Search

Abstract Background Accurate preoperative risk assessment for major colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery remains challenging. Body composition (BC) and cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) can be used to evaluate risk. The relationship between BC and CPET in patients undergoing curative CRC surgery is unclear. Methods Consecutive patients undergoing CPET prior to CRC surgery between 2010 and 2020 were identified between two different UK hospitals. Body composition phenotypes such as sarcopenia, myosteatosis, and visceral obesity were defined using widely accepted thresholds using preoperative single axial slice CT image at L3 vertebrae. Relationships between clinicopathological, BC, and CPET variables were investigated using linear regression analysis. Results Two hundred eighteen patients with stage I–III CRC were included. The prevalence of sarcopenia, myosteatosis, and visceral obesity was 62%, 33%, and 64%, respectively. The median oxygen uptake at anaerobic threshold (VO2 at AT) was 12.2 mL/kg/min (IQR 10.6–14.2), and oxygen uptake at peak exercise (VO2 peak) was 18.8 mL/kg/min (IQR 15.4–23). On univariate linear regression analysis, male sex (P

Background: Access to community rectoscopy might help to ease the burden on hospital services and reduce costs for the NHS. To assess this, a prospective multicentre observational phase I feasibility study of a novel digital rectoscope and telestration software for the triage of lower gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms was undertaken. Aim: To determine if digital rectoscopy is feasible, acceptable, and clinically safe. Design & setting: Evaluation of clinician case reports and patient questionnaires from patients recruited from five primary care centres. Method: Adults meeting 2-week wait (2WW) criteria for suspected lower GI cancer, suspected new diagnosis, or flare-up of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) were enrolled. Examinations were performed by primary care practitioners using the LumenEye rectoscope. The CHiP platform allowed immediate remote review by secondary care. A prospective analysis was performed of patient and clinician experiences, diagnostic accuracy, and cost. Results: A total of 114 patients were recruited and 110 underwent the procedure (46 [42%] females and 64 [58%] males). No serious adverse events were reported. Eighty-two (74.5%) patients reported that examination was more comfortable than expected, while 104 (94.5%) felt the intervention was most convenient if delivered in the community. Clinicians were confident of their assessment in 100 (87.7%) examinations. Forty-eight (42.1%) patients subsequently underwent colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or computed tomography virtual colonoscopy (CTVC). The overall sensitivity and specificity of LumenEye in identifying rectal pathology was 90.0% and 88.9%. It was 100% and 100% for cancer, and 83.3% and 97.8% for polyps. Following LumenEye examination, 19 (17.3%) patients were discharged, with projected savings of 11 305 GBP. Conclusion: Digital rectoscopy in primary care is safe, acceptable, and can reduce referrals. A phase III randomised controlled trial is indicated to define its utility in reducing the burden on hospital diagnostic services.