Search

National consensus recommendations have recently been developed to standardize colorectal tumour localization and documentation during colonoscopy. In this qualitative semi-structured interview study, we identified and contrast the perceived barriers and facilitators to using these new recommendations according to gastroenterologists and surgeons in a large central Canadian city. Interviews were analyzed according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) through directed content analysis. Solutions were categorized using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) framework. Eleven gastroenterologists and ten surgeons participated. Both specialty groups felt that the new recommendations were clearly written, adequately addressed current care practice tensions, and offered a relative advantage versus existing practices. The new recommendations appeared appropriately complex, applicable to most participants, and could be trialed and adapted prior to full implementation. Major barriers included a lack of relevant external or internal organizational incentives, non-existing formal feedback processes, and a lack of individual familiarity with the evidence behind some recommendations. With application of the ERIC framework, common barriers could be addressed through accessing new funding, altering incentive structures, changing record systems, educational interventions, identifying champions, promoting adaptability, and employing audit/feedback processes. Future research is needed to test strategies for feasibility and effectiveness., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Colonoscopy is the standard of care for diagnosis and evaluation of colorectal cancers before surgery. However, varied practices and heterogenous documentation affects communication between endoscopists and operating surgeons, hampering surgical planning., Objective: This study aimed to develop recommendations for the use of standardized localization and reporting practices for colorectal lesions identified during lower GI endoscopy., Design: A systematic review of existing endoscopy guidelines and thorough narrative review of the overall endoscopy literature were performed to identify existing practices recommended globally., Setting: An online Delphi process was used to establish consensus recommendations based on a literature review., Patients: Colorectal surgeons and gastroenterologists from across Canada who had previously demonstrated leadership in endoscopy, managed large endoscopy programs, produced high-impact publications in the field of endoscopy, or participated in the development of endoscopy guidelines were selected to participate., Primary Outcome Measures: The primary outcomes measured were colorectal lesion localization and documentation practice recommendations important to planning surgical or advanced endoscopic excisions., Results: A total of 129 of 197 statements achieved consensus after 3 rounds of voting by 23 experts from across Canada. There was more than 90% participation in each round. Recommendations varied according to lesion location in the cecum, colon, or rectum and whether the referral was planned for surgical or advanced endoscopic resection. Recommendations were provided for appropriate documentation, indications, location, and method of tattoo placement, in addition to photograph and real-time 3-dimensional scope configuration device use., Limitations: Because of a paucity of evidence, recommendations are based primarily on expert opinion. There may be bias, as all representatives were based in Canada., Conclusions: Best practices to optimize endoscopic lesion localization and communication are not addressed in previous guidelines. This consensus involving national experts in colorectal surgery and gastroenterology provides a framework for efficient and effective colorectal lesion localization. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C71 ., Recomendaciones Para La Localizacin Endoscpica Ptima De Las Neoplasias Colorrectales Un Consenso Delphi De Expertos Nacionales: ANTECEDENTES:La colonoscopia es el estándar de atención para el diagnóstico y la evaluación de los cánceres colorrectales antes de la cirugía. Sin embargo, las prácticas variadas y la documentación heterogénea afectan la comunicación entre los endoscopistas y los cirujanos operadores, lo que dificulta la planificación quirúrgica.OBJETIVO:Este estudio tuvo como objetivo desarrollar recomendaciones para el uso de prácticas estandarizadas de localización y notificación de lesiones colorrectales identificadas en la endoscopia gastrointestinal inferior.DISEÑO:Se realizó una revisión sistemática de las pautas de endoscopia existentes y una revisión narrativa exhaustiva de la literatura general sobre endoscopia para identificar las prácticas existentes recomendadas a nivel mundial. Se utilizó un proceso Delphi en línea para establecer recomendaciones de consenso basadas en la revisión de la literatura.PARTICIPANTES:Se seleccionaron para participar cirujanos colorrectales y gastroenterólogos de todo Canadá que previamente habían demostrado liderazgo en endoscopia, manejado grandes programas de endoscopia, producido publicaciones de alto impacto en el campo de la endoscopia o que habían participado en el desarrollo de pautas de endoscopia.RESULTADOS:Localización de lesiones colorrectales y recomendaciones prácticas de documentación importantes para planificar escisiones quirúrgicas o endoscópicas avanzadas.RESULTADOS:129 de 197 declaraciones lograron consenso después de tres rondas de votación de 23 expertos de todo Canadá. Hubo >90% de participación en cada ronda. Las recomendaciones variaron según la ubicación de la lesión en el ciego, colon o recto, y si se planificó la derivación para resección quirúrgica o endoscópica avanzada. Se proporcionaron recomendaciones para la documentación adecuada, las indicaciones, la ubicación y el método de colocación del tatuaje, además de la fotografía y el uso del dispositivo de configuración del alcance 3D en tiempo real.LIMITACIONES:Debido a la escasez de evidencia, las recomendaciones se basan principalmente en la opinión de expertos. Puede haber sesgo, ya que los representantes tenían su sede en Canadá.CONCLUSIONES:Las mejores prácticas para optimizar la localización y comunicación de lesiones endoscópicas no se abordan en las guías anteriores. Este consenso que involucra a expertos nacionales en cirugía colorrectal y gastroenterología proporciona un marco para la localización eficiente y efectiva de lesiones colorrectales. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C71 . (Traducción-Dr. Mauricio Santamaria )., (Copyright © The ASCRS 2022.)

