Search

Background: Approximately 70% of all colon cancer emergencies result from colonic obstruction. Data from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry indicate that patients undergoing emergency surgical resections for colon cancer face higher overall 30-day morbidity and increased mortality rates—5.8% at 30 days and 11.2% at 90 days—compared to those undergoing elective procedures, which have mortality rates of 1.1% and 2.0%, respectively. Other concerns about acute colon cancer resections are oncological outcomes. Long-term outcomes are significantly worse, with higher rates of recurrence and cancer-related death, regardless of the cancer stage or the use of adjuvant chemotherapy. Objectives: To evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of primary resection for malignant colonic obstruction compared to only decompression using a self-expandable endoscopic metallic stent or diverting stomas as the first intervention (bridge to surgery) followed by later oncological resection. Design: This is a prospective observational study with data collected through the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry with an additional electronic case report form. Settings: Swedish multicenter study at both university and regional hospitals. Patients and Methods: Patients with suspected acute malignant large bowel obstruction due to colonic adenocarcinoma will be identified and followed. Analysis will be performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Descriptive statistics of the study cohort will be presented. Primary endpoints will be subjected to multivariate analyses adjusted for confounders. Main Outcome Measures: 30-day severe morbidity (Clavien–Dindo > 3a), 30- and 90-day mortality rates, and overall survival after three and five years. Sample Size: We aim to include 1000 patients, with an interim analysis after the recruitment of 500 patients. Results: The study is ongoing. Conclusions: Acute colon obstruction is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. We hypothesize that patients with malignant obstruction benefit from avoidance of emergency cancer resection and that bridge to surgery leads to decreased short-term morbidity and mortality and improved long-term oncological outcomes. Limitations: The main limitation is the risk of selection bias when the study is not a randomized controlled trial, which would be a standard process. A prospective observational study is, nevertheless, considered a pragmatic compromise between feasibility and ability to answer the research question. Conflicts of Interest: None. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Surgical de-escalation aims to reduce morbidity without compromising oncological outcomes. Trials to de-escalate breast cancer (BC) surgery among exceptional responders after neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) are ongoing. Combined patient and clinician insights on this strategy are unknown. The European Society of Surgical Oncology Young Surgeons Alumni Club (EYSAC) performed an online survey to evaluate the perspective of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) on omission of surgery ("no surgery") following complete response to NST for early BC. The aim was to identify MDT considerations and perceived barriers to omission of BC surgery. Patient insights were obtained through a focused group discussion (FGD) with four members of the patient advocacy group, Guiding Researchers and Advocates to Scientific Partnerships (GRASP). The MDT survey had 248 responses, with 229 included for analysis. Criteria for a "no surgery" approach included: patient's tumor and nodal status before (39.7 %) and after (45.9 %) NST and comorbidities (44.3 %). The majority chose standard surgery for hypothetical cases with a complete response to NST. Barriers for implementation were lack of definitive trials (55.9 %), "no surgery" not being discussed in MDTs (28.8 %) and lack of essential diagnostic or therapeutic options (24 %). Patients expressed communication gaps about BC surgery, lack of trust regarding accuracy of imaging, fear of regret and psychosocial burden of choosing less extensive surgery. Before accepting "no surgery" after complete response to NST, MDTs and patients need level 1 evidence from clinical trials, access to standard diagnostic modalities and treatments. Patient's fear of regretting less surgery need to be acknowledged and addressed. • Surgical de-escalation trials in primary breast cancer are ongoing. Some of these are investigating the efficacy and safety of completely omitting BC surgery among patients with exceptional response to NST at the early-stage setting. • The MDT and patient survey conducted by ESSO-EYSAC, showed that clinicians and patients have hesitation towards completely omitting BC surgery. Lack of definitive trials, the option to omit surgery not being discussed during MDT meetings and lack of essential diagnostic or therapeutic options, were barriers to safe omission of surgery. Patients expressed fear of regret, communication gaps about BC surgery and lack of trust in the accuracy of imaging as reasons for not being receptive to this strategy. • Further research is needed to personalize BC surgery. Well-designed clinical trials, access to recommended diagnostic and treatment options and informed decision making through evidence-based and patient-oriented communication to address fear of regretting less extensive surgery are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Malnutrition is common in patients suffering from malignant diseases and has a major impact on patient outcomes. Prevention and early detection are crucial for effective treatment. This study aimed to investigate current international practice in the assessment and management of malnutrition in surgical oncology departments. The survey was designed by European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO) and ESSO Young Surgeons and Alumni Club (EYSAC) Research Academy as an online questionnaire with 41 questions addressing three main areas: participant demographics, malnutrition assessment, and perioperative nutritional standards. The survey was distributed from October to November 2021 via emails, social media and the ESSO website to surgical networks focussing on surgical oncologists. Results were collected and analysed by an independent team. A total of 156 participants from 39 different countries answered the survey, reflecting a response rate of 1.4%. Surgeons reported treating a mean of 22.4 patients per month. 38% of all patients treated in surgical oncology departments were routinely screened for malnutrition. 52% of patients were perceived as being at risk for malnutrition. The most used screening tool was the "Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool" (MUST). 68% of participants agreed that the surgeon is responsible for assessing preoperative nutritional status. 49% of patients were routinely seen by dieticians. In cases of severe malnutrition, 56% considered postponing the operation. The reported rate of malnutrition screening by surgical oncologists is lower than expected (38%). This indicates a need for improved awareness of malnutrition in surgical oncology, and nutritional screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]