The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Management of Locally Advanced Primary/Recurrent Rectal Cancer.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: PelvEx Collaborative
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7436568 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Management of Locally Advanced Primary/Recurrent Rectal Cancer.
The British journal of surgery 20200810 11
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundIn some surgical disciplines, navigation-assisted surgery has become standard of care, but in rectal cancer, indications for navigation and the utility of different technologies remain undetermined.MethodsThe NAVI-LARRC prospective study (NCT04512937; IDEAL Stage 2a) evaluated feasibility of navigation in patients with locally advanced primary (LARC) and recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). Included patients had advanced tumours with high risk of incomplete (R1/R2) resection, and navigation was considered likely to improve the probability of complete resection (R0). Tumours were classified according to pelvic compartmental involvement, as suggested by the Royal Marsden group. The BrainlabTM navigation platform was used for preoperative segmentation of tumour and pelvic anatomy, and for intraoperative navigation with optical tracking. R0 resection rates, surgeons' experiences, and adherence to the preoperative resection plan were assessed.ResultsSeventeen patients with tumours involving the posterior/lateral compartments underwent navigation-assisted procedures. Fifteen patients required abdominosacral resection, and 3 had resection of the sciatic nerve. R0 resection was obtained in 6/8 (75%) LARC and 6/9 (69%) LRRC cases. Preoperative segmentation was time-consuming (median 3.5 h), but intraoperative navigation was accurate. Surgeons reported navigation to be feasible, and adherence to the resection plan was satisfactory.ConclusionsNavigation-assisted surgery using optical tracking was feasible. The preoperative planning was time-consuming, but intraoperative navigation was accurate and resulted in acceptable R0 resection rates. Selected patients are likely to benefit from navigation-assisted surgery.
| S-EPMC10562504 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA first pilot study showed that an image-guided navigation system could improve resection margin rates in locally advanced (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) patients. Incremental surgical innovation is often implemented without reimbursement consequences, health economic aspects should however also be taken into account. This study evaluates the early cost-effectiveness of navigated surgery compared to standard surgery in LARC and LRRC.MethodsA Markov decision model was constructed to estimate the expected costs and outcomes for navigated and standard surgery. The input parameters were based on pilot data from a prospective (navigation cohort n = 33) and retrospective (control group n = 142) data. Utility values were measured in a comparable group (n = 63) through the EQ5D-5L. Additionally, sensitivity and value of information analyses were performed.ResultsBased on this early evaluation, navigated surgery showed incremental costs of €3141 and €2896 in LARC and LRRC. In LARC, navigated surgery resulted in 2.05 Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) vs 2.02 QALYs for standard surgery. For LRRC, we found 1.73 vs 1.67 QALYs respectively. This showed an Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) of €136.604 for LARC and €52.510 for LRRC per QALY gained. In scenario analyses, optimal utilization rates of the navigation technology lowered the ICER to €61.817 and €21.334 for LARC and LRRC. The ICERs of both indications were most sensitive to uncertainty surrounding the risk of progression in the first year after surgery, the risk of having a positive surgical margin, and the costs of the navigation system.ConclusionAdding navigation system use is expected to be cost-effective in LRRC and has the potential to become cost-effective in LARC. To increase the probability of being cost-effective, it is crucial to optimize efficient use of both the hybrid OR and the navigation system and identify subgroups where navigation is expected to show higher effectiveness.
| S-EPMC9074374 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Unplanned readmissions heavily affect the cost of health care and are used as an indicator of performance. No clear data are available regarding beyond-total mesorectal excision (bTME) procedure. Aim of the study is to identify patient-related and surgery-related factors influencing the 30-day readmissions after bTME. Retrospective data were collected from 220 patients who underwent bTME procedures at single centre between 2006 and 2016. Patient-related and operative factors were assessed, including body mass index (BMI), age, gender, American Society of Anaesthesiologists' (ASA) score, preoperative stage, neo-adjuvant therapy, primary tumour vs recurrence, the extent of surgery. The readmission rate was 8.18%. No statistically significant association was found with BMI, ASA score, length of stay and stay in the intensive care unit, primary vs recurrent tumour or blood transfusions. Not quite statistically significant was the association with pelvic side wall dissection (OR 3.32, p = 0.054). Statistically significant factors included preoperative stage > IIIb (OR: 4.77, p = 0.002), neo-adjuvant therapy (OR: 0.13, p = 0.0006), age over 65 years (OR: 5.96, p = 0.0005), any re-intervention during the first admission (OR: 7.4, p = 0.0001), and any post-operative complication (OR: 9.01, p = 0.004). The readmission rate after beyond-TME procedure is influenced by patient-related factors as well as post-operative morbidity.
| S-EPMC6686032 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic has brought a renewed focus on appropriate management of chronic respiratory conditions with a heightened awareness of respiratory symptoms and the requirement for differential diagnosis between an asthma attack and COVID-19 infection. Despite early concerns in the pandemic, most studies suggest that well-managed asthma is not a risk factor for more severe COVID-related outcomes, and that asthma may even have a protective effect. Advice on the treatment of asthma and asthma attacks has remained unchanged. This article describes some challenges faced in primary care asthma management in adults and in teenagers, particularly their relevance during a pandemic, and provides practical advice on asthma attack recognition, classification, treatment and continuity of care. Acute attacks, characterised by increased symptoms and reduced lung function, are often referred to as exacerbations of asthma by doctors and nurses but are usually described by patients as asthma attacks. They carry a significant and underestimated morbidity and mortality burden. Many patients experiencing an asthma attack are assessed in primary care for treatment and continuing management. This may require remote assessment by telephone and home monitoring devices, where available, during a pandemic. Differentiation between an asthma attack and a COVID-19 infection requires a structured clinical assessment, taking account of previous medical and family history. Early separation into mild, moderate, severe or life-threatening attacks is helpful for continuing good management. Most attacks can be managed in primary care but when severe or unresponsive to initial treatment, the patient should be appropriately managed until transfer to an acute care facility can be arranged. Good quality care is important to prevent further attacks and must include a follow-up appointment in primary care, proactive regular dosing with daily controller therapy and an understanding of a patient's beliefs and perceptions about asthma to maximise future self-management.