Background: Colonoscopy is the gold standard for diagnosing colorectal neoplasms. However, colonoscopy is often repeated preoperatively due to non-standard documentation and inconsistent practices by index endoscopists. Repeat endoscopies result in treatment delays and can increase risks of complications. National consensus recommendations were recently developed for optimal endoscopic colorectal lesion localization. We aimed to assess baseline colonoscopy practice differences from the new recommendations with a focus on geographical variability in report quality between urban and rural referral sites., Methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent elective surgery for colorectal neoplasms at a single institution in Winnipeg between 2007-2020. We compared endoscopy report quality to the national recommendations with charts stratified by endoscopy location. Our primary outcomes were overall report documentation completeness and use of recommended practices., Results: One hundred ninety-four patients were included (97 rural, 97 urban). The mean overall compliance with the recommendations for urban endoscopies was marginally better compared to rural endoscopies (50% vs. 48%, p = 0.04). Sixty-eight percent of the reports complied with tattoo indications (72% urban; 63% rural, p = 0.16). On average, reports included 29% of recommended tattoo information (30% urban; 28% rural, p = 0.25) and demonstrated 74% appropriate tattoo technique (70% urban; 81% rural, p = 0.10). Twenty-one percent of reports included photographs of lesions in accordance with the national recommendations (28% urban; 13% rural, p = 0.01)., Conclusions: Endoscopists frequently omit recommended practices for optimal colorectal lesion localization. Rural reports miss more recommended information compared to urban reports. Future research is needed to facilitate province-wide high-quality endoscopy reporting for patients regardless of endoscopy location., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Surgeons commonly repeat preoperative endoscopy before planned colorectal resections. The reasons for this are not entirely clear, and repeat endoscopy may lead to delays in curative resection, increased costs, and patient discomfort., Objective: This study aimed to determine practice patterns, localization techniques, and processes of communication undertaken by endoscopy specialists in a high-volume regional health authority., Design: This was a qualitative study involving standardized, semi-structured, in-depth interviews that were conducted in person. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach., Settings: The study was conducted at Canadian tertiary and community facilities., Participants: Ten general surgeons and 10 gastroenterologists were included using a convenience sampling technique., Main Outcome Measures: Interview questions were developed to understand the perspectives and practice patterns of endoscopists when approaching patients diagnosed with colorectal lesions requiring surgical resection. The decision-making process to perform a repeat preoperative endoscopy was assessed., Results: Three key themes emerged: 1) patterns of communication, 2) feedback, and 3) trust. Thematic analysis revealed that poor communication and ambiguous documentation increased the likelihood of performing repeat preoperative endoscopy. Inconsistencies in tattooing practices and lesion location were important factors. Negative experiences and factors related to interprofessional trust emerged as key contributors to repeat preoperative endoscopy., Limitations: The transferability of findings to health care systems outside Canada may be limited and requires further study., Conclusions: Suboptimal endoscopic reporting contributes to gaps in communication among endoscopists. In addition, lack of consistent feedback and mutual trust may increase the likelihood of performing repeat preoperative lower endoscopy. Inconsistent tattooing practices pose significant concerns for accurate intraoperative lesion localization. Establishing collaborative work environments through joint educational initiatives may enhance communication and mitigate unnecessary repeat procedures. These results support the need for standardized guidelines and endoscopic reporting in the management of colorectal lesions. