Association between the time to surgery and survival among patients with colon cancer: A population-based study

No detectable impact of short-term treatment delays on lung cancer survival

Timely initiation of treatment is a core principle of oncologic care, especially for aggressive cancers such as lung cancer. However, the real-world impact of short-term delays in treatment initiation on survival outcomes in lung cancer remains unclear. This meta-analysis evaluates the association between treatment delays of 4, 8, and 12 weeks and all-cause mortality in lung cancer patients. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies published between 2000 and 2025. Of 5360 screened records, 15 studies were included, comprising 16 cohorts for overall survival of lung cancer patients. Hazard ratios (HRs) for 4-, 8-, and 12-week treatment delays were estimated using random-effects meta-analyses. Heterogeneity was measured with the I2 statistic, and publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger's test. No significant association was found between treatment delay and survival at any of the time points. Pooled HRs were 1.00 (95% CI, 0.99-1.02) for a 4-week delay, 1.01 (95% CI, 0.99-1.03) for an 8-week delay, and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.98-1.05) for a 12-week delay. Despite high heterogeneity (I2 = 97%), no evidence of publication bias was detected. This meta-analysis found no significant impact of short-term treatment delays (up to 12 weeks) on mortality in lung cancer patients. These findings challenge the assumption that brief delays universally worsen outcomes and underscore the importance of individualized treatment planning and prioritization.

Treatment delay significantly increases mortality in colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

Delaying the initiation of cancer treatment increases the risk of mortality, particularly in colorectal cancer (CRC), which is among the most common and deadliest malignancies. This study aims to explore the impact of treatment delays on mortality in CRC. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus for studies published between 2000 and 2025. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models with inverse variance method to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) for both overall and cancer-specific survival at 4-, 8-, and 12-week treatment delay intervals, with heterogeneity assessed through I2-statistics and publication bias evaluated using funnel plots and Egger's test. A total of 20 relevant studies were included in the meta-analysis. The analyses of all patients demonstrated a progressively increasing risk of 12-39% with longer treatment delays (4 weeks, HR = 1.12; 95% CI, 1.08-1.16; 8 weeks, HR = 1.24; 95% CI, 1.16-1.34; 12 weeks, HR = 1.39; 95% CI, 1.25-1.55). In particular, incrementally higher hazard ratios were observed for all-cause mortality at 4 weeks (HR = 1.14; 95% CI, 1.09-1.18), 8 weeks (HR = 1.29; 95% CI, 1.20-1.39), and 12 weeks (HR = 1.47; 95% CI, 1.31-1.64). In contrast, cancer-specific survival analysis showed a similar trend but did not reach statistical significance (4 weeks, HR = 1.07; 95% CI, 0.98-1.18; 8 weeks, HR = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.95-1.39; 12 weeks, HR = 1.23; 95% CI, 0.93-1.63). Treatment delays in colorectal cancer patients were associated with progressively worsening overall survival, with each 4-week delay increment leading to a substantially higher mortality risk. This study suggests that timely treatment initiation should be prioritized in clinical practice, as these efforts can lead to substantial improvements in survival rates.

Time to Surgery Does Not Affect the Survival Outcome in Patients with Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

The impact of time to surgery (TTS) on survival in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) is uncertain.

METHODS

Data from PHC patients scheduled for surgery between 2011 and 2020 were reviewed. Patients were grouped based on the median TTS, defined as the time from diagnosis to surgery. Survival outcomes were analyzed for all patients and those undergoing potentially curative resection (resection without distant metastasis).

RESULTS

Of 224 patients, the median TTS was 64 days (range 19-212), with the patients being divided into two groups: long-TTS group (TTS ≥64 days, n = 116) and short-TTS group (TTS <64 days, n = 108). The long-TTS group showed higher rates of preoperative biliary infection (52% vs. 33%; p = 0.004) and portal vein embolization (84% vs. 49%; p < 0.001) compared with the short-TTS group. Forty-seven patients (18%) had unresectable tumors or distant metastasis, with a median overall survival (OS) of 18 months. The rate of potentially curative resection tended to be lower in the long-TTS group (74%) compared with the short-TTS group (84%), although it was not statistically significant (p = 0.063). However, OS for the entire cohort was comparable between the long-TTS and short-TTS groups (median OS 40 vs. 36 months; p = 0.986). Multivariable analysis revealed that TTS was not associated with survival in patients who underwent potentially curative resection.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the potentially curative resection rate tended to be lower in the long-TTS group, TTS did not impact survival in patients undergoing potentially curative resection for PHC.

Association of time to resection with survival in patients with colon cancer

PURPOSE

Colon cancer (CC) remains a leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, for which colectomy represents the standard of care. Yet, the impact of delayed resection on survival outcomes remains controversial. We assessed the association between time to surgery and 10-year survival in a national cohort of CC patients.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study identified all adults who underwent colectomy for Stage I-III CC in the 2004-2020 National Cancer Database. Those who required neoadjuvant therapy or emergent resection < 7 days from diagnosis were excluded. Patients were classified into Early (< 25 days) and Delayed (≥ 25 days) cohorts after an adjusted analysis of the relationship between time to surgery and 10-year survival. Survival at 1-, 5-, and 10-years was assessed via Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox proportional hazard modeling, adjusting for age, sex, race, income quartile, insurance coverage, Charlson-Deyo comorbidity index, disease stage, location of tumor, receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, as well as hospital type, location, and case volume.

RESULTS

Of 165,991 patients, 84,665 (51%) were classified as Early and 81,326 (49%) Delayed. Following risk adjustment, Delayed resection was associated with similar 1-year [hazard ratio (HR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97-1.04, P = 0.72], but inferior 5- (HR 1.24, CI 1.22-1.26; P < 0.001) and 10-year survival (HR 1.22, CI 1.20-1.23; P < 0.001). Black race [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.36, CI 1.31-1.41; P < 0.001], Medicaid insurance coverage (AOR 1.34, CI 1.26-1.42; P < 0.001), and care at high-volume hospitals (AOR 1.12, 95%CI 1.08-1.17; P < 0.001) were linked with greater likelihood of Delayed resection.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with CC who underwent resection ≥ 25 days following diagnosis demonstrated similar 1-year, but inferior 5- and 10-year survival, compared to those who underwent surgery within 25 days. Socioeconomic factors, including race and Medicaid insurance, were linked with greater odds of delayed resection. Efforts to balance appropriate preoperative evaluation with expedited resection are needed to optimize patient outcomes.

Measuring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on colorectal cancer presentation: a retrospective comparative study

BACKGROUNDS

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic provided challenges to surgical care in Australia. This study aimed to measure the potential impact of COVID-19 on colorectal cancer presentation through surgical volume and cancer staging at a major tertiary referral hospital in the city of Sydney Australia.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed using routinely collected data from consecutive colorectal cancer patients undergoing surgery during the COVID-19 period (1 March 2020 to 1 October 2021) and compared with the pre-COVID-19 period (1 March 2018 to 1 October 2019). The main outcomes included patient demographics, surgical volume (including overall, elective and emergency) and cancer staging. Differences in outcomes between the two studied periods were compared using Pearson's chi-squared test, Fisher test or t-test.

