Colorectal cancer incidence trends by tumour location among adults of screening-age in England: a population-based study.

AIM: Proximal and distal colorectal cancers (CRCs) exhibit different clinical, molecular and biological patterns. The aim of this study was to determine temporal trends in the age-standardized incidence rates (ASIRs) of proximal and distal CRC following the introduction of the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in 2006. METHOD: The National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service database was used to identify incident cases of CRC among adults of screening age (60-74 years) between 2001 and 2017. ASIRs were calculated using the European Standard Population 2013 and incidence trends analysed by anatomical subsite (proximal, caecum to descending colon; distal, sigmoid to rectum), sex and Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) quintile using Joinpoint regression software. RESULTS: Between 2001 and 2017, 541 515 incident cases of CRC were diagnosed [236 167 proximal (43.6%) and 305 348 distal (56.4%)]. A marginal reduction in the proximal ASIR was noted from 2008 [annual percentage change (APC) -1.4% (95% CI -2.0% to -0.9%)] compared with a greater reduction in distal ASIR from 2011 to 2014 [APC -6.6% (95% CI -11.5% to -1.5%)] which plateaued thereafter [APC -0.5% (95% CI -3.2% to 2.2%)]. Incidence rates decreased more rapidly in men than women. Adults in IMD quintiles 4-5 experienced the greatest reduction in distal tumours [APC -3.5% (95% CI -4.3% to -2.7%)]. CONCLUSION: Following the introduction of the English BCSP, the incidence of CRC has subsequently reduced among adults of screening age, with this trend being most pronounced in distal tumours and in men. There is also evidence of a reduction in the deprivation gap for distal tumour incidence. Strategies to improve the detection of proximal tumours are warranted.

A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis of Risk Prediction Tools Used to Estimate Mortality, Morbidity, and Other Outcomes Following Major Lower Limb Amputation.

OBJECTIVE: The decision to undertake a major lower limb amputation can be complex. This review evaluates the performance of risk prediction tools in estimating mortality, morbidity, and other outcomes following amputation. METHODS: A systematic review was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify studies reporting on risk prediction tools that predict outcomes following amputation. Outcome measures included the accuracy of the risk tool in predicting a range of post-operative complications, including mortality (both short and long term), peri-operative morbidity, need for re-amputation, and ambulation success. A narrative synthesis was performed in accordance with the Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis In Systematic Reviews. RESULTS: The search identified 518 database records. Twelve observational studies, evaluating 13 risk prediction tools in a total cohort of 61 099 amputations, were included. One study performed external validation of an existing risk prediction tool, while all other studies developed novel tools or modified pre-existing generic calculators. Two studies conducted external validation of the novel/modified tools. Nine tools provided risk estimations for mortality, two tools provided predictions for post-operative morbidity, two for likelihood of ambulation, and one for re-amputation to the same or higher level. Most mortality prediction tools demonstrated acceptable discrimination performance with C statistic values ranging from 0.65 to 0.81. Tools estimating the risk of post-operative complications (0.65 - 0.74) and necessity for re-amputation (0.72) also performed acceptably. The Blatchford Allman Russell tool demonstrated outstanding discrimination for predicting functional mobility outcomes post-amputation (0.94). Overall, most studies were at high risk of bias with poor external validity. CONCLUSION: This review identified several risk prediction tools that demonstrate acceptable to outstanding discrimination for objectively predicting an array of important post-operative outcomes. However, the methodological quality of some studies was poor, external validation studies are generally lacking, and there are no tools predicting other important outcomes, especially quality of life.

Are Surgeons Born or Made? A Comparison of Personality Traits and Learning Styles Between Surgical Trainees and Medical Students.

OBJECTIVE: Medical students and surgical trainees differ considerably in both their preferential learning styles and personality traits. This study compares the personality profiles and learning styles of surgical trainees with a cohort of medical students specifically intent on pursuing a surgical career. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study was conducted contrasting surgical trainees with medical students specifying surgical career intent. The 50-item International Personality Item Pool Big-Five Factor Marker (FFM) questionnaire was used to score 5 personality domains (extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, openness to experience, and neuroticism). The 24-item Learning Style Inventory (LSI) Questionnaire was used to determine the preferential learning styles (visual, auditory, or tactile). χ(2) Analysis and independent samples t-test were used to compare LSI and FFM scores, respectively. SETTING: Surgical trainees from several UK surgical centers were contrasted to undergraduate medical students. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 53 medical students who had specifically declared desire to pursue a surgical career and were currently undertaking an undergraduate intercalated degree in surgical sciences were included and contrasted to 37 UK core surgical trainees (postgraduate years 3-4). RESULTS: The LSI questionnaire was completed by 53 students and 37 trainees. FFM questionnaire was completed by 29 medical students and 34 trainees. No significant difference for learning styles preference was detected between the 2 groups (p = 0.139), with the visual modality being the preferred learning style for both students and trainees (69.8% and 54.1%, respectively). Neuroticism was the only personality trait to differ significantly between the 2 groups, with medical students scoring significantly higher than trainees (2.9 vs. 2.6, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Medical students intent on pursuing a surgical career exhibit similar personality traits and learning styles to surgical trainees, with both groups preferring the visual learning modality. These findings facilitate future research into potential ways of improving both the training and selection of students and junior trainees onto residency programs.