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B879 ., La Variabilidad En Las Prcticas De Comunicacin Y Presentacin De Informes Entre Gastroenterlogos Y Cirujanos Generales Contribuye a Repetir La Endoscopia Preoperatoria Para Las Neoplasias Colorrectales Un Anlisis Cualitativo: ANTECEDENTES:Los cirujanos suelen repetir la endoscopia preoperatoria antes de las resecciones colorrectales planificadas. Las razones de esto no están del todo claras y la repetición de la endoscopia puede provocar retrasos en la resección curativa, aumento de los costos y malestar del paciente.OBJETIVO:Nuestro objetivo fue determinar patrones de práctica, técnicas de localización y procesos de comunicación realizados por especialistas en endoscopia, en una autoridad sanitaria regional, de alto volumen.DISEÑO:Este fue un estudio cualitativo, que involucró entrevistas estandarizadas, semiestructuradas y en profundidad que se llevaron a cabo en persona. Los datos se analizaron mediante un enfoque de análisis temático.ENTORNO CLINICO:El estudio se llevó a cabo en instalaciones comunitarias y terciarias canadienses.PARTICIPANTES:Se incluyeron 10 cirujanos generales y 10 gastroenterólogos, utilizando una técnica de muestreo por conveniencia.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:Las preguntas de la entrevista se desarrollaron para comprender las perspectivas y los patrones de práctica de los endoscopistas, cuando se acercan a pacientes diagnosticados con lesiones colorrectales que requieren resección quirúrgica. Se evaluó el proceso de toma de decisiones para realizar una nueva endoscopia preoperatoria.RESULTADOS:Surgieron tres temas clave: 1) patrones de comunicación, 2) retroalimentación y 3) confianza. El análisis temático reveló que la pobre comunicación y la ambigua documentación aumentaron la probabilidad de realizar una nueva endoscopia preoperatoria. Las inconsistencias en las prácticas de tatuaje y la ubicación de las lesiones fueron factores importantes. Las experiencias pasadas negativas y los factores relacionados con la confianza interprofesional surgieron como contribuyentes clave para repetir la endoscopia preoperatoria.LIMITACIONES:La transferibilidad de los hallazgos a los sistemas de atención médica fuera de Canadá, puede ser limitada y requiere más estudios.CONCLUSIONES:Los informes endoscópicos subóptimos contribuyen a las brechas en la comunicación entre los endoscopistas. Además, la falta de retroalimentación consistente y la confianza mutua pueden aumentar la probabilidad de realizar una nueva endoscopia baja preoperatoria. Las prácticas inconsistentes de tatuaje, plantean preocupaciones importantes para la localización precisa de las lesiones intraoperatorias. El establecimiento de entornos de trabajo colaborativo a través de iniciativas educativas conjuntas pueden mejorar la comunicación y mitigar la repetición de procedimientos innecesarios. Estos resultados apoyan la necesidad de pautas estandarizadas e informes endoscópicos en el tratamiento de las lesiones colorrectales. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B879 . (Traducción-Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy )., (Copyright © The ASCRS 2022.)

Background: Circular staplers are commonly used for reconstruction after radical resection for colorectal cancer. Pathological analysis of the anastomotic rings is common practice, although the benefits are unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of routine histopathological analysis of anastomotic rings in an original series and in a systematic review of the literature., Method: The retrospective study was performed at two university-associated academic hospitals in Winnipeg, Canada, including patients investigated for colorectal cancers (within 30 cm of the anal verge) who underwent resection between 2007 and 2020. The systematic review involved Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, selecting for adult human studies involving analysis of anastomotic rings in elective colorectal cancer resections. The main outcome measure was the proportion of patients with cancer in the anastomotic ring specimens. The frequency of benign pathology findings and changes to patient management were also examined., Results: Out of 673 eligible patients, 487 were included in the retrospective analysis. No patients had cancer within the anastomotic ring specimens. Twenty-five patients (5.1 per cent) had benign pathological findings within the anastomotic ring specimens, and patient management was never affected. In the systematic review, 27 articles were included in the final analysis out of 5848 records reviewed. The rate of cancer within anastomotic ring specimens was 0.34 per cent, and the rate of change in patient management was 0.19 per cent., Conclusion: The likelihood of finding cancer within anastomotic rings is rare and their histopathological examination seldom changes patient management., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.)

