The impact and restoration of colorectal services during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A view from Oxford.

Aim: The coronavirus pandemic has significantly disrupted the way we deliver healthcare worldwide. We have been flexible and creative in order to continue providing elective colorectal cancer operations and to restart services for benign cases during the recovery period of the pandemic. In this paper, we describe the impact of coronavirus on our elective services and how we have implemented new patient pathways to allow us to continue providing patient care. Patients and Methods: Data on major colorectal elective resections were prospectively collected in an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) database. Data on the number of proctology cases and telemed appointments were collected from the hospital theatre information management system and electronic patient record system, respectively. Results: During the pandemic, there was a complete shift towards cancer cases, with benign services and proctology cases being placed on hold. Hospital length of stay was reduced. We implemented earlier hospital discharge and more intense telephone follow-up after elective major surgery. This has not resulted in an increase in postoperative complications, nor any increase in readmission to hospital. During the recovery phase, we have introduced a higher proportion of telemed consultations, including one-stop telemed proctology clinics, resulting in straight to tests or investigations. Conclusion: We have created a streamlined multidisciplinary pathway to reinstate our elective colorectal services as soon as possible and to minimise potential harm caused to patients whose treatment have been delayed. We anticipate many of these changes will be permanently incorporated into our clinical practice once the pandemic is over.

Maintaining Standards in Colorectal Cancer Surgery During the Global Pandemic: A Cohort Study.

AIM: Cancer surgery in the COVID-19 pandemic presents many new challenges. For each patient, the risk of contracting COVID-19 during the perioperative period, with the potential for life-threatening sequelae (1), has to be weighed against the risk of delaying treatment. We assessed the response and short-term outcomes from elective colorectal cancer surgery during the pandemic at our institution. METHOD: We report a prospective cohort study of all elective colorectal surgery cases performed at our Trust during the 11 weeks following the national UK lockdown on 23rd March 2020, compared with the same time period in 2019. RESULTS: Eighty-five colorectal operations were performed during the 2020 (COVID) time period, and 179 performed in the 2019 (non-COVID) time period. A significantly higher proportion of cases during the COVID period were cancer-related (66% vs 26%, p < 0.00001). There was no difference in length of hospital stay, complications or readmissions. There were no mortalities in either cohort. Among the cancer patients, there were no differences in TMN staging, R1 resection rate or lymph node yields. No elective patient tested positive for COVID-19 during the perioperative period. CONCLUSION: At the height of the COVID pandemic, we maintained delivery the of high-quality elective colorectal cancer surgery, with no worsening of short-term outcomes and no compromise in the quality of cancer resections. Ongoing monitoring of this cohort is essential. The risks associated with COVID-19 will continue for some time, necessitating adaptive responses to maintain high-quality cancer services.

Prioritisation by FIT to mitigate the impact of delays in the 2-week wait colorectal cancer referral pathway during the COVID-19 pandemic: a UK modelling study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) prioritisation to mitigate the impact of delays in the colorectal cancer (CRC) urgent diagnostic (2-week-wait (2WW)) pathway consequent from the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: We modelled the reduction in CRC survival and life years lost resultant from per-patient delays of 2-6 months in the 2WW pathway. We stratified by age group, individual-level benefit in CRC survival versus age-specific nosocomial COVID-19-related fatality per referred patient undergoing colonoscopy. We modelled mitigation strategies using thresholds of FIT triage of 2, 10 and 150 µg Hb/g to prioritise 2WW referrals for colonoscopy. To construct the underlying models, we employed 10-year net CRC survival for England 2008-2017, 2WW pathway CRC case and referral volumes and per-day-delay HRs generated from observational studies of diagnosis-to-treatment interval. RESULTS: Delay of 2/4/6 months across all 11 266 patients with CRC diagnosed per typical year via the 2WW pathway were estimated to result in 653/1419/2250 attributable deaths and loss of 9214/20 315/32 799 life years. Risk-benefit from urgent investigatory referral is particularly sensitive to nosocomial COVID-19 rates for patients aged >60. Prioritisation out of delay for the 18% of symptomatic referrals with FIT >10 µg Hb/g would avoid 89% of these deaths attributable to presentational/diagnostic delay while reducing immediate requirement for colonoscopy by >80%. CONCLUSIONS: Delays in the pathway to CRC diagnosis and treatment have potential to cause significant mortality and loss of life years. FIT triage of symptomatic patients in primary care could streamline access to colonoscopy, reduce delays for true-positive CRC cases and reduce nosocomial COVID-19 mortality in older true-negative 2WW referrals. However, this strategy offers benefit only in short-term rationalisation of limited endoscopy services: the appreciable false-negative rate of FIT in symptomatic patients means most colonoscopies will still be required.