RESULTS

A total of 381 patients composed the COVID-19 group (Mean age = 62.4 years) and 364 patients composed the pre-COVID-19 group (Mean age = 65.6 years; P<0.001). No significant differences were observed for overall, elective or emergency surgical volumes. Patients in the COVID-19 group had a reduction in Stage I and an increase in Stage II and III disease, with Stage IV and recurrent disease being similar with a variation of <1% when compared to the pre-COVID-19 group (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Disruptions in patient screening, diagnosis and management from elective surgery restrictions and patient hesitancy may not have resulted in observed changes to surgical volume, however, it may have contributed to an increase in Stages II and III colorectal cancer during COVID-19.

The effect of time before diagnosis and treatment on colorectal cancer outcomes: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate existing evidence on the relationship between diagnostic and treatment intervals and outcomes for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Four databases were searched for English language articles assessing the role of time before initial treatment in colorectal cancer on any outcome, including stage and survival. Two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion and data were synthesised narratively. A dose-response meta-analysis was performed to examine the association between treatment interval and survival.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty papers were included in the systematic review, eight were included in the meta-analysis. Forty-five different intervals were considered in the time from first symptom to treatment. The most common finding was of no association between the length of intervals on any outcome. The dose-response meta-analysis showed a U-shaped association between the treatment interval and overall survival with the nadir at 45 days.

CONCLUSION

The review found inconsistent, but mostly a lack of, association between interval length and colorectal cancer outcomes, but study design and quality were heterogeneous. Meta-analysis suggests survival becomes increasingly poorer for those commencing treatment more than 45 days after diagnosis.

REGISTRATION

This review was registered, and the protocol is available, in PROSPERO, the international database of systematic reviews, with the registration ID CRD42021255864.

Comparing Time to Diagnosis and Treatment Between Younger and Older Adults With Colorectal Cancer: A Population-Based Study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Younger adults (aged <50 years) with colorectal cancer (CRC) may have prolonged delays to diagnosis and treatment that are associated with adverse outcomes. We compared delay intervals by age for patients with CRC in a large population.

METHODS

This was a population-based study of adults diagnosed with CRC in Ontario, Canada, from 2003 to 2018. We measured the time between presentation and diagnosis (diagnostic interval), diagnosis and treatment start (treatment interval), and the time from presentation to treatment (overall interval). We compared interval lengths between adults aged <50 years, 50 to 74 years, and 75 to 89 years using multivariable quantile regression.

RESULTS

Included were 90,225 patients with CRC. Of these, 6853 patients (7.6%) were aged <50 years. Younger patients were more likely to be women, present emergently, have stage IV disease, and have rectal cancer compared with middle-aged patients. Factors associated with significantly longer overall intervals included female sex (8.7 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.6-10.9 days) and rectal cancer compared with proximal colon cancer (9.8 days; 95% CI, 7.4-2.2 days). After adjustment, adults aged <50 years had significantly longer diagnostic intervals (4.3 days; 95% CI. 1.3-7.3 days) and significantly shorter treatment intervals (-4.5 days; 95% CI, -5.3 to -3.7 days) compared with middle-aged patients. However, there was no significant difference in the overall interval (-0.6 days; 95% CI, -4.3 to 3.2 days). In stratified models, younger adults with stage IV disease who presented emergently and patients aged >75 years had longer overall intervals.

CONCLUSIONS

Younger adults present more often with stage IV CRC but have overall similar times from presentation to treatment as screening-eligible older adults.

Artificial intelligence to investigate predictors and prognostic impact of time to surgery in colon cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The role of time to surgery (TTS) for long-term outcomes in colon cancer (CC) remains ill-defined. We sought to utilize artificial intelligence (AI) to characterize the drivers of TTS and its prognostic impact.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was utilized to identify patients diagnosed with non-metastatic CC between 2004 and 2018. AI models were employed to rank the importance of several sociodemographic, facility, and tumor characteristics in determining TTS, and postoperative survival.

RESULTS

Among 518 983 patients, 137 902 (26.6%) received intraoperative diagnosis of CC (TTS = 0), while 381 081 (74.4%) underwent elective surgery (TTS > 0) with median TTS of 19.0 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 7.0-33.0). An AI model, identified tumor stage, receipt of adequate lymphadenectomy, histologic grade, lymphovascular invasion, and insurance status as the most important variables associated with TTS = 0. Conversely, the type and location of treating facility and receipt of adjuvant therapy were among the most important variables for TTS > 0. Notably, TTS was among the most important variables associated with survival, and TTS > 3 weeks was associated with an incremental increase in mortality risk.

CONCLUSIONS

The identification of factors associated with TTS can help stratify patients most likely to suffer poor outcomes due to prolonged TTS, as well as guide quality improvement initiatives related to timely surgical care.

A systematic review of methodological considerations in time to diagnosis and treatment in colorectal cancer research

Research focusing on timely diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer is necessary to improve outcomes for people with cancer. Previous attempts to consolidate research on time to diagnosis and treatment have noted varied methodological approaches and quality, limiting the comparability of findings. This systematic review was conducted to comprehensively assess the scope of methodological issues in this field and provide recommendations for future research. Eligible articles had to assess the role of any interval up to treatment, on any outcome in colorectal cancer, in English, with no limits on publication time. Four databases were searched (Ovid Medline, EMBASE, EMCARE and PsycInfo). Papers were screened by two independent reviewers using a two-stage process of title and abstract followed by full text review. In total, 130 papers were included and had data extracted on specific methodological and statistical features. Several methodological problems were identified across the evidence base. Common issues included arbitrary categorisation of intervals (n = 107, 83%), no adjustment for potential confounders (n = 65, 50%), and lack of justification for included covariates where there was adjustment (n = 40 of 65 papers that performed an adjusted analysis, 62%). Many articles introduced epidemiological biases such as immortal time bias (n = 37 of 80 papers that used survival as an outcome, 46%) and confounding by indication (n = 73, 56%), as well as other biases arising from inclusion of factors outside of their temporal sequence. However, determination of the full extent of these problems was hampered by insufficient reporting. Recommendations include avoiding artificial categorisation of intervals, ensuring bias has not been introduced due to out-of-sequence use of key events and increased use of theoretical frameworks to detect and reduce bias. The development of reporting guidelines and domain-specific risk of bias tools may aid in ensuring future research can reliably contribute to recommendations regarding optimal timing and strengthen the evidence base.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on treatment of colorectal cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Modifications to practice during COVID pandemic impacted health maintenance and treatment of cancer patients.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients presenting to our institution with a new diagnosis of colorectal cancer pre-COVID (January 2017 to December 2019) and post-COVID (January to December 2020).

