Introduction The empty pelvis syndrome is a significant source of morbidity following pelvic exenteration surgery. It remains poorly defined with research in this field being heterogeneous and of... Show moreIntroduction The empty pelvis syndrome is a significant source of morbidity following pelvic exenteration surgery. It remains poorly defined with research in this field being heterogeneous and of low quality. Furthermore, there has been minimal engagement with patient representatives following pelvic exenteration with respect to the empty pelvic syndrome. ‘PelvEx—Beating the empty pelvis syndrome’ aims to engage both patient representatives and healthcare professionals to achieve an international consensus on a core outcome set, pathophysiology and mitigation of the empty pelvis syndrome. Methods and analysis A modified-Delphi approach will be followed with a three-stage study design. First, statements will be longlisted using a recent systematic review, healthcare professional event, patient and public engagement, and Delphi piloting. Second, statements will be shortlisted using up to three rounds of online modified Delphi. Third, statements will be confirmed and instruments for measurable statements selected using a virtual patient-representative consensus meeting, and finally a face-to-face healthcare professional consensus meeting. Ethics and dissemination The University of Southampton Faculty of Medicine ethics committee has approved this protocol, which is registered as a study with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative. Publication of this study will increase the potential for comparative research to further understanding and prevent the empty pelvis syndrome.Trial registration number NCT05683795. Show less
BackgroundIn rectal cancer, watch and wait for patients with a cCR after neoadjuvant treatment has an established evidence base. However, there is a lack of consensus on the definition and... Show moreBackgroundIn rectal cancer, watch and wait for patients with a cCR after neoadjuvant treatment has an established evidence base. However, there is a lack of consensus on the definition and management of a near-cCR. This study aimed to compare outcomes in patients who achieved a cCR at first reassessment versus later reassessment.MethodsThis registry study included patients from the International Watch & Wait Database. Patients were categorized as having a cCR at first reassessment or at later reassessment (that is near-cCR at first reassessment) based on MRI and endoscopy. Organ preservation, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival rates were calculated. Subgroup analyses were done for near-cCR groups based on the response evaluation according to modality.ResultsA total of 1010 patients were identified. At first reassessment, 608 patients had a cCR; 402 had a cCR at later reassessment. Median follow-up was 2.6 years for patients with a cCR at first reassessment and 2.9 years for those with a cCR at later reassessment. The 2-year organ preservation rate was 77.8 (95 per cent c.i. 74.2 to 81.5) and 79.3 (75.1 to 83.7) per cent respectively (P = 0.499). Similarly, no differences were found between groups in distant metastasis-free survival or overall survival rate. Subgroup analyses showed a higher organ preservation rate in the group with a near-cCR categorized exclusively by MRI.ConclusionOncological outcomes for patients with a cCR at later reassessment are no worse than those of patients with a cCR at first reassessment. Show less
Background: A decade ago, it was demonstrated that the difference in survival between older patients and younger patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) was mainly due to mortality in the first... Show moreBackground: A decade ago, it was demonstrated that the difference in survival between older patients and younger patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) was mainly due to mortality in the first postoperative year. Over the last few years, improvements -especially in perioperative care-have increased survival. The current research investigates whether a survival gap between younger and older patients with CRC still exists on a national level in four European countries. Methods: Population-based data from Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden were collected from patients that underwent surgical resection for primary stage I-III CRC between 2007 and 2016. Relative survival and conditional relative survival (CS), with the condition of surviving the first postoperative year, were calculated for colon and rectal cancer separately, stratified for country and age category (< 65, 65-75, >= 75 years). In addition, relative excess risk of death (RER) was estimated, and one-year excess mortality was calculated. Results: Data of 206,024 patients were analyzed. In general, compared to patients < 65 years, patients >= 75 years had a worse survival during the first year after surgery, which was most pronounced in Belgium (RER colon cancer 2.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.3-2.8] and RER rectal cancer 2.6 [95% CI 2.3-2.9]). After surviving the first year, CS was mostly not statistically different between patients < 65 years and patients >= 75 years with stage I-II, with the exception of stage II colon cancer in Belgium. However, CS remained worse in the largest part of the patients & GE;75 years with stage III colon or rectal cancer (except for rectal cancer in Norway). Conclusions: Although differences exist between the countries, the survival gap between young and older patients is based mainly on early mortality and remains only for stage III disease after surviving the first year. Show less
Warps, A.K.; Saraste, D.; Westerterp, M.; Detering, R.; Sjovall, A.; Martling, A.; ... ; Swedish Colorectal Canc Registry 2022
