Search

Background: Anaemia is highly prevalent in people with advanced, palliative cancer yet sufficiently effective and safe treatments are lacking. Oral iron is poorly tolerated, and blood transfusion offers only transient benefits. Intravenous iron has shown promise as an effective treatment for anaemia but its use for people with advanced, palliative cancer lacks evidence. Aims: To assess feasibility of the trial design according to screening, recruitment, and attrition rates. To evaluate the efficacy of intravenous iron to treat anaemia in people with solid tumours, receiving palliative care. Design: A multicentre, randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous iron (ferric derisomaltose, Monofer®). Outcomes included trial feasibility, change in blood indices, and change in quality of life via three validated questionnaires (EQ5D5L, QLQC30, and the FACIT-F) over 8 weeks. (ISRCTN; 13370767). Setting/Participants: People with anaemia and advanced solid tumours who were fatigued with a performance status ⩽2 receiving support from a specialist palliative care service. Results: 34 participants were randomised over 16 months (17 iron, 17 placebo). Among those eligible 47% of people agreed to participate and total study attrition was 26%. Blinding was successful in all participants. There were no serious adverse reactions. Results indicated that intravenous iron may be efficacious at improving participant haemoglobin, iron stores and select fatigue specific quality of life measures compared to placebo. Conclusion: The trial was feasible according to recruitment and attrition rates. Intravenous iron increased haemoglobin and may improve fatigue specific quality of life measures compared to placebo. A definitive trial is required for confirmation.

Oral iron promotes intestinal tumourigenesis in animal models. In humans, expression of iron transport proteins are altered in colorectal cancer. This study examined whether the route of iron therapy alters iron transport and tumour growth. Colorectal adenocarcinoma patients with pre-operative iron deficiency anaemia received oral ferrous sulphate (n = 15), or intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (n = 15). Paired (normal and tumour tissues) samples were compared for expression of iron loading, iron transporters, proliferation, apoptosis and Wnt signalling using immunohistochemistry and RT-PCR. Iron loading was increased in tumour and distributed to the stroma in intravenous treatment and to the epithelium in oral treatment. Protein and mRNA expression of proliferation and iron transporters were increased in tumours compared to normal tissues but there were no significant differences between the treatment groups. However, intravenous iron treatment reduced ferritin mRNA levels in tumours and replenished body iron stores. Iron distribution to non-epithelial cells in intravenous iron suggests that iron is less bioavailable to tumour cells. Therefore, intravenous iron may be a better option in the treatment of colorectal cancer patients with iron deficiency anaemia due to its efficiency in replenishing iron levels while its effect on proliferation and iron metabolism is similar to that of oral iron treatment.

Aims According to Good Surgical Practice set by the RCS England, surgeons need to keep themselves up to date and maintain the competence in all areas of their practice. Literature and guidelines recommended the use of AirSeal insufflation in laparoscopic surgery for the safety during the first surge of Covid-19. Our objectives were to measure the level of knowledge and confidence of surgical trainees in using the AirSeal insufflation system in laparoscopic surgery at our institution and to help trainees achieve competence. Method Multiple small group training sessions were delivered to 14 surgical doctors adhering to safety protocols. The concept of the AirSeal insufflation system, its benefits, limitations, set up and troubleshooting were delivered using lectures, videos and hands-on training. The change in level of knowledge and confidence in practical skills were assessed by analyzing the responses to the questionnaire completed before and after the course. Results Conclusion The dramatic improvement in self-perceived confidence of practical skills and knowledge of the AirSeal system was achieved among surgical doctors. Adaptation to the situation and introduction of this advanced technology to the trainees in elective and emergency settings helped promote the skills and safety at workplace during this pandemic especially with the support of flexible training sessions.