| S-EPMC8853035 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Primary outcome(s): The incidence of obstructive colorectal cancer
| 2656898 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:To prospectively analyze feasibility and pathological complete response (pCR) rates of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy combined with regional hyperthermia (RHT) in patients with locally advanced (LARC) or recurrent (LRRC) rectal cancer. between 2012 and 2018, 111 patients with UICC stage IIB-IV or any locally recurrent rectal cancer were included (HyRec-Trial, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01716949). Patients received radiotherapy with concurrent 5-Fluororuracil (5-FU)/Capecitabine and Oxaliplatin, and RHT. Stage 1 feasibility analysis evaluated dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) after 19 patients, stage 2 after 59 evaluable patients. Analysis of the pCR rate was based on histopathological reports. the feasibility rates for stages 1 and 2 were 90% (17/19) and 73% (43/59), respectively. In the intention-to-treat population the pCR rate was 19% (20/105; 90% confidence interval (CI) 13.0-26.5). In the per-protocol-analysis, complete tumor regression was seen in 28% (18/64) and 38% (3/8) of the patients with LARC and LRRC, respectively. Complete resection rates (R0) among patients with LARC and LRRC who received surgery were 99% (78/84) and 67% (8/12). the intensified neoadjuvant and multimodality treatment schedule was feasible and led to comparable early toxicity rates as described by other trials that used the similar chemoradiation protocol. The presented treatment regimen resulted in a very high pCR rate and appears as a promising option for patients with LRRC.
| S-EPMC8001688 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAmong patients with rectal cancer, 5-10% have a primary rectal cancer beyond the total mesorectal excision plane (PRC-bTME) and 10% recur locally following primary surgery (LRRC). In both cases, patients 'care remains challenging with a significant worldwide variation in practice regarding overall management and criteria for operative intervention. These variations in practice can be explained by structural and organizational differences, as well as cultural dissimilarities. However, surgical resection of PRC-bTME and LRRC provides the best chance of long-term survival after complete resection (R0). With regards to the organization of the healthcare system and the operative criteria for these patients, France and Australia seem to be highly different. A benchmarking-type analysis between French and Australian clinical practice, with regards to the care and management of PRC-bTME and LRRC, would allow understanding of patients' care and management structures as well as individual and collective mechanisms of operative decision-making in order to ensure equitable practice and improve survival for these patients.Methods/designThe current study is an international Benchmarking trial comparing two cohorts of 120 consecutive patients with non-metastatic PRC-bTME and LRRC. Patients with curative and palliative treatment intent are included. The study design has three main parts: (1) French and Australian cohorts including clinical, radiological and surgical data, quality of life (MOS SF36, FACT-C) and distress level (Distress thermometer) at the inclusion, 6 and 12 months; (2) experimental analyses consisting of a blinded inter-country reading of pelvic MRI to assess operatory decisions; (3) qualitative analyses based on MDT meeting observation, semi-structured interviews and focus groups of health professional attendees and conducted by a research psychologist in both countries using the same guides. The primary endpoint will be the clinical resection rate. Secondary end points will be concordance rate between French and Australian operative decisions based on the inter-country reading MRI, post-operative mortality and morbidity rates, oncological outcomes based on resection status and one-year overall and disease-free survival, patients' quality of life and distress level. Qualitative analysis will compare obstacles and facilitators of operative decision-making between both countries.DiscussionBenchmarking can be defined as a comparison and learning process which will allow, in the context of PRC-bTME and LRRC, to understand and to share the whole process management of these patientsbetween Farnce and Australia.Trial registrationNCT02551471 . (date of registration: 09/14/2015).
| S-EPMC4820920 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8136009 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) is a complex disease with far-reaching implications for the patient. Until recently, research was limited regarding surgical techniques that can increase the ability to perform an en bloc resection with negative margins. This has changed in recent years and therefore outcomes for these patients have improved. Novel radical techniques and adjuncts allow for more radical resections thereby improving the chance of negative resection margins and outcomes. In the past contraindications to surgery included anterior involvement of the pubic bone, sacral invasions above the level of S2/S3 and lateral pelvic wall involvement. However, current data suggests that previously unresectable cases may now be feasible with novel techniques, surgical approaches and reconstructive surgery. The publications to date have only reported small patient pools with the research conducted by highly specialised units. Moreover, the short and long-term oncological outcomes are currently under review. Therefore although surgical options for LRRC have expanded significantly, one should balance the treatment choices available against the morbidity associated with the procedure and select the right patient for it.
| S-EPMC5483491 | biostudies-other
Project description:Advancements in rectal cancer treatment have resulted in improvement only in locoregional control and have failed to address distant relapse, which is the predominant mode of treatment failure in rectal cancer. As the efficacy of conventional chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) reaches a plateau, the need for alternative strategies in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) has grown in relevance. Several novel strategies have been conceptualized to address this issue, including: 1) neoadjuvant induction and consolidation chemotherapy before CRT; 2) neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone to avoid the sequelae of radiation; and 3) nonoperative management for patients who achieved pathological or clinical complete response after CRT. This article explores the issues, recent advances and paradigm shifts in the management of LARC and emphasizes the need for a personalized treatment plan for each patient based on tumor stage, location, gene expression and quality of life.
| S-EPMC5842228 | biostudies-literature