Effect of delays in the 2-week-wait cancer referral pathway during the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer survival in the UK: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 lockdown, referrals via the 2-week-wait urgent pathway for suspected cancer in England, UK, are reported to have decreased by up to 84%. We aimed to examine the impact of different scenarios of lockdown-accumulated backlog in cancer referrals on cancer survival, and the impact on survival per referred patient due to delayed referral versus risk of death from nosocomial infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. METHODS: In this modelling study, we used age-stratified and stage-stratified 10-year cancer survival estimates for patients in England, UK, for 20 common tumour types diagnosed in 2008-17 at age 30 years and older from Public Health England. We also used data for cancer diagnoses made via the 2-week-wait referral pathway in 2013-16 from the Cancer Waiting Times system from NHS Digital. We applied per-day hazard ratios (HRs) for cancer progression that we generated from observational studies of delay to treatment. We quantified the annual numbers of cancers at stage I-III diagnosed via the 2-week-wait pathway using 2-week-wait age-specific and stage-specific breakdowns. From these numbers, we estimated the aggregate number of lives and life-years lost in England for per-patient delays of 1-6 months in presentation, diagnosis, or cancer treatment, or a combination of these. We assessed three scenarios of a 3-month period of lockdown during which 25%, 50%, and 75% of the normal monthly volumes of symptomatic patients delayed their presentation until after lockdown. Using referral-to-diagnosis conversion rates and COVID-19 case-fatality rates, we also estimated the survival increment per patient referred. FINDINGS: Across England in 2013-16, an average of 6281 patients with stage I-III cancer were diagnosed via the 2-week-wait pathway per month, of whom 1691 (27%) would be predicted to die within 10 years from their disease. Delays in presentation via the 2-week-wait pathway over a 3-month lockdown period (with an average presentational delay of 2 months per patient) would result in 181 additional lives and 3316 life-years lost as a result of a backlog of referrals of 25%, 361 additional lives and 6632 life-years lost for a 50% backlog of referrals, and 542 additional lives and 9948 life-years lost for a 75% backlog in referrals. Compared with all diagnostics for the backlog being done in month 1 after lockdown, additional capacity across months 1-3 would result in 90 additional lives and 1662 live-years lost due to diagnostic delays for the 25% backlog scenario, 183 additional lives and 3362 life-years lost under the 50% backlog scenario, and 276 additional lives and 5075 life-years lost under the 75% backlog scenario. However, a delay in additional diagnostic capacity with provision spread across months 3-8 after lockdown would result in 401 additional lives and 7332 life-years lost due to diagnostic delays under the 25% backlog scenario, 811 additional lives and 14 873 life-years lost under the 50% backlog scenario, and 1231 additional lives and 22 635 life-years lost under the 75% backlog scenario. A 2-month delay in 2-week-wait investigatory referrals results in an estimated loss of between 0·0 and 0·7 life-years per referred patient, depending on age and tumour type. INTERPRETATION: Prompt provision of additional capacity to address the backlog of diagnostics will minimise deaths as a result of diagnostic delays that could add to those predicted due to expected presentational delays. Prioritisation of patient groups for whom delay would result in most life-years lost warrants consideration as an option for mitigating the aggregate burden of mortality in patients with cancer. FUNDING: None.