Aims Appendicitis, biliary disease and abscesses make up almost half of the emergency general surgery (EGS) workload. Our aim was to establish whether the shift towards non-operative management during the COVID-19 pandemic for these conditions has led to adverse patient outcomes. Methods Patient data were analysed from a prospective EGS database at a large UK tertiary centre. Patients were grouped by admission date into quarters (January-March, April-June, July-September, October-December) and compared with the corresponding time period from the preceding year. Results EGS saw 8226 and 7589 patients in 2019 and 2020 respectively. Following the first lockdown EGS admissions fell by 31%. Operative management of appendicitis fell from nearly 100% in 2019 to 32.9% and 54.7% in two of the four study periods. Complicated appendicitis was more common in 2020 leading to a 50% rise in length of stay (LOS), 4.5 days average. 30 day readmissions increased by 228% (n = 7, 2019 v n = 16, 2020). Biliary disease was managed conservatively with 11 patients undergoing percutaneous drainage from Apr-Dec 2020.Very few patients received emergency cholecystectomy in 2019 or 2020 due to institution preference. Readmission rates and LOS remained similar between years. Fewer abscesses were seen and operated on in 2020 with similar readmission rates and LOS between years. Conclusions Non-operative management and delays in presentation of appendicitis during the pandemic has had an adverse effect on patient outcomes. The rise in more complex cases has led to higher readmission rates and longer lengths of stay. The outcomes for biliary disease and abscesses remained unchanged.

Background New national guidance on urgent referral for investigation of colorectal cancer included faecal occult blood testing in 2015. A service evaluation of faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and anaemia as risk stratification tools in symptomatic patients suspected of having CRC was undertaken. Methods Postal FIT was incorporated into the colorectal cancer 2-week wait (2WW) pathway for all patients without rectal bleeding in 2016. Patients were investigated in the 2WW pathway as normal, and outcomes of investigations were recorded prospectively. Anaemia was defined as a haemoglobin level below 120 g/l in women and 130 g/l in men. Results FIT kits were sent to 1106 patients, with an 80·9 per cent return rate; 810 patients completed investigations and 40 colorectal cancers were diagnosed (4·9 per cent). FIT results were significantly higher in patients with anaemia (median (i.q.r.) 4·8 (0·8-34·1) versus 1·2 (0-6·4) μg Hb/g faeces in those without anaemia; P

Background Intravenous iron is now the standard treatment to correct preoperative anaemia. However, iron may promote tumour growth and progression which could influence cancer recurrence and survival. We explore the long term postoperative outcomes of patients receiving oral (OI) or intravenous iron (IVI) as part of a randomised controlled trial. Method The multicentre IVICA trial randomised anaemic colorectal cancer patients in a 1:1 fashion to receive either OI or IVI prior to their elective operation. Follow up analysis of all patients was performed and Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare groups. A pooled analysis comparing patients who did/did not achieve preoperative resolution of anaemia was also undertaken. Result, Data were available for 106 of the 116 IVICA patients (OI n=55, IVI n=51). Median follow up was 61 months (IQR 38-68, [range 1-80]). Overall survival estimates at 3 and 5 years were 82%(95% CI 76-90) and 72%(58-83) respectively for OI and 75%(61-86) and 59%(45-72) for IVI, P=0.106. No significant difference in 5-year overall survival (HR 1.73, 95% CI 0.90-3.34 P=0.102) or disease-free survival (HR 1.50, 95% CI 0.83-2.73 P=0.182) was observed between groups. Those non-anaemic at operation demonstrated improved 5 year overall survival (HR 3.26 [1.01-10.58], P=0.05). Non-significant trends in improved disease-free survival (HR 2.29 [0.91-5.81], p=0.08) were observed for the non-anaemic group Conclusion Preoperative correction of anaemia confers a postoperative survival advantage following elective colorectal cancer surgery. Due to its superior efficacy intravenous iron is recommended as the treatment of choice for this anaemia. Take-home message Preoperative correction of anaemia, achieved most effectively with intravenous iron, may offer improved long term postoperative survival after colorectal cancer surgery.