RESULTS

The total number of patients with a new diagnosis of CRC was 2196. The pre-COVID period had 1891 patients whereas post-COVID period had 305. The median number of patients diagnosed with CRC per month was 50 and 35.5 pre and post-COVID, respectively. Time to treatment initiation was similar with no difference in stage at presentation for the pre and post-COVID periods.

CONCLUSION

There was a significant decrease in colorectal cancer diagnosis number and rate (p < 0.01) during the COVID era with no difference in staging at diagnosis or time to treatment initiation.

Measurement of clinical delay intervals among younger adults with colorectal cancer using health administrative data: a population-based analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinical delays may be important contributors to outcomes among younger adults (<50 years) with colorectal cancer (CRC). We aimed to describe delay intervals for younger adults with CRC using health administrative data to understand drivers of delay in this population.

METHODS

This was a population-based study of adults <50 diagnosed with CRC in Ontario, Canada from 2003 to 2018. Using administrative code-based algorithms (including billing codes), we identified four time points along the pathway to treatment-first presentation with a CRC-related symptom, first investigation, diagnosis date and treatment start. Intervals between these time points were calculated. Multivariable quantile regression was performed to explore associations between patient and disease factors with the median length of each interval.

RESULTS

6853 patients aged 15-49 were diagnosed with CRC and met the inclusion criteria. Males comprised 52% of the cohort, the median age was 45 years (IQR 40-47), and 25% had stage IV disease. The median time from presentation to treatment start (overall interval) was 109 days (IQR 55-218). Time between presentation and first investigation was short (median 5 days), as was time between diagnosis and treatment start (median 23 days). The greatest component of delay occurred between first investigation and diagnosis (median 78 days). Women, patients with distal tumours, and patients with earlier stage disease had significantly longer overall intervals.

CONCLUSIONS

Some younger CRC patients experience prolonged times from presentation to treatment, and time between first investigation to diagnosis was an important contributor. Access to endoscopy may be a target for intervention.

Effect of comprehensive geriatric assessment for frail elderly patients operated for colorectal cancer—the colorectal cancer frailty study: study protocol for a randomized, controlled, multicentre trial

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide, with a median age of 72–75 years at diagnosis. Curative treatment usually involves surgery; if left untreated, symptoms may require emergency surgery. Therefore, most patients will be accepted for surgery, despite of high age or comorbidity. It is known that elderly patients suffer higher risks after surgery than younger patients, in terms of complications and mortality. Assessing frailty and offering frail elderly patients individualized treatment according to the comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) and care concept has been shown to improve the outcome for frail elderly patients in other clinical contexts.

Methods

This randomized controlled multicentre trial aims to investigate if CGA and care prior to curatively intended surgery for CRC in frail elderly patients will improve postoperative outcome. All patients ≥ 70 years with surgically curable CRC will be screened for frailty using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS-9). Frail patients will be offered inclusion. Randomization is stratified for colon or rectal cancer. Patients in the intervention group are, in addition to standard protocol, treated according to CGA and care. This consists of individualized assessments and interventions, established by a multiprofessional team. Patients in the control group are treated according to best known practice as stipulated by Swedish colorectal cancer treatment guidelines, within an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) setting. The primary outcome is 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes are the length of hospital stay and total number of hospital days within 3 months, discharge destination, 30-day readmission, ADL, safe medication assessment, CFS-9 score, complications, Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) at 2-month follow-up in comparison to baseline measurements, health economical calculations including cost-effectiveness analysis based on costs of hospital care and primary care, mortality and HRQoL at baseline, 2- and 12-month follow-up and all-cause 1-year mortality.

Discussion

The trial is the first of its size and extent to investigate intervention with CGA and care prior to surgery for CRC in frail elderly patients. If this addition proves to be favourable, it could have implications on future care of frail elderly patients with CRC.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04358328. Registered on 4 February 2020

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06883-9.

The prognostic impact of lead times in colorectal cancer patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC

Background

National lead time goals have been implemented across Sweden to standardize and improve cancer patient care. However, the prognostic impact of lead times has not yet been studied in patients with colorectal cancer and peritoneal metastases scheduled for cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS + HIPEC).

Aim

To study the correlation between lead times and overall survival and operability.

Methods

One hundred forty-eight patients with peritoneal metastases originating from colorectal cancer and scheduled for CRS + HIPEC from June 2012 to December 2019 were identified using a HIPEC register at Uppsala University Hospital. Data were collected from medical records concerning operability, overall survival, recurrence and time from diagnosis, and decision to operate to the date of surgery. Patients who had neoadjuvant therapy or no malignant cells in the resected specimens were excluded. Statistical calculations were made with the chi-squared test, Cox regression analysis, and log-rank test.

Results

The median age was 66 years (27–82). Ninety-five were women and 53 were men. One hundred six underwent CRS + HIPEC, 13 CRS only, and 29 were inoperable (open-close). No difference in overall survival was seen when comparing patients with lead times ≤ 34 days and ≥ 35 days from the decision to operate at the multidisciplinary conference to the surgery but there was a higher frequency of open-close (p = 0.023) in the group with longer lead time. Factors that impacted overall survival were open-close (p < 0.001), liver metastases (p = 0.003), and peritoneal cancer index score ≥ 20 (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

A long lead time from multidisciplinary conference to surgery has no direct impact on overall survival but can result in more cases of inoperability. In a larger cohort, this might translate into decreased survival, and efforts should therefore be made to complete preoperative work up as soon as possible and reduce overall time span. Important factors for survival are related to patient selection and extent of disease.

Evaluating potential delays and outcomes of patients undergoing surgical resection for locally advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer during a pandemic

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a significant disruption of colorectal cancer (CRC) care pathways. This study evaluates the management and outcomes of patients with primary locally advanced or recurrent CRC during the pandemic in a single tertiary referral centre.

METHODS

Patients undergoing elective surgery for advanced or recurrent CRC with curative intent between March 2020 and March 2021 were identified. Following first multidisciplinary team discussion patients were broadly classified into two groups: straight to surgery (n=22, 45%) or neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery (n=27, 55%). Primary outcome was COVID-19-related complication rate.

RESULTS

Forty-nine patients with a median age of 66 years (interquartile range: 54-73) were included. No patients developed a COVID-19 infection or related complication during hospital admission. Significant delays were identified in the treatment pathway of patients in the straight to surgery group, mostly due to delays in referral from external centres. Nine of 22 patients in the straight to surgery group had evidence of tumour progression compared with 3 of 27 in the neoadjuvant group (p=0.015839). Seven of 27 patients in the neoadjuvant group showed evidence of tumour regression. During the study, surgical waiting times were reduced, and more operations were performed during the second wave of COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that it is possible to mitigate the risks of COVID-19-related complications in patients undergoing complex surgery for locally advanced and recurrent CRC. Delay in surgical intervention is associated with tumour progression, particularly in patients who may not have neoadjuvant therapy. Efforts should be made to prioritise resources for patients requiring time-sensitive surgery for advanced and recurrent CRC.

