reporting in research studies. This is urgently required in the field of chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH), one of the most common disease entities managed in neurosurgery and the topic of several recent trials. To complement the development of aCOS, a standardized definition and baseline Data Elements (DEs) to be collected in CSDH patients, would further improve study quality and comparability in this heterogeneous population.OBJECTIVE: To, first, define a standardized COS for reporting in all future CSDH studies; and, second, to identify a unified CSDH Definition and set of DEs for reporting in future CSDH studies.METHODS: The overall study design includes a Delphi survey process among 150 respondents from 2 main stakeholder groups: healthcare professionals or researchers (HCPRs) and Patients or carers. HCPR, patients and carers will all be invited to complete the survey on the COS, only the HCPR survey will include questions on definition and DE.EXPECTED OUTCOMES: It is expected that the COS, definition, and DE will be developed through this Delphi survey and that these can be applied in future CSDH studies. This is necessary to help align future research studies on CSDH and to understand the effects of different treatments on patient function and recovery.DISCUSSION: This Delphi survey should result in consensus on a COS and a standardized CSDH Definition and DEs to be used in future CSDH studies. Show less
Wijk, R.P.J. van; Dijck, J.T.J.M. van; Timmers, M.; Veen, E. van; Citerio, G.; Lingsma, H.F.; ... ; CENTER-TB1 Investigators 2020
Purpose: Enrolling traumatic brain injury (731) patients with an inability to provide informed consent in research is challenging. Alternatives to patient consent are not sufficiently embedded in... Show morePurpose: Enrolling traumatic brain injury (731) patients with an inability to provide informed consent in research is challenging. Alternatives to patient consent are not sufficiently embedded in European and national legislation, which allows procedural variation and bias. We aimed to quantify variations in informed consent policy and practice.Methods: Variation was explored in the CENTER-TBI study. Policies were reported by using a questionnaire and national legislation. Data on used informed consent procedures were available for 4498 patients from 57 centres across 17 European countries.Results: Variation in the use of informed consent procedures was found between and within EU member states. Proxy informed consent (N = 1377;64%) was the most frequently used type of consent in the ICU, followed by patient informed consent (N 426;20%) and deferred consent (N 334;16%). Deferred consent was only actively used in 15 centres (26%), although it was considered valid in 47 centres (82%).Conclusions: Alternatives to patient consent are essential for TBI research. While there seems to be concordance amongst national legislations, there is regional variability in institutional practices with respect to the use of different informed consent procedures. Variation could be caused by several reasons, including inconsistencies in clear legislation or knowledge of such legislation amongst researchers. (C) 2020 Published by Elsevier Inc. Show less
BACKGROUND: The setting of a randomized trial can determine whether its findings are generalizable and can therefore apply to different settings. The contribution of low- and middle-income... Show moreBACKGROUND: The setting of a randomized trial can determine whether its findings are generalizable and can therefore apply to different settings. The contribution of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to neurosurgical randomized trials has not been systematically described before.OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic analysis of design characteristics and methodology, funding source, and interventions studied between trials led by and/or conducted in high-income countries (HICs) vs LMICs.METHODS: From January 2003 to July 2016, English-language trials with >5 patients assessing any one neurosurgical procedure against another procedure, nonsurgical treatment, or no treatment were retrieved from MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. Income classification for each country was assessed using the World Bank Atlas method.RESULTS: A total of 73.3% of the 397 studies that met inclusion criteria were led by HICs, whereas 26.7% were led by LMICs. Of the 106 LMIC-led studies, 71 were led by China. If China is excluded, only 8.8% were led by LMICs. HIC-led trials enrolled a median of 92 patients vs a median of 65 patients in LMIC-led trials. HIC-led trials enrolled from 7.6 sites vs 1.8 sites in LMIC-led studies. Over half of LMIC-led trials were institutionally funded (54.7%). The majority of both HIC- and LMIC-led trials evaluated spinal neurosurgery, 68% and 71.7%, respectively.CONCLUSION: We have established that there is a substantial disparity between HICs and LMICs in the number of published neurosurgical trials. A concerted effort to invest in research capacity building in LMICs is an essential step towards ensuring context- and resource-specific high-quality evidence is generated. Show less