Background: Oral iron promotes intestinal tumourigenesis in animal models. In humans, expression of iron transport proteins are altered in colorectal cancer. This study examines whether the route of iron therapy alters iron transport and tumour growth. Methods: Colorectal adenocarcinoma patients with pre-operative iron deficiency anaemia received oral ferrous sulphate (n=15), or intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (n=15). Paired (normal and tumour tissues) samples were compared for expression of iron loading, iron transporters, proliferation, apoptosis, Wnt signalling pathway and microsatellite instability using immunohistochemistry and RT-PCR. Results: Iron loading was increased in tumour and distributed to the stroma in intravenous treatment and to the epithelium in oral treatment. The protein and mRNA expression of iron transporters were increased in tumours compared to normal tissues but there were no significant differences between the treatment groups. However, intravenous iron treatment reduced ferritin mRNA levels in tumours (pConclusion: Iron distribution to non-epithelial cells in intravenous iron treatment suggests that iron is less bioavailable to tumour cells. Therefore, intravenous iron supplementation could be a safer option in the treatment of colorectal cancer patients with iron deficiency anaemia due to the differential compartmentalisation of iron within the intestinal mucosa and its efficiency in replenishing body iron levels without increasing the risk of tumour growth.Trial registration: The study was registered with the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency, clinical trials.gov (NCT01927328) and EudraCT (2013-000209-22).

Background Preoperative anaemia is common and occurs in 5% to 76% of patients preoperatively. It is associated with an increased risk of perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion, longer hospital stay, and increased morbidity and mortality. Iron deficiency is one of the most common causes of anaemia. Oral and intravenous iron therapy can be used to treat anaemia. Parenteral iron preparations have been shown to be more effective in conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease, chronic heart failure and postpartum haemorrhage due to rapid correction of iron stores. A limited number of studies has investigated iron therapy for the treatment of preoperative anaemia. The aim of this Cochrane Review is to summarise the evidence for iron supplementation, both enteral and parenteral, for the management of preoperative anaemia. Objectives To evaluate the effects of preoperative iron therapy (enteral or parenteral) in reducing the need for allogeneic blood transfusions in anaemic patients undergoing surgery. Search methods We ran the search on 30 July 2018. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), Embase Classic and Embase (Ovid), CINAHL Plus (EBSCO), PubMed, and clinical trials registries, and we screened reference lists. We ran a top-up search on 28 November 2019; one study is now awaiting classification. Selection criteria We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared preoperative iron monotherapy to placebo, no treatment, standard care or another form of iron therapy for anaemic adults undergoing surgery. We defined anaemia as haemoglobin values less than 13 g/dL for males and 12 g/dL for non-pregnant females. Data collection and analysis Two review authors collected data and a third review author checked all collected data. Data were collected on the proportion of patients who receive a blood transfusion, the amount of blood transfused per patient (units), quality of life, ferritin levels and haemoglobin levels, measured as continuous variables at the following predetermined time points: pretreatment (baseline), preoperatively but postintervention, and postoperatively. We performed statistical analysis using the Cochrane software, Review Manager 5. We summarised outcome data in tables and forest plots. We used the GRADE approach to describe the quality of the body of evidence. Main results Six RCTs, with a total of 372 participants, evaluated preoperative iron therapy to correct anaemia before planned surgery. Four studies compared iron therapy (either oral (one study) or intravenous (three studies)) with no treatment, placebo or usual care, and two studies compared intravenous iron therapy with oral iron therapy. Iron therapy was delivered over a range of periods that varied from 48 hours to three weeks prior to surgery. The 372 participants in our analysis fall far short of the 819 required - as calculated by our information size calculation - to detect a 30% reduction in blood transfusions. Five trials, involving 310 people, reported the proportion of participants who received allogeneic blood transfusions. Meta-analysis of iron therapy versus placebo or standard care showed no difference in the proportion of participants who received a blood transfusion (risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.70; 4 studies, 200 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Only one study that compared oral versus intravenous iron therapy measured this outcome, and reported no difference in risk of transfusion between groups. There was no difference between the iron therapy and placebo/standard care groups for haemoglobin level preoperatively at the end of the intervention (mean difference (MD) 0.63 g/dL, 95% CI -0.07 to 1.34; 2 studies, 83 participants; low-quality evidence). However, intravenous iron therapy produced an increase in preoperative postintervention haemoglobin levels compared with oral iron (MD 1.23 g/dL, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.65; 2 studies, 172 participants; low-quality evidence). Ferritin levels were increased by intravenous iron, both when compared to standard care ((MD 149.00, 95% CI 25.84 to 272.16; 1 study, 63 participants; low-quality evidence) or to oral iron (MD 395.03 ng/mL, 95% CI 227.72 to 562.35; 2 studies, 151 participants; low-quality evidence). Not all studies measured quality of life, short-term mortality or postoperative morbidity. Some measured the outcomes, but did not report the data, and the studies which did report the data were underpowered. Therefore, uncertainty remains regarding these outcomes. The inclusion of new research in the future is very likely to change these results. Authors' conclusions The use of iron therapy for preoperative anaemia does not show a clinically significant reduction in the proportion of trial participants who received an allogeneic blood transfusion compared to no iron therapy. Results for intravenous iron are consistent with a greater increase in haemoglobin and ferritin when compared to oral iron, but do not provide reliable evidence. These conclusions are drawn from six studies, three of which included very small numbers of participants. Further, well-designed, adequately powered, RCTs are required to determine the true effectiveness of iron therapy for preoperative anaemia. Two studies are currently in progress, and will include 1500 randomised participants.

