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
Adamina, M.; Ademuyiwa, A.; Adisa, A.; Bhangu, A.A.; Bravo, A.M.; Cunha, M.F.; ... ; Gill, R. 2022
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 Primary mesenteric soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are rare and limited evidence is available to inform management. Surgical resection is challenging due to the proximity of vital structures... Show moreBackground Primary mesenteric soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are rare and limited evidence is available to inform management. Surgical resection is challenging due to the proximity of vital structures and a need to preserve enteric function.Objectives To determine the overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) for patients undergoing primary resection for mesenteric STS.Methods The Trans-Atlantic Australasian Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Working Group (TARPSWG) is an intercontinental collaborative comprising specialist sarcoma centers. Data were collected retrospectively for all patients with mesenteric STS undergoing primary resection between 2000 and 2019.Results Fifty-six cases from 15 institutions were included. The spectrum of pathology was similar to the retroperitoneum, although of a higher grade. R0/R1 resection was achieved in 87%. Median OS was 56 months. OS was significantly shorter in higher-grade tumors (p = .018) and extensive resection (p < .001). No significant association between OS and resection margin or tumor size was detected. Rates of local recurrence (LR) and distant metastases (DM) at 5 years were 60% and 41%, respectively. Liver metastases were common (60%), reflecting portal drainage of the mesentery.Conclusion Primary mesenteric sarcoma is rare, with a modest survival rate. LR and DM are frequent events. Liver metastases are common, highlighting the need for surveillance imaging. Show less