Disparities in Surgical Timing and Guideline-Adherent Staging Work-Up for Colon Cancer

BACKGROUND

Expedited or delayed surgery for colon cancer without appropriate work-up increases mortality risk. We sought to identify what patient, social, and hospital factors were associated with timely, guideline-adherent work-up for colon cancer.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 19,046 patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database linked with Medicare administrative claims who underwent elective surgery for colon cancer between 2010 and 2015 was performed. Primary outcome was receipt of complete preoperative work-up (colonoscopy, imaging, tumor marker evaluation) and timely surgery within 60 days of diagnosis. Patients were stratified into four groups: (1) adherent; (2) early surgery (< 30 days) with incomplete work-up; (3) surgery between 30 and 60 days with incomplete work-up; and (4) late surgery (> 60 days) with/without work-up. Characteristics were compared and multinomial logistic regression was performed.

RESULTS

Overall, 46.2% of patients received adherent care, 33.1% had early surgery and inadequate work-up, 10.3% had appropriately timed surgery but incomplete work-up, and 10.4% underwent late surgery. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that older, female, Black, and unmarried patients as well as patients living in areas with higher rates of poverty were more likely to receive non-adherent care. A greater proportion of patients at teaching hospitals received complete work-up (57.6% vs. 49.5%) but also underwent late surgery (12.4% vs. 8.6%) compared with non-teaching hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient, societal, and hospital factors impact whether patients receive guideline-adherent colon cancer care. Interventions are needed to improve access to timely and guideline-adherent cancer care as a possible mechanism to combat surgical disparities.

Variations in Care and Real World Outcomes in those with Rectal Cancer: A protocol for the Ontario Rectal Cancer Cohort (OntaReCC) (Preprint)

Background

Individuals with rectal cancer require a number of pretreatment investigations, often require multidisciplinary treatment, and require ongoing follow-ups after treatment is completed. Due to the complexity of treatments, large variations in practice patterns and outcomes have been identified. At present, few comprehensive, population-level data sets are available for assessing interventions and outcomes in this group.

Objective

Our study aims to create a comprehensive database of individuals with rectal cancer who have been treated in a single-payer, universal health care system. This database will provide an excellent resource that investigators can use to study variations in the delivery of care to and real-world outcomes of this population.

Methods

The Ontario Rectal Cancer Cohort database will include comprehensive details about the management and outcomes of individuals with rectal cancer who have been diagnosed in Ontario, Canada (population: 14.6 million), between 2010 and 2019. Linked administrative data sets will be used to construct this comprehensive database. Individual and care provider characteristics, investigations, treatments, follow-ups, and outcomes will be derived and linked. Surgical pathology details, including the stage of disease, histopathology characteristics, and the quality of surgical excision, will be included. Ethics approval for this study was obtained through the Queen’s University Health Sciences and Affiliated Teaching Hospitals Research Ethics Board.

Results

Approximately 20,000 individuals who meet the inclusion criteria for this study have been identified. Data analysis is ongoing, with an expected completion date of March 2023. This study was funded through the Canadian Institute of Health Research Operating Grant.

Conclusions

The Ontario Rectal Cancer Cohort will include a comprehensive data set of individuals with rectal cancer who received care within a single-payer, universal health care system. This cohort will be used to determine factors associated with regional variability and adherence to recommended care, and it will allow for an assessment of a number of understudied areas within the delivery of rectal cancer treatment.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR1-10.2196/38874

What's the magic number? Impact of time to initiation of treatment for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

National guidelines, including the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer, recommend initiation of rectal cancer treatment within 60 days of diagnosis; however, the effect of timely treatment initiation on oncologic outcomes is unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact on oncologic outcomes of initiation of rectal cancer treatment within 60 days of diagnosis.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of stage II/III rectal cancer patients performed using the United States Rectal Cancer Consortium, a collaboration of 6 academic medical centers. Patients with clinical stage II/III rectal cancer who underwent radical resection between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2018 were included. The primary exposure was treatment initiation, defined as either resection or initiation of chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, within 60 days of diagnosis. The primary outcome was disease recurrence, and the secondary outcome was all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 1,031 patients meeting inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. Treatment was initiated within 60 days of diagnosis in 830 patients (80.5%) and after 60 days in 201 patients (20.3%). In multivariable logistic regression, older age, non-White race, and residence greater than 100 miles from the treatment center were significantly associated with delay in treatment beyond 60 days. In survival analysis, 167 patients (16.2%) experienced recurrent disease, and 127 patients (12.3%) died of any cause. In an adjusted model accounting for pathologic staging, treatment sequence, distance to care, age, comorbidities, treatment center, and receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, neither progression-free survival nor all-cause mortality was significantly associated with timely initiation of therapy with hazard ratios of 1.09 (0.70, 1.69) and 1.03 (0.63, 1.66), respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study found no difference in oncologic outcomes with initiation of treatment beyond 60 days.

Delay to elective colorectal cancer surgery and implications for survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

The Covid-19 pandemic has delayed elective colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery. The aim of this study was to see whether or not this may affect overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS).

METHOD

A systematic review was carried out according to PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO ID: CRD42020189158). Medline, EMBASE and Scopus were interrogated. Patients aged over 18 years with a diagnosis of colon or rectal cancer who received elective surgery as their primary treatment were included. Delay to elective surgery was defined as the period between CRC diagnosis and the day of surgery. Meta-analysis of the outcomes OS and DFS were conducted. Forest plots, funnel plots and tests of heterogeneity were produced. An estimated number needed to harm (NNH) was calculated for statistically significant pooled hazard ratios (HRs).

RESULTS

Of 3753 articles identified, seven met the inclusion criteria. Encompassing 314 560 patients, three of the seven studies showed that a delay to elective resection is associated with poorer OS or DFS. OS was assessed at a 1 month delay, the HR for six datasets was 1.13 (95% CI 1.02-1.26, p = 0.020) and at 3 months the pooled HR for three datasets was 1.57 (95% CI 1.16-2.12, p = 0.004). The estimated NNH for a delay at 1 month and 3 months was 35 and 10 respectively. Delay was nonsignificantly negatively associated with DFS on meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

This review recommends that elective surgery for CRC patients is not postponed longer than 4 weeks, as available evidence suggests extended delays from diagnosis are associated with poorer outcomes. Focused research is essential so patient groups can be prioritized based on risk factors in future delays or pandemics.

Effect of timing of surgical resection of primary hepatocellular carcinoma on survival outcomes in elderly patients and prediction of clinical models

BACKGROUND

The effect of time delay from diagnosis to surgery on the prognosis of elderly patients with liver cancer is not well known. We investigated the effect of surgical timing on the prognosis of elderly hepatocellular carcinoma patients undergoing surgical resection and constructed a Nomogram model to predict the overall survival of patients.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on elderly patients with primary liver cancer after hepatectomy from 2012 to 2018. The effect of surgical timing on the prognosis of elderly patients with liver cancer was analyzed using the cut-off times of 18 days, 30 days, and 60 days. Cox was used to analyze the independent influencing factors of overall survival in patients, and a prognostic model was constructed.