Background: The timing and degree of implementation of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for colorectal cancer vary among countries. Insights in national differences regarding implementation of new... Show moreBackground: The timing and degree of implementation of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for colorectal cancer vary among countries. Insights in national differences regarding implementation of new surgical techniques and the effect on postoperative outcomes are important for quality assurance, can show potential areas for country-specific improvement, and might be illustrative and supportive for similar implementation programs in other countries. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate differences in patient selection, applied techniques, and results of minimal invasive surgery for colorectal cancer between the Netherlands and Sweden. Methods: Patients who underwent elective minimally invasive surgery for T1-3 colon or rectal cancer (2012-2018) registered in the Dutch ColoRectal Audit or Swedish ColoRectal Cancer Registry were included. Time trends in the application of MIS were determined. Outcomes were compared for time periods with a similar level of MIS implementation (Netherlands 2012-2013 versus Sweden 2017-2018). Multilevel analyses were performed to identify factors associated with adverse short-term outcomes.Results: A total of 46,095 Dutch and 8,819 Swedish patients undergoing MIS for colorectal cancer were included. In Sweden, MIS implementation was approximately 5 years later than in the Netherlands, with more robotic surgery and lower volumes per hospital. Although conversion rates were higher in Sweden, oncological and surgical outcomes were comparable. MIS in the Netherlands for the years 2012- 2013 resulted in a higher reoperation rate for colon cancer and a higher readmission rate but lower non- surgical complication rates for rectal cancer if compared with MIS in Sweden during 2017-2018.Conclusion: This study showed that the implementation of MIS for colorectal cancer occurred later in Sweden than the Netherlands, with comparable outcomes despite lower volumes. Our study demonstrates that new surgical techniques can be implemented at a national level in a controlled and safe way, with thorough quality assurance. Show less
Aim This study aimed to determine predictive factors for the circumferential resection margin (CRM) within two northern European countries with supposed similarity in providing rectal cancer care.... Show moreAim This study aimed to determine predictive factors for the circumferential resection margin (CRM) within two northern European countries with supposed similarity in providing rectal cancer care. Method Data for all patients undergoing rectal resection for clinical tumour node metastasis (TNM) stage I-III rectal cancer were extracted from the Swedish ColoRectal Cancer Registry and the Dutch ColoRectal Audit (2011-2015). Separate analyses were performed for cT1-3 and cT4 stage. Predictive factors for the CRM were determined using univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses. Results A total of 6444 Swedish and 12 089 Dutch patients were analysed. Over time the number of hospitals treating rectal cancer decreased from 52 to 42 in Sweden, and 82 to 79 in the Netherlands. In the Swedish population, proportions of cT4 stage (17% vs 8%), multivisceral resection (14% vs 7%) and abdominoperineal excision (APR) (37% vs 31%) were higher. The overall proportion of patients with a positive CRM (CRM+) was 7.8% in Sweden and 5.4% in the Netherlands. In both populations with cT1-3 stage disease, common independent risk factors for CRM+ were cT3, APR and multivisceral resection. No common risk factors for CRM+ in cT4 stage disease were found. An independent impact of hospital volume on CRM+ could be demonstrated for the cT1-3 Dutch population. Conclusion Within two northern European countries with implemented clinical auditing, rectal cancer care might potentially be improved by further optimizing the treatment of distal and locally advanced rectal cancer. Show less
Background: Decreased cancer specific survival in older colorectal patients is mainly due to mortality in the first year, emphasizing the importance of the first postoperative year. This study aims... Show moreBackground: Decreased cancer specific survival in older colorectal patients is mainly due to mortality in the first year, emphasizing the importance of the first postoperative year. This study aims to gain an overview and time trends of short-term mortality in octogenarians (>= 80 years) with colorectal cancer across four North European countries.Methods: Patients of 80 years or older, operated for colorectal cancer (stage I-Ill) between 2005 and 2014, were included. Population-based cohorts from Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden were collected. Separately for colon- and rectal cancer, 30-day, 90-day, one-year, and excess one-year mortality were calculated. Also, short-term mortality over three time periods (2005-2008, 2009-2011, 2012-2014) was analyzed.Results: In total, 35,158 colon cancer patients and 10,144 rectal cancer patients were included. For colon cancer, 90-day mortality rate was highest in Denmark (15%) and lowest in Sweden (8%). For rectal cancer, 90-day mortality rate was highest in Belgium (11%) and lowest in Sweden (7%). One-year excess mortality rate of colon cancer patients decreased from 2005 to 2008 to 2012-2014 for all countries (Belgium: 17%-11%, Denmark: 21%-15%, the Netherlands: 18%-10%, and Sweden: 10%-8%). For rectal cancer, from 2005 to 2008 to 2012-2014 one-year excess mortality rate decreased in the Netherlands from 16% to 7% and Sweden: 8%-2%).Conclusions: Short-term mortality rates were high in octogenarians operated for colorectal cancer. Short-term mortality rates differ across four North European countries, but decreased over time for both colon and rectal cancer patients in all countries. (C) 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Show less
