TY - JOUR
T1 - Conflicting Guidelines: A Systematic Review on the Proper Interval for Colorectal Cancer Treatment
AU - Molenaar, Charlotte J. L.
AU - Janssen, Loes
AU - van der Peet, Donald L.
AU - Winter, Desmond C.
AU - Roumen, Rudi M. H.
AU - Slooter, Gerrit D.
N1 - Funding Information: The authors thank E. Delvaux (M?xima MC) for her contribution in the literature search and S.J.P. Jansen for his contribution in the development of the survey. We thank the following colorectal surgeons for their contribution to the current study by completing the survey: A. Ponson, Dr. Horacio Oduber Hospital (Aruba); Assoc. Prof. T. Sammour, Royal Adelaide Hospital (Australia); Prof. A.M. Wolthuis, University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium); M. Valad?o, Instituto Nacional de C?ncer (Brazil); Z. Wu, Peking University Cancer Hospital (China); P. Vl?ek, St. Ann's University Hospital (Czech Republic); Prof. I. G?genur, Zealand University Hospital (Denmark); O. Tammik, Tartu University Clinic (Estonia); Prof. E. Cotte, Lyon-Sud Hospital (France); Prof. E. Xynos, Creta Interclinic Hospital (Greece); D. Toth, Academic County Hospital (Hungary); Prof. D.C. Winter, St. Vincent's University Hospital (Ireland); Prof. L. Boni, Surgery Policlinico of Milan (Italy); H. Ota, Ikeda City Hospital (Japan); Assoc. Prof. G. O?Grady, Auckland City Hospital (New Zealand); R. Gaupset, Akershus University Hospital (Norway); I. Negoi, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy Bucharest (Romania); Assoc. Prof. L. Marko, Roosevelt Hospital (Slovak Republic); M. Frasson, University Hospital La Fe (Spain); Assoc. Prof. P.J. Nilsson, Karolinska University Hospital (Sweden); Prof. D. Hahnloser, University Hospital Lausanne (Switzerland); and Prof. T.A. Rockall, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Trust (UK). Finally, we would like to thank the peer?reviewers for their feedback and recommendations on this manuscript. Publisher Copyright: © 2021, Société Internationale de Chirurgie. Copyright: Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2021/7
Y1 - 2021/7
N2 - Background: Timely treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) is a quality indicator in oncological care. However, patients with CRC might benefit more from preoperative optimization rather than rapid treatment initiation. The objectives of this study are (1) to determine the definition of the CRC treatment interval, (2) to study international recommendations regarding this interval and (3) to study whether length of the interval is associated with outcome. Methods: We performed a systematic search of the literature in June 2020 through MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases, complemented with a web search and a survey among colorectal surgeons worldwide. Full-text papers including subjects with CRC and a description of the treatment interval were included. Results: Definition of the treatment interval varies widely in published studies, especially due to different starting points of the interval. Date of diagnosis is often used as start of the interval, determined with date of pathological confirmation. The end of the interval is rather consistently determined with date of initiation of any primary treatment. Recommendations on the timeline of the treatment interval range between and within countries from two weeks between decision to treat and surgery, to treatment within seven weeks after pathological diagnosis. Finally, there is no decisive evidence that a longer treatment interval is associated with worse outcome. Conclusions: The interval from diagnosis to treatment for CRC treatment could be used for prehabilitation to benefit patient recovery. It may be that this strategy is more beneficial than urgently proceeding with treatment.
AB - Background: Timely treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) is a quality indicator in oncological care. However, patients with CRC might benefit more from preoperative optimization rather than rapid treatment initiation. The objectives of this study are (1) to determine the definition of the CRC treatment interval, (2) to study international recommendations regarding this interval and (3) to study whether length of the interval is associated with outcome. Methods: We performed a systematic search of the literature in June 2020 through MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases, complemented with a web search and a survey among colorectal surgeons worldwide. Full-text papers including subjects with CRC and a description of the treatment interval were included. Results: Definition of the treatment interval varies widely in published studies, especially due to different starting points of the interval. Date of diagnosis is often used as start of the interval, determined with date of pathological confirmation. The end of the interval is rather consistently determined with date of initiation of any primary treatment. Recommendations on the timeline of the treatment interval range between and within countries from two weeks between decision to treat and surgery, to treatment within seven weeks after pathological diagnosis. Finally, there is no decisive evidence that a longer treatment interval is associated with worse outcome. Conclusions: The interval from diagnosis to treatment for CRC treatment could be used for prehabilitation to benefit patient recovery. It may be that this strategy is more beneficial than urgently proceeding with treatment.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85103654802&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-021-06075-7
DO - https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-021-06075-7
M3 - Review article
C2 - 33813632
SN - 0364-2313
VL - 45
SP - 2235
EP - 2250
JO - World journal of surgery
JF - World journal of surgery
IS - 7
ER -