RESULTS

A total of 232 elderly hepatocellular carcinoma patients who underwent hepatectomy were enrolled in this study. The cut-off times of 18, 30, and 60 days were used. The duration of surgery had no significant effect on overall survival. Body Mass Index, Child-Pugh classification, Tumor size Max, and Length of stay were independent influencing factors for overall survival in the elderly Liver cancer patients after surgery. These factors combined with Liver cirrhosis and Venous tumor emboli were incorporated into a Nomogram. The nomogram was validated using the clinical data of the study patients, and exhibited better prediction for 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated that the operative time has no significant effect on delayed operation in the elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, and a moderate delay may benefit some patients. The constructed Nomogram model is a good predictor of overall survival in elderly patients with hepatectomy.

Could diagnostic and therapeutic delay affect the prognosis of gastrointestinal primary malignancies in the COVID-19 pandemic era? A literature review

BACKGROUND

Emergency situations, as the Covid-19 pandemic that is striking the world nowadays, stress the national health systems which are forced to rapidly reorganizing their sources. Therefore, many elective diagnostic and surgical procedures are being suspended or significantly delayed. Moreover, patients might find it difficult to refer to physicians and delay the diagnostic and even the therapeutic procedures because of emotional or logistic problems. The effect of diagnostic and therapeutic delay on survival in patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies is still unclear.

METHODS

We carried out a review of the available literature, in order to determine whether the delay in performing diagnosis and curative-intent surgical procedures affects the oncological outcomes in patients with oesophageal, gastric, colorectal cancers, and colorectal liver metastasis.

RESULTS

The findings indicate that for oesophageal, gastric and colon cancers delaying surgery up to 2 months after the end of the staging process does not worsen the oncological outcomes. Oesophageal cancer should undergo surgery within 7-8 weeks after the end of neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Rectal cancers should undergo surgery within 31 days after the diagnostic process and within 12 weeks after neoadjuvant therapy. Adjuvant therapy should start within 4 weeks after surgery, especially in gastric cancer; a delay up to 42 days may be allowed for oesophageal cancer undergoing adjuvant radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Gastrointestinal malignancies can be safely managed taking into account that reasonable delays of planned treatments appear a generally safe approach, not having a significant impact on long-term oncological outcome.

Conflicting Guidelines: A Systematic Review on the Proper Interval for Colorectal Cancer Treatment

BACKGROUND

Timely treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) is a quality indicator in oncological care. However, patients with CRC might benefit more from preoperative optimization rather than rapid treatment initiation. The objectives of this study are (1) to determine the definition of the CRC treatment interval, (2) to study international recommendations regarding this interval and (3) to study whether length of the interval is associated with outcome.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of the literature in June 2020 through MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases, complemented with a web search and a survey among colorectal surgeons worldwide. Full-text papers including subjects with CRC and a description of the treatment interval were included.

RESULTS

Definition of the treatment interval varies widely in published studies, especially due to different starting points of the interval. Date of diagnosis is often used as start of the interval, determined with date of pathological confirmation. The end of the interval is rather consistently determined with date of initiation of any primary treatment. Recommendations on the timeline of the treatment interval range between and within countries from two weeks between decision to treat and surgery, to treatment within seven weeks after pathological diagnosis. Finally, there is no decisive evidence that a longer treatment interval is associated with worse outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The interval from diagnosis to treatment for CRC treatment could be used for prehabilitation to benefit patient recovery. It may be that this strategy is more beneficial than urgently proceeding with treatment.

Early Elective Surgery After Colon Cancer Diagnosis has Higher Risk of Readmission and Death

OBJECTIVE

We hypothesized colon resection within 30 days of diagnosis of cancer would have higher rates of readmission and cancer specific mortality, unless there was demonstrated evidence of preoperative workup.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Few studies have examined if negative consequences exist with expedited elective surgery after diagnosis of colon cancer. Surgery in a shorter time frame may result in a lack of appropriate preoperative care.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 25,407 patients in the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results registry who underwent elective surgical resection for colon cancer from 2010 to 2015. Cohort stratified by age (66-75 vs >75 years). Primary outcomes of interest were 30-day readmission and 5-year colon cancer specific mortality. Relationships between timing of surgery and outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

On unadjusted analysis, surgery before 20 days of diagnosis was associated with higher risk of 30-day readmission and colon cancer specific mortality in both age groups. Among those age 66 to 75 years old, adjusting for patient factors and preoperative workup eliminated the risk of 30-day readmission (risk ratio 1.5-0.9 for 0-10 days, risk ratio 1.3-0.9 for 11-20 days). However, the risk for colon cancer specific mortality, although reduced, persisted (hazard ratio 2.2-1.3 for 0-10 days, hazard ratio 2.0-1.2 for 11-20 days). In the cohort older than 75 years, adjusting for patient level factors and preoperative workup eliminated risk of surgery 20 days postop or sooner.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk associated with short time to surgery (within 30 days) may be mitigated if full oncologic workups are provided.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of surgery delays and survival in breast, lung and colon cancers: Implication for surgical triage during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

Thousands of cancer surgeries were delayed during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study examines if surgical delays impact survival for breast, lung and colon cancers.

Methods

PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched. Articles evaluating the relationship between delays in surgery and overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) or cancer-specific survival (CSS) were included.

Results

Of the 14,422 articles screened, 25 were included in the review and 18 (totaling 2,533,355 patients) were pooled for meta-analyses. Delaying surgery for 12 weeks may decrease OS in breast (HR 1.46, 95%CI 1.28–1.65), lung (HR 1.04, 95%CI 1.02–1.06) and colon (HR 1.24, 95%CI 1.12–1.38) cancers. When breast cancers were analyzed by stage, OS was decreased in stages I (HR 1.27, 95%CI 1.16–1.40) and II (HR 1.13, 95%CI 1.02–1.24) but not in stage III (HR 1.20, 95%CI 0.94–1.53).

Conclusion

Delaying breast, lung and colon cancer surgeries during the COVID-19 pandemic may decrease survival.

•

Delaying cancer surgeries during the COVID-19 pandemic may impact survival.

•

Surgical delays of 12 weeks decreases survival in breast, lung and colon cancers.

•

Surgical delays worsen survival in stage I and II breast cancers but not stage III.

•

Triage recommendations for future waves of COVID-19 should consider this evidence.