Summary Background Closure of an abdominal stoma, a common elective operation, is associated with frequent complications; one of the commonest and impactful is incisional hernia formation. We aimed to investigate whether biological mesh (collagen tissue matrix) can safely reduce the incidence of incisional hernias at the stoma closure site. Methods In this randomised controlled trial (ROCSS) done in 37 hospitals across three European countries (35 UK, one Denmark, one Netherlands), patients aged 18 years or older undergoing elective ileostomy or colostomy closure were randomly assigned using a computer-based algorithm in a 1:1 ratio to either biological mesh reinforcement or closure with sutures alone (control). Training in the novel technique was standardised across hospitals. Patients and outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was occurrence of clinically detectable hernia 2 years after randomisation (intention to treat). A sample size of 790 patients was required to identify a 40% reduction (25% to 15%), with 90% power (15% drop-out rate). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02238964. Findings Between Nov 28, 2012, and Nov 11, 2015, of 1286 screened patients, 790 were randomly assigned. 394 (50%) patients were randomly assigned to mesh closure and 396 (50%) to standard closure. In the mesh group, 373 (95%) of 394 patients successfully received mesh and in the control group, three patients received mesh. The clinically detectable hernia rate, the primary outcome, at 2 years was 12% (39 of 323) in the mesh group and 20% (64 of 327) in the control group (adjusted relative risk [RR] 0·62, 95% CI 0·43–0·90; p=0·012). In 455 patients for whom 1 year postoperative CT scans were available, there was a lower radiologically defined hernia rate in mesh versus control groups (20 [9%] of 229 vs 47 [21%] of 226, adjusted RR 0·42, 95% CI 0·26–0·69; p

Introduction Colorectal cancer (CRC), a major cause of cancer-related mortality, is associated with iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) and is typically treated with oral iron. Iron is an essential nutrient element that is required for a diverse range of biological activities including the immune function (1). However, studies in animal and cell line models have shown that accumulation of iron in the gut can generate toxic reactive oxygen species and proinflammatory cytokines that results in tissue damage and CRC progression (2). We studied, for the first time in humans, the effect of oral (OI) versus intravenous iron (IVI) treatment on iron distribution, immune cell infiltration and systemic cytokine profile in CRC patients with IDA. Methods Patients with CRC and IDA received oral-ferrous sulphate (n=20) or intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (n=20) for 2 weeks. Tissue was analysed for iron loading using Prussian-Blue staining. Tissue cytokine and immune cell distribution was determined using immunohistochemistry. Systemic cytokine production was evaluated by multiplex-cytokine assays. Results Iron expression was distributed to the epithelium of tumour tissues in OI treatment (p Conclusions Intravenous iron is compartmentalised to non-epithelial cells indicating that iron is potentially less bio-available to the tumour cells. Oral iron treatment induces inflammatory immune responses both systemically and within the tumour microenvironment. Further functional studies are ongoing to evaluate the mucosal immune response to differential iron loading. References Bergman M, et al., Biomed Pharmacother. 2005;59(6):307. Glei M, et al., Mutat Res. 2002 26;519(–):151.