Background: Accurate histopathologic diagnosis of colorectal cancer is important for treatment decision-making and timely care. The aim of this study was to measure rates and predictors of sampling errors for biopsy specimens attained at flexible lower gastrointestinal endoscopy, and to determine whether these events lead to a delay in surgical care., Methods: This is a retrospective observational study of patients who underwent elective resection for colorectal adenocarcinoma between January 2007 and June 2020. Primary outcomes were proportion of incorrectly diagnosed colorectal adenocarcinomas at index endoscopy by histopathology, and time between endoscopy and surgery. Secondary outcomes were predictors of sampling error, and diagnostic yield of repeat endoscopy., Results: Sampling errors occurred in 217/962 (22.6%) flexible endoscopies for colorectal adenocarcinomas. Negative biopsies were associated with a longer median time to surgery (87.6 days, IQR 48.8-180.0) compared to true positive biopsies (64.0 days, IQR 38.0-119.0), p < 0.001. Controlling for lesion location, neoadjuvant therapy, endoscopist specialty, year, and repeat endoscopies, time to surgery remained 1.40-fold longer (p < 0.001) following sampling error. Repeat endoscopy occurred following 62/217 (28.6%) cases of sampling errors, yielding a correct diagnosis of cancer in 38/62 (61.3%) cases. On multivariable analysis, sampling errors were less likely to occur for lesions endoscopists described as suspicious for malignancy (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.07-0.21) or simple polyps (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08-0.70) compared to endoscopically unresectable polyps., Conclusions: Colorectal cancers are frequently improperly sampled, which may lead to treatment delays for these patients. When cancer is suspected, surgeons should take care to ensure timely management., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Despite limited endoscopy resources, repeat endoscopy prior to surgery is commonly practised. Our aim was to determine repeat preoperative endoscopy rates and factors influencing this practice at a high-volume Canadian tertiary centre., Method: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on all patients undergoing elective colorectal resections for benign and malignant neoplasms at a tertiary centre in Winnipeg, Canada between 2007 and 2017. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of repeat preoperative endoscopy., Results: Of 1062 patients identified, mean age was 68 years and 56% were male. Rate of repeat preoperative endoscopy was 29%. On multivariable analysis, male sex (OR 1.68, CI 1.19-2.34, p = 0.003) and lesions located in the left colon (OR 2.73, CI 1.79-4.14, p < 0.001), rectosigmoid (OR 9.11, CI 2.14-38.8, p = 0.003), and rectum (OR 4.06, CI 2.58-6.38, p < 0.001) were at increased odds of undergoing repeat preoperative endoscopy. Patients with a tattoo placed at index endoscopy were at markedly lower odds of undergoing repeat preoperative endoscopy (OR 0.48, CI 0.34-0.68, p < 0.001). Index endoscopist specialty was not a significant predictor of repeat endoscopy (OR 0.76, CI 0.54-1.06, p = 0.09)., Conclusions: Repeat preoperative lower endoscopy is commonly practised and may be unnecessary if appropriate identification and documentation of lesions has been achieved. Tattooing of suspicious lesions is a key modifiable factor associated with reduced likelihood of repeat preoperative endoscopy. This study highlights the need for standardized guidelines and endoscopy reporting practices given the delays and costs associated with repeat preoperative endoscopy., (© 2021. Crown.)