Mortality due to cancer treatment delay: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the association of cancer treatment delay and mortality for each four week increase in delay to inform cancer treatment pathways.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Published studies in Medline from 1 January 2000 to 10 April 2020.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Curative, neoadjuvant, and adjuvant indications for surgery, systemic treatment, or radiotherapy for cancers of the bladder, breast, colon, rectum, lung, cervix, and head and neck were included. The main outcome measure was the hazard ratio for overall survival for each four week delay for each indication. Delay was measured from diagnosis to first treatment, or from the completion of one treatment to the start of the next. The primary analysis only included high validity studies controlling for major prognostic factors. Hazard ratios were assumed to be log linear in relation to overall survival and were converted to an effect for each four week delay. Pooled effects were estimated using DerSimonian and Laird random effect models.

RESULTS

The review included 34 studies for 17 indications (n=1 272 681 patients). No high validity data were found for five of the radiotherapy indications or for cervical cancer surgery. The association between delay and increased mortality was significant (P<0.05) for 13 of 17 indications. Surgery findings were consistent, with a mortality risk for each four week delay of 1.06-1.08 (eg, colectomy 1.06, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.12; breast surgery 1.08, 1.03 to 1.13). Estimates for systemic treatment varied (hazard ratio range 1.01-1.28). Radiotherapy estimates were for radical radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (hazard ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.14), adjuvant radiotherapy after breast conserving surgery (0.98, 0.88 to 1.09), and cervix cancer adjuvant radiotherapy (1.23, 1.00 to 1.50). A sensitivity analysis of studies that had been excluded because of lack of information on comorbidities or functional status did not change the findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer treatment delay is a problem in health systems worldwide. The impact of delay on mortality can now be quantified for prioritisation and modelling. Even a four week delay of cancer treatment is associated with increased mortality across surgical, systemic treatment, and radiotherapy indications for seven cancers. Policies focused on minimising system level delays to cancer treatment initiation could improve population level survival outcomes.

Management Considerations for the Surgical Treatment of Colorectal Cancer During the Global Covid-19 Pandemic

OBJECTIVE

The COVID-19 pandemic requires to conscientiously weigh "timely surgical intervention" for colorectal cancer against efforts to conserve hospital resources and protect patients and health care providers.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Professional societies provided ad-hoc guidance at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic on deferral of surgical and perioperative interventions, but these lack specific parameters to determine the optimal timing of surgery.

METHODS

Using the GRADE system, published evidence was analyzed to generate weighted statements for stage, site, acuity of presentation, and hospital setting to specify when surgery should be pursued, the time and duration of oncologically acceptable delays, and when to utilize nonsurgical modalities to bridge the waiting period.

RESULTS

Colorectal cancer surgeries-prioritized as emergency, urgent with imminent emergency or oncologically urgent, or elective-were matched against the phases of the pandemic. Surgery in COVID-19-positive patients must be avoided. Emergent and imminent emergent cases should mostly proceed unless resources are exhausted. Standard practices allow for postponement of elective cases and deferral to nonsurgical modalities of stage II/III rectal and metastatic colorectal cancer. Oncologically urgent cases may be delayed for 6(-12) weeks without jeopardizing oncological outcomes. Outside established principles, administration of nonsurgical modalities is not justified and increases the vulnerability of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic has stressed already limited health care resources and forced rationing, triage, and prioritization of care in general, specifically of surgical interventions. Established guidelines allow for modifications of optimal timing and type of surgery for colorectal cancer during an unrelated pandemic.

Impact of delay to surgery on survival in stage I-III colon cancer

PURPOSE

To assess the impact of delay from diagnosis to curative surgery on survival in patients with non-metastatic colon cancer.

METHODS

National Cancer database (NCDB) analysis (2004-2013) including all consecutive patients diagnosed with stage I-III colon cancer and treated with primary elective curative surgery. Short and long delays were defined as lower and upper quartiles of time from diagnosis to treatment, respectively. Age-, sex-, race-, tumor stage and location-, adjuvant treatment-, comorbidity- and socioeconomic factors-adjusted overall survival (OS) was compared between the two groups (short vs. long delay). A multivariable Cox regression model was used to identify the independent impact of each factor on OS.

RESULTS

Time to treatment was <16 days in the short delay group (31,171 patients) and ≥37 days in the long delay group (29,617 patients). OS was 75.4 vs. 71.9% at 5 years and 56.6 vs. 49.7% at 10 years in short and long delay groups, respectively (both p < 0.0001). Besides demographic (comorbidities, advanced age) and pathological factors (transverse and right-vs. left-sided location, advanced tumor stage, poor differentiation, positive microscopic margins), treatment delay had a significant impact on OS (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.05-1.07 per 14 day-delay) upon multivariable analysis. The adjusted hazard ratio for death increased continuously with delay times of longer than 30 days, to become significant after a delay of 40 days.

CONCLUSION

This analysis using a national cancer database revealed a significant impact on OS when surgeries for resectable colon cancer were delayed beyond 40 days from time of diagnosis.

Effect of surgical delay on survival outcomes in patients undergoing curative resection for primary hepatocellular carcinoma: Inverse probability of treatment weighting using propensity scores and propensity score adjustment

BACKGROUND

The evidence is conflicting regarding the effect of delays from the time of diagnosis to surgery on the survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. We sought to investigate the impact of time to surgery on overall survival for patients who underwent curative resection for primary hepatocellular carcinoma.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of all patients who underwent liver resection for primary hepatocellular carcinoma between the years 2000 and 2015. Using 30-, 60-, and 90-day cutoffs, we investigated the effect of time to surgery on survival outcomes by dichotomizing the patients and using inverse probability of treatment weighting to ensure comparability. We also investigated time to surgery in prognostic subgroups by modeling the statistical interaction between time to surgery and the relevant prognostic variable in multivariable Cox models.

RESULTS

A total of 863 patients underwent liver resection for primary hepatocellular carcinoma during the study period. Using 30-, 60-, and 90-day cutoffs, time to surgery did not have a significant bearing on overall survival. For elderly patients (>70 years), patients with Child-Pugh B liver disease, American Society of Anesthesiologists status 2/3, tumor size >5cm, tumor size ≥10cm and presence of extrahepatic invasion, hazard ratio decreased and overall survival improved as time to surgery increased. However, for patients with liver cirrhosis or portal hypertension, increasing time to surgery was found to portend higher risks of death.

CONCLUSION

Time to surgery does not have a significant bearing on overall survival, and modest delays even appear to be associated with improved survival in specific subsets of patients. The importance of these findings is that patients with hepatocellular carcinoma should be fully optimized before and not rushed to surgery because of concerns of tumor progression and a diminished survival.

The Association Between Wait Times for Colorectal Cancer Treatment and Health Care Costs: A Population-Based Analysis

BACKGROUND

Health care costs and wait times for colorectal cancer treatment are increasing in Canada, but the association between the 2 remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the association between wait times and health care costs and utilization.

DESIGN

This is a population-based retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

This study was conducted in Manitoba, Canada.

PATIENTS

Patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer between 2004 and 2014 were sorted and ranked into quintiles based on the time from index contact for a colorectal cancer-related symptom to first treatment.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome is risk-adjusted health care costs, and the secondary outcomes include health care utilization and overall mortality.