Anaemia is associated with a reduction in quality of life, and is common in patients with colorectal cancer . We recently reported the findings of the intravenous iron in colorectal cancer-associated anaemia (IVICA) trial comparing haemoglobin levels and transfusion requirements following intravenous or oral iron replacement in anaemic colorectal cancer patients undergoing elective surgery. In this follow-up study, we compared the efficacy of intravenous and oral iron at improving quality of life in this patient group. We conducted a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial. Anaemic colorectal cancer patients were randomly allocated at least two weeks pre-operatively, to receive either oral (ferrous sulphate) or intravenous (ferric carboxymaltose) iron. We assessed haemoglobin and quality of life scores at recruitment, immediately before surgery and at outpatient review approximately three months postoperatively, using the Short Form 36, EuroQoL 5-dimension 5-level and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Anaemia questionnaires. We recruited 116 anaemic patients across seven UK centres (oral iron n = 61 (53%), and intravenous iron n = 55 (47%)). Eleven quality of life components increased by a clinically significant margin in the intravenous iron group between recruitment and surgery compared with one component for oral iron. Median (IQR [range]) visual analogue scores were significantly higher with intravenous iron at a three month outpatient review (oral iron 70, (60-85 [20-95]); intravenous iron 90 (80-90 [50-100]), p = 0.001). The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Anaemia score comprises of subscales related to cancer, fatigue and non-fatigue items relevant to anaemia. Median outpatient scores were higher, and hence favourable, for intravenous iron on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Anaemia subscale (oral iron 66 (55-72 [23-80]); intravenous iron 71 (66-77 [46-80]); p = 0.002), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Anaemia trial outcome index (oral iron 108 (90-123 [35-135]); intravenous iron 121 (113-124 [81-135]); p = 0.003) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Anaemia total score (oral iron 151 (132-170 [69-183]); intravenous iron 168 (160-174 [125-186]); p = 0.005). These findings indicate that intravenous iron is more efficacious at improving quality of life scores than oral iron in anaemic colorectal cancer patients.

Anaemia reduces the efficacy of chemotherapy in gastric cancer. However, it has not been studied in oesophageal cancer. We investigated whether anaemia impacts on survival and the efficacy of chemotherapy, in adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus for those undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy and then surgical resection.This prospective study included 268 patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy for oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Patient clinical data as well as Mandard's tumor regression grading (TRG), haemoglobin pre-chemotherapy and during the chemotherapy were compiled. The association between anaemia and TRG was tested using Chi-squared analysis, whilst survival outcomes were investigated by Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression.One hundred participants were anaemic before chemotherapy whilst 224 were anaemic during chemotherapy cycles. Survival analyses found a significant association between lower haemoglobin levels and decreased overall survival (P=0.048). Comparing those without anaemia against those with moderate -severe anaemia (10.9 g/dL) found a statistically significant association in overall survival (P=0.026). Multivariate cox regression showed those with anaemia were statistically more likely to have decreased overall survival (HR 1.735, 95% CI, 1.050-2.867, P=0.032). No statistical association was seen between those with pre-chemotherapy anaemia and TRG (OR 0.675, 95% CI, 0.420-1.161, P=0.130) or those with anytime anaemia (OR 0.881, 95% CI, 0.406-1.914, P=0.931).These results suggest that anaemia is associated with poorer overall survival time, with lower haemoglobin levels reducing prognosis. However, there does not appear to be an association between anaemia and chemotherapy response in oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

Introduction Anaemia is associated with cancer. In 2014 a new form was introduced in our department requesting a haemoglobin (Hb) result on every two-week wait referral for suspected colorectal cancer (CRC). The aim of this study was to review the impact of this intervention. In particular, the significance of any evidence of anaemia (without additional indices) was investigated. Methods A review was conducted of 1,500 consecutive suspected CRC referrals recorded prospectively over a 10-month period. Data on demographics, referral Hb, referral criteria and outcomes were analysed. Anaemia was defined according to World Health Organization criteria (Hb Results Overall, 1,015 patients were eligible for inclusion in the study. Over a third (38.2%) were documented as anaemic on referral. These patients were three times more likely to be diagnosed with CRC than non-anaemic patients (odds ratio [OR]: 3.22, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.87–5.57). Using a more stringent threshold (Hb Conclusions Nearly a quarter of patients not referred with iron deficiency anaemia had evidence of anaemia and this was still associated with a higher rate of CRC detection. A full blood count alone might help to risk stratify symptoms such as change in bowel habit in patients on urgent pathways and identify those cases most likely to benefit from invasive investigation.