Background: Repeat preoperative endoscopy is common for patients with colorectal neoplasms. This can result in treatment delays, patient discomfort, and risks of colonoscopy-related complications. Repeat preoperative endoscopy has been attributed to poor communication between endoscopists and surgeons. In January 2019, mandatory electronic synoptic reporting for endoscopy was implemented to include elements consistent with quality indicators proposed in national guidelines. The aim of the present study is to assess whether the repeat preoperative endoscopy rate for colorectal lesions changed following synoptic report implementation., Methods: A retrospective review was performed of 1690 consecutive patients who underwent elective surgical resection for colorectal neoplasms from January 2007 to June 2020 at a tertiary hospital in Canada. Patients who had an index endoscopy documented via synoptic report were compared to those reported via narrative report. Primary outcomes were rates of repeat preoperative endoscopy and inclusion of colonoscopy quality indicators: photo-documentation, tattoo placement, and bowel preparation score., Results: In total, 1429 patients who underwent elective colorectal resection for colorectal cancers or polyps between January 2007 and June 2020 were included. 115 had index endoscopies recorded via synoptic report and 1314 by narrative report. The repeat preoperative endoscopy rate after endoscopies documented by narrative report was 29.07% (95% CI 26.63-31.61) and 25.22% (95% CI 17.58-34.17%) for synoptic report. Patients whose index endoscopies where performed by a practitioner other than their operating surgeon had a re-endoscopy rate of 36.03% (95% CI 32.82-39.33%) after narrative report and 38.81% (95% CI 27.14-51.50%) for synoptic report. Rates of tattoo placement, photo-documentation, and reporting of bowel preparation quality were all significantly increased with synoptic reports (p ≤ 0.003)., Conclusions: Endoscopy synoptic reports based on current guidelines were not associated with a decrease in rates of repeat pre-operative endoscopy at a high-volume colorectal cancer centre. Future study should examine guideline deficiencies for this purpose and make necessary modifications., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Serrated polyps (SPs) were once considered benign, clinically unimportant lesions. However, it is now recognized that through the serrated neoplasia pathway (SNP), SPs play a role in the development of 15%-30% of cases of colorectal cancers (CRC). Furthermore, a high proportion of postcolonoscopy CRCs are believed to arise from SNP. Serrated polyps are classified into hyperplastic polyps, sessile serrated lesions, sessile serrated lesions with dysplasia, traditionally serrated adenomas, and unclassified serrated adenoma, each with a distinct morphological and molecular profile. Despite improved understanding, SPs remain a clinical challenge owing to evolving terminology, frequent pathologic misclassification, endoscopic underdetection, and high rates of incomplete removal. Surgeon endoscopists and surgeons who perform colorectal procedures will undoubtedly come across patients with SPs, and this paper summarizes some of the clinical challenges they will encounter. We also discuss the diagnosis and management of patients with serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© 2021 CMA Joule Inc. or its licensors.)

Background: Appropriate tattooing of suspicious lesions during colonoscopy is critical for surgical planning. However, variability exists in tattoo placement, technique, and reporting. Our aim is to determine the rates and predictors of tattoo placement, tattoo location in relation to the lesion, and localization accuracy during lower endoscopy for individuals undergoing elective colorectal resections., Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review on all patients undergoing elective colorectal resections for benign and malignant neoplasms between 2007 and 2017 at a high volume Canadian tertiary centre. Patient demographics, endoscopic, and tumour-related characteristics were collected. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of tattoo localization., Results: Of the 1062 patients identified, laparoscopic resection occurred in 59% of patients. 57% of patients underwent tattooing for tumour localization at index endoscopy. Tattoos were placed distal (27%), both proximal and distal (4%), and just proximal (2%) to the lesion. However, in the majority of cases the tattoo location was not documented (67%). On multivariate analysis, patients who had lesions located in the transverse colon (OR: 1.93, 95% CI 1.04-3.59), had surgery performed after 2010 (2011-2014: OR: 1.88, 95% CI 1.31-2.68; 2015-2017: OR: 2.87, 95% CI 1.93-4.26), underwent laparoscopic resections (OR: 1.69, 95% CI 1.22-2.33), and had their index endoscopy performed in an urban setting (OR: 5.92, 95% CI 3.23-10.87), were at higher odds of having a tattoo placed at index endoscopy., Conclusion: Endoscopic tattoo placement and location in relation to the lesion varies widely, with reports containing suboptimal documentation. Lesion location and laparoscopic procedures were significant predictors of tattoo placement. This study highlights the need for standardized tattooing practices and reporting amongst endoscopists. One of the focus of quality improvement efforts should be educational initiatives for rural endoscopists., (© 2020. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

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).