RESULTS

We included a total of 6936 patients. Total wait times ranged between 0 and 762 days. In comparison with very short wait times, longer wait times were associated with significantly increased costs (short: mean cost ratio 1.21; 95% CI, 1.10-1.32; moderate: mean cost ratio 1.30; 95% CI, 1.19-1.43; long: mean cost ratio 1.48; 95% CI, 1.33-1.64; and very long: mean cost ratio 1.39; 95% CI, 1.26-1.54). Compared with very short wait times, longer wait times were associated with significantly lower risk of mortality (short: HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71-0.86; moderate: HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.65-0.80; long: HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.66-0.82; very long: HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.68-0.85). The median number of pretreatment radiological and endoscopic investigations and surgeon clinic visits increased over the study period across all wait time categories.

LIMITATIONS

This is a nonrandomized, retrospective cohort study with potentially limited generalizability.

CONCLUSION

Patients with very short and short wait times are likely those diagnosed with life-threatening complications of colorectal cancer. Outside this window, patients with longer wait times experience increased health care costs and utilization with similar overall mortality. Improved care coordination and patient navigation may help contain the increasing wait times and associated increasing health care costs and utilization. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B81. ASOCIACIÓN ENTRE LOS TIEMPOS DE ESPERA PARA EL TRATAMIENTO DE UN CÁNCER COLORRECTAL Y LOS COSTOS DE ATENCIÓN MÉDICA: UN ANÁLISIS DE POBLACIÓN: los costos de atención médica y los tiempos de espera para el tratamiento del cáncer colorrectal están aumentando en Canadá, pero la asociación entre los dos sigue sin estar clara.determinar la asociación entre los tiempos de espera y los costos y la utilización de la atención médicaun estudio de cohorte retrospectivo basado en la población.Manitoba, Canadálos pacientes diagnosticados con cáncer colorrectal entre 2004-2014 se clasificaron y sub-clasificaron en quintiles según el tiempo desde el primer contacto índice de síntomas relacionados con cáncer colorrectal hasta el primer tratamiento.El resultado primario son los costos de atención médica ajustados al riesgo, y los resultados secundarios incluyen la utilización de la atención médica y la mortalidad general.Incluimos un total de 6,936 pacientes. Los tiempos de espera totales oscilaron entre 0-762 días. En comparación con los tiempos de espera muy cortos, los tiempos de espera más largos se asociaron con costos significativamente mayores (Corto: relación de costo promedio 1.21, intervalo de confianza del 95% 1.10-1.32; Moderado: relación de costo promedio 1.30, intervalo de confianza del 95% 1.19-1.43; Largo: media relación de costo 1.48, intervalo de confianza del 95% 1.33-1.64; Muy largo: relación de costo promedio 1.39, intervalo de confianza del 95% 1.26-1.54). En comparación con tiempos de espera muy cortos, los tiempos de espera más largos se asociaron con un riesgo de mortalidad significativamente menor (Corto: razón de riesgo 0.78, intervalo de confianza del 95% 0.71-0.86; Moderado: razón de riesgo 0.72, intervalo de confianza del 95% 0.65-0.80; Largo: peligro cociente 0.73, intervalo de confianza del 95% 0.66-0.82; Muy largo: cociente de riesgos 0.76, intervalo de confianza del 95% 0.68-0.85). La mediana del número de investigaciones radiológicas y endoscópicas previas al tratamiento y las visitas al cirujano aumentaron durante el período de estudio en todas las categorías de tiempo de espera.estudio de cohortes retrospectivo, no aleatorio con generalización potencialmente limitadalos pacientes con tiempos de espera « muy cortos » y « cortos » son probablemente aquellos diagnosticados con complicaciones potencialmente mortales del cáncer colorrectal. Fuera de esta ventana, los pacientes con tiempos de espera más largos experimentan mayores costos de atención médica y utilización con una mortalidad general similar. La coordinación mejorada de la atención y la navegación del paciente pueden ayudar a contener el aumento de los tiempos de espera y el aumento de los costos y la utilización de la atención médica. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B81. (Traducción-Dr. Edgar Xavier Delgadillo).

Multimorbidity by Patient and Tumor Factors and Time-to-Surgery Among Colorectal Cancer Patients in Spain: A Population-Based Study

Background

Cancer treatment and outcomes can be influenced by tumor characteristics, patient overall health status, and comorbidities. While previous studies have analyzed the influence of comorbidity on cancer outcomes, limited information is available regarding factors associated with the increased prevalence of comorbidities and multimorbidity among patients with colorectal cancer in Spain.

Patients and Methods

This cross-sectional study obtained data from all colorectal cancer cases diagnosed in two Spanish provinces in 2011 from two population-based cancer registries and electronic health records. We calculated the prevalence of comorbidities according to patient and tumor factors, identified factors associated with an increased prevalence of comorbidity and multimorbidity, analyzed the association between comorbidities and time-to-surgery, and developed an interactive web application (https://comcor.netlify.com/).

Results

The most common comorbidities were diabetes (23.6%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (17.2%), and congestive heart failure (14.5%). Among all comorbidities, 52% of patients were diagnosed at more advanced stages (stage III/IV). Patients with advanced age, restricted performance status or who were disabled, obese, and smokers had a higher prevalence of multimorbidity. Patients with multimorbidity had a longer time-to-surgery than those without comorbidity (17 days, 95% confidence interval: 3–29 days).

Conclusion

We identified a consistent pattern of factors associated with a higher prevalence of comorbidities and multimorbidity at diagnosis and an increased time-to-surgery among patients with colorectal cancer with multimorbidity in Spain. This pattern may provide insights for further etiological and preventive research and help to identify patients at a higher risk for poorer cancer outcomes and suboptimal treatment.

The Impact of Delays to Definitive Surgical Care on Survival in Colorectal Cancer Patients

INTRODUCTION

Treatment delay may have detrimental effects on cancer outcomes. The impact of longer delays on colorectal cancer outcomes remains poorly described. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of delays to curative-intent surgical resection on survival in colorectal cancer patients.

METHODS

All adult patients undergoing elective resection of primary non-metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma from January 2009 to December 2014 were reviewed. Treatment delays were defined as the time from tissue diagnosis to definitive surgery, categorized as < 4, 4 to < 8, and ≥ 8 weeks. Primary outcomes were 5-year disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Statistical analysis included Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 408 patients were included (83.2% colon;15.8% rectal) with a mean follow-up of 58.4 months (SD29.9). Fourteen percent (14.0%) of patients underwent resection < 4 weeks, 40.0% 4 to < 8 weeks, and 46.1% ≥ 8 weeks. More rectal cancer patients had treatment delay ≥ 8 weeks compared with colonic tumors (69.8% vs. 41.4%, p < 0.001). Cumulative 5-year DFS and OS were similar between groups (p = 0.558; p = 0.572). After adjusting for confounders, surgical delays were not independently associated with DFS and OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment delays > 4 weeks were not associated with worse oncologic outcomes. Delaying surgery to optimize patients can safely be considered without compromising survival.

