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

Open versus robotic-assisted techniques for multivisceral pelvic resections of locally advanced or recurrent colorectal and anal cancers: short-term outcomes from a single centre

BACKGROUND

Pelvic exenterations are now established as a standard of care for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer. Traditionally, these radical and complex operations have been performed via an open approach, but with the increasing expertise in robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), there is scope to perform such cases robotically. This study compares outcomes from open and RAS pelvic exenterations.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study includes all pelvic exenterations for locally advanced or recurrent colorectal cancers performed in a single centre between September 2018 and September 2023. Cases were grouped into open or RAS surgery and classified in terms of operative extent and complexity. The primary outcome was resection margin status. Secondary outcomes were postoperative morbidity, length of stay and blood loss.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients were included. Nineteen (57.6%) cases utilised an open technique, and 14 (42.4%) used RAS. Patient characteristics and operative complexity were equivalent between groups. R0 rate (63.1% vs 71.4%, p = 0.719), median haemoglobin drop (19 (11-30) g/L vs 13 (5-26) g/L, p = 0.208) and postoperative morbidity (18/19 (94.7%) vs 9/14 (64.3%), p = 0.062) were equivalent. Length of stay (16.0 days (8-25) vs 9.5 days (6-16), p = 0.047) was shorter in the RAS group.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term surgical and histopathological outcomes are equivalent in this small cohort of patients. This study suggests that RAS may be a safe and effective method for performing pelvic exenterations for colorectal malignancies. Larger-scale and robustly designed prospective studies are required to confirm these preliminary findings and report on long-term oncological outcomes.

Global elective breast- and colorectal cancer surgery performance backlogs, attributable mortality and implemented health system responses during the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping review

Globally, 28.4 million non-emergent ('elective') surgical procedures have been deferred during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study evaluated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on elective breast- or colorectal cancer (CRC) procedure backlogs and attributable mortality, globally. Further, we evaluated the interaction between procedure deferrals and health systems, internationally. Relevant articles from any country, published between December 2019-24 November 2022, were identified through searches of online databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE) and by examining the reference lists of retrieved articles. We organised health system-related findings thematically per the Structures-Processes-Outcomes conceptual model by Donabedian (1966). Of 337 identified articles, we included 50. Eleven (22.0%) were reviews. The majority of included studies originated from high-income countries (n = 38, 76.0%). An ecological, modelling study elucidated that global 12-week procedure cancellation rates ranged from 68.3%-73%; Europe and Central Asia accounted for the majority of cancellations (n = 8,430,348) and sub-Saharan Africa contributed the least (n = 520,459). The percentage reduction in global, institutional elective breast cancer surgery activity ranged from 5.68%-16.5%. For CRC, this ranged from 0%-70.9%. Significant evidence is presented on how insufficient pandemic preparedness necessitated procedure deferrals, internationally. We also outlined ancillary determinants of delayed surgery (e.g., patient-specific factors). The following global health system response themes are presented: Structural changes (i.e., hospital re-organisation), Process-related changes (i.e., adapted healthcare provision) and the utilisation of Outcomes (i.e., SARS-CoV-2 infection incidence among patients or healthcare personnel, postoperative pulmonary complication incidence, hospital readmission, length of hospital stay and tumour staging) as indicators of health system response efficacy. Evidence on procedure backlogs and attributable mortality was limited, partly due to insufficient, real-time surveillance of cancer outcomes, internationally. Elective surgery activity has decreased and cancer services have adapted rapidly, worldwide. Further research is needed to understand the impact of COVID-19 on cancer mortality and the efficacy of health system mitigation measures, globally.