Background: Palliative care can improve end-of-life care and reduce health care expenditures, but the optimal timing for initiation remains unclear. We sought to characterize the association between timing of palliative care, in-hospital deaths, and health care costs., Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study including all patients who were diagnosed and died of colorectal cancer between 2004 and 2012 in Manitoba, Canada. The primary exposure was timing of palliative care, defined as no involvement, late involvement (less than 14 d before death), early involvement (14 to 60 d before death), and very early involvement (>60 d before death). The primary outcome was in-hospital deaths and end-of-life health care costs., Results: A total of 1607 patients were included; 315 (20%) received palliative care and 162 (10%) died in hospital. Compared to those who did not receive palliative care, patients with early and very early involvement experienced significantly decreased odds of dying in hospital (OR 0.21 95% CI 0.06-0.69 P = 0.01 and OR 0.11 95% CI 0.01-0.78 P = 0.03, respectively) and significantly lower health care costs. There were no significant differences in in-hospital deaths and health care costs between patients without palliative care and those who received late palliative care., Conclusions: Early palliative care involvement is associated with decreased odds of dying in hospital and lower health care utilization and costs in patients with colorectal cancer. These findings provide real-world evidence supporting early integration of palliative care, although the optimal timing (early versus very early) remains a matter of debate., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Controversy exists whether young patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer have a poorer prognosis. Although younger patients are more likely to have certain poor prognostic factors, prior studies have shown mixed results in terms of overall prognosis, which may be due to lack of adjustment for confounding factors. The primary objective of our study was to determine the effect of age on survival following treatment of colorectal cancer in the Province of Manitoba, Canada, while controlling for important cofactors., Methods: This was a population-based analysis of all adult patients (age≥18 years) diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2006 in the Province of Manitoba. Patient, tumor, and treatment factors were identified using administrative data. Five-year Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox proportional hazards model were analyzed to determine whether young age (45 years of age or younger) was associated with a poorer prognosis, while controlling for confounding variables., Results: Of the 2,086 patients identified, 70 (3.36%) were considered young. These patients were more likely to have T4 tumors and node-positive disease. Older patients had more advanced comorbidities. Young age was an independent predictor of better survival. Poorer survival was associated with male gender, increasing stage, higher grade, comorbidity, lower socioeconomic status, and lack of receipt of surgery or chemotherapy., Conclusions: Young people make up a small minority of patients with colorectal cancer. Young patients present with more locally advanced colorectal cancer. Despite this, on a population basis, their prognosis may be more favorable than their older counterparts when controlling for disease, patient, and treatment factors.

Background and Objectives: Wait times are a growing concern in Canada's publicly-funded healthcare system. We sought to determine if increased wait times for colorectal cancer (CRC) treatments resulted in worse outcomes., Methods: A population-based retrospective cohort analysis of wait times for CRC patients undergoing major surgical resections in Manitoba, Canada, between 2004 and 2006 was undertaken. Administrative records were utilized to estimate total wait time (TWT), defined as the sum of time from index contact with the healthcare system to diagnosis of CRC (diagnostic wait time [DWT]) and the time from diagnosis to first cancer treatment (treatment wait time [TxWT]). Multivariate Cox regression analysis of 5-year overall survival was performed to determine the effect of TWT quartiles on survival., Results: One thousand six hundred twenty eight patients with stage I-IV CRC underwent major surgery with a median TWT of 95 days. Predictors of lower 5-year survival included advanced age, higher stage, lower economic status, increased medical comorbidity, urgent presentation, living between 101 and 500 km from the Provincial cancer center, and not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. After controlling for these variables, TWT quartiles were not associated with survival (P = 0.4898)., Conclusions: On a population basis, increased TWT was not associated with worse survival, while controlling for important confounders., (© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: The Canadian province of Manitoba covers a large geographical area but only has one major urban center, Winnipeg. We sought to determine if regional differences existed in the quality of colorectal cancer care in a publicly funded health care system., Methods: This was a population-based historical cohort analysis of the treatment and outcomes of Manitobans diagnosed with colorectal cancer between 2004 and 2006. Administrative databases were utilized to assess quality of care using published quality indicators., Results: A total of 2,086 patients were diagnosed with stage I to IV colorectal cancer and 42.2% lived outside of Winnipeg. Patients from North Manitoba had a lower odds of undergoing major surgery after controlling for other confounders (odds ratio (OR): 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.26 to 0.90). No geographic differences existed in the quality measures of 30-day operative mortality, consultations with oncologists, surveillance colonoscopy, and 5-year survival. However, there was a trend towards lower survival in North Manitoba., Conclusion: We found minimal differences by geography. However, overall compliance with quality measures is low and there are concerning trends in North Manitoba. This study is one of the few to evaluate population-based benchmarks for colorectal cancer therapy in Canada.