Gastrointestinal Malignancies and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence-Based Triage to Surgery

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to widespread cancelation of electively scheduled surgeries, including for colorectal, pancreatic, and gastric cancer. The American College of Surgeons and the Society of Surgical Oncology have released guidelines for triage of these procedures. We seek to synthesize available evidence on delayed resection and oncologic outcomes, while also providing a critical assessment of the released guidelines.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to identify literature between 2005 and 2020 investigating the impact of time to surgery on oncologic outcomes in colorectal, pancreatic, and gastric cancer.

RESULTS

For colorectal cancer, 1066 abstracts were screened and 43 papers were included. In primarily resected colon cancer, delay over 30 to 40 days is associated with lower survival. In rectal cancer, time to surgery over 7 to 8 weeks following neoadjuvant therapy is associated with decreased survival. Three hundred ninety-four abstracts were screened for pancreatic cancer and nine studies were included. Two studies demonstrate increased unexpected progression with delayed surgery over 30 days. Out of 633 abstracts screened for gastric cancer, six studies were included. No identified study demonstrated worse survival with increased time to surgery.

CONCLUSION

Moderate evidence suggests that delayed resection of colorectal cancer worsens survival; the impact of time to surgery on gastric and pancreatic cancer outcomes is uncertain. Early resection of gastrointestinal malignancies provides the best chance for curative therapy. During the COVID-19 pandemic, prioritization of procedures should account for available evidence on time to surgery and oncologic outcomes.

Time to Surgery and Colon Cancer Survival in the United States

PURPOSE

Time to surgery (TTS) is of concern to patients diagnosed with cancer and their physicians. Controversy surrounds the impact of TTS on colon cancer survival. There are limited national data evaluating the association; thus, our aim was to estimate the overall survival (OS) impact from increasing TTS for patients with colon cancer.

METHODS

Using the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB), we assessed OS as a function of time between diagnosis and surgery by evaluating intervals encompassing <7, 7 to 30, 31 to 60, 61 to 90, 91 to 120, and 121 to 180 days in length. All patients were diagnosed with nonmetastatic colon cancer and underwent surgery as initial treatment. Our main outcome was OS as a function of time between diagnosis and surgery, after adjusting for patient, demographic, and tumor-related factors using Cox regression models and propensity score-based weighting.

RESULTS

A total of 514,103 patients diagnosed between 1998 and 2012 were included. Individuals having <7, 7 to 30, 31 to 60, 61 to 90, 91 to 120, and 121 to 180 days between diagnosis and surgery comprised 35.4%, 45%, 15.1%, 2.9%, 1%, and 0.6% of the patients, respectively. There was a steady increase in median TTS across the years. On multivariable analysis, TTS >30 days or within the first week independently increased mortality risk. There was a significant increase in mortality with TTS 31 to 60 [hazard ratio (HR) 1.13], 61 to 90 (HR 1.49), <7 (HR 1.56), 91 to 120 (HR 2.28), and 121 to 180 (HR 2.46) compared to surgery performed 7 to 30 days after diagnosis (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

TTS is independently associated with OS and this represents a public health issue that should be addressed at a national level. Although time is required for evaluation before surgery, efforts to reduce TTS should be pursued.

Overall survival of patients with colon cancer and a prolonged time to surgery

BACKGROUND

Factors associated with the time to surgery (TTS) and survival in colon cancer (CC) have not been well studied. Our aim was to find if the TTS has changed in our institution over time and to determine if it influences the survival.

METHODS

Retrospective cross-section study of 266 CC analyzed between two periods, and according to the quartiles of TTS, we performed a survival analysis.

RESULTS

The median age was 57 years; there was no predominance of sex, and about half of the patients were in stage III. The median TTS was 38 days, and 75% of the cases were operated before 60 days. The median TTS for 2005 to 2010 was 36 days, while for 2011 to 2015 was 41 days (P = 0.107). The survival was not statistically different between cases (1) operated with a delayed TTS or not, (2) operated in four cut-off points of TTS, (3) two different periods of attention, and (4) according to the clinical stage.

CONCLUSION

We did not find an association between the TTS with low survival. TTS has increased in the last period so we must work to make the diagnostic process more efficient in our patients to meet international quality standards.

The effect of time from diagnosis to surgery on oncological outcomes in patients undergoing surgery for colon cancer: A systematic review

Many countries have implemented cancer pathways with strict time limits dictating the pace of diagnostic testing and treatment. There are concerns that prehabilitation may worsen long-term oncological outcomes if surgery is delayed. We aimed to systematically review the literature investigating the association between increased time between diagnosis of colon cancer and surgical treatment, with special focus on survival outcomes.

METHODS

Through a systematic search and analysis of the databases PubMed (1966-2017), EMBASE (1974-2017), CINHAL (1981-2017), and The Cochrane Library performed on June 7th, 2017, the effect of treatment delays on overall survival in colon cancer patients was reviewed. Treatment delay was defined as time from diagnosis to initiation of surgical treatment. All patients included were diagnosed with colon cancer and treated with elective curative surgery without neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This review was prospectively registered on the PROSPERO database of systematic review protocols with registration number CRD42017059774.

RESULTS

Five observational studies including 13,514 patients were included. The treatment delay intervals ranged from 1 to ≥56 days. Four of the five studies found no association between time elapsed from diagnosis to surgery and reduced overall survival. One study found a clinically insignificant association between longer treatment delays and overall survival. Three studies investigated the effect on disease specific survival and found no negative associations.

CONCLUSION

The available data showed no association between treatment delay and reduced overall survival in colon cancer patients.

Delay to Colectomy and Survival for Patients Diagnosed with Colon Cancer

Background: A long wait-time for colectomy for colon cancer should theoretically affect survival but, to date, the association between delay to colectomy and survival remains unresolved. Methods: We studied 4,685 patients who underwent a colectomy for colon cancer between 1990 and 2012. Wait-time was defined as the number of days between diagnosis and colectomy. Cox regression models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all-cause mortality. Results: The number of patients in the wait-time group of 1-21 days was 3,529 (75.3%), 22-42 days was 842 (18.0%), 43-84 days was 253 (5.4%), and >84 days was 61 (1.3%). When compared to patients undergoing surgery in the first week after diagnosis, there was no increased risk of death until wait time >84 days (HR = 1.47; 95% CI, 1.02-2.11; p =.038). Patients in the wait time >84 day group tended to be older, traveled further for colectomy, and had tumors with a lower histologic grade. Conclusions: Colectomy for colon cancer performed up to 3 months following diagnosis is not associated with adverse long-term survival. These data provide a framework to address concerns over prolonged wait-times and direct efforts for timely surgery in patients with colon cancer.