Dataset Information

International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons survey of surgeons' preference on rectal cancer treatment.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Rectal cancer treatment has a wide range of possible approaches from radical extirpative surgery to nonoperative watchful waiting following chemoradiotherapy, with or without, additional chemotherapy. Our goal was to assess the personal opinion of active practicing surgeons on rectal cancer treatment if he/she was the patient.

Methods

A panel of the International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ISUCRS) selected 10 questions that were included in a questionnaire that included other items including demographics. The questionnaire was distributed electronically to ISUCRS fellows and other surgeons included in our database and remained open from April 16 to 28, 2020.

Results

One hundred sixty-three specialists completed the survey. The majority of surgeons (n=65, 39.9%) chose the minimally invasive (laparoscopic) surgery for their personal treatment of rectal cancer. For low-lying rectal cancer T1 and T2, the treatment choice was standard chemoradiation+local excision (n=60, 36.8%) followed by local excision±chemoradiotherapy if needed (n=55, 33.7%). In regards to locally advanced low rectal cancer T3 or greater, the preference of the responders was for laparoscopic surgery (n=65, 39.9%). We found a statistically significant relationship between surgeons' age and their preference for minimally invasive techniques demonstrating an age-based bias on senior surgeons' inclination toward open approach.

Conclusion

Our survey reveals an age-based preference by surgeons for minimally invasive surgical techniques as well as organ-preserving techniques for personal treatment of treating rectal cancer. Only 1/4 of specialists do adhere to the international guidelines for treating early rectal cancer.

SUBMITTER: Dulskas A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10475796 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons survey of surgeons' preference on rectal cancer treatment.

Dulskas Audrius A Caushaj Philip F PF Grigoravicius Domas D Zheng Liu L Fortunato Richard R Nunoo-Mensah Joseph W JW Samalavicius Narimantas E NE

Annals of coloproctology 20221011 4

<h4>Purpose</h4>Rectal cancer treatment has a wide range of possible approaches from radical extirpative surgery to nonoperative watchful waiting following chemoradiotherapy, with or without, additional chemotherapy. Our goal was to assess the personal opinion of active practicing surgeons on rectal cancer treatment if he/she was the patient.<h4>Methods</h4>A panel of the International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ISUCRS) selected 10 questions that were included in a question ...[more]

PMID: 36217808

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe longitudinal experience of patients is critical to the development of interventions to identify and reduce financial hardship.ObjectiveTo evaluate financial hardship over 12 months in patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC) undergoing curative-intent therapy.Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective, longitudinal cohort study was conducted between May 2018 and July 2020, with time points over 12 months. Participants included patients at National Cance Institute Community Oncology Research Program sites. Eligibility criteria included age at least 18 years, newly diagnosed stage I to III CRC, not started chemotherapy and/or radiation, treated with curative intent, and able to speak English. Data were analyzed from December 2022 through April 2023.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was financial hardship, measured using the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST), which assesses the psychological domain of financial hardship (range, 0-44; higher score indicates better financial well-being). Participants completed 30-minute surveys (online or paper) at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months.ResultsA total of 450 participants (mean [SD] age, 61.0 [12.0] years; 240 [53.3%] male) completed the baseline survey; 33 participants (7.3%) were Black and 379 participants (84.2%) were White, and 14 participants (3.1%) identified as Hispanic or Latino and 424 participants (94.2%) identified as neither Hispanic nor Latino. There were 192 participants (42.7%) with an annual household income of $60 000 or greater. There was an improvement in financial hardship from diagnosis to 12 months of 0.3 (95% CI, 0.2 to 0.3) points per month (P < .001). Patients with better quality of life and greater self-efficacy had less financial toxicity. Each 1-unit increase in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (rapid version) score was associated with an increase of 0.7 (95% CI, 0.5 to 0.9) points in COST score (P < .001); each 1-unit increase in self-efficacy associated with an increase of 0.6 (95% CI, 0.2 to 1.0) points in COST score (P = .006). Patients who lived in areas with lower neighborhood socioeconomic status had greater financial toxicity. Neighborhood deprivation index was associated with a decrease of 0.3 (95% CI, -0.5 to -0.1) points in COST score (P = .009).Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that interventions for financial toxicity in cancer care should focus on counseling to improve self-efficacy and mitigate financial worry and screening for these interventions should include patients at higher risk of financial burden.

Project description:Background: Despite limited oncologic benefit, contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) rates have increased in the United States over the past 15 years. CPM is often accompanied by breast reconstruction, thereby requiring an interdisciplinary approach between breast and plastic surgeons. Despite this, little is known about plastic surgeons' (PS) perspectives of CPM. The purpose of this study was to assess PS practice patterns, knowledge of CPM oncologic benefits, and perceptions of the CPM decision-making process. Methods: An electronic survey was sent to 2,642 members of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS). Questions assessed demographics, practice patterns, knowledge of CPM oncologic benefits, and perceptions of the CPM decision-making process. Results: ASPS response rate was 12.5% (n = 329). Most responders worked in private practice (69%), were male (81%) and had been in practice for ≥15 years (60%). The median number of CPM reconstructions performed per month was 2-4. Fifty-five percent of PS reported routine attendance at a breast multidisciplinary conference. Responders reported CPM discussion was most likely to be initiated by the patient (51%) followed by the breast surgeon (38%), and plastic surgeon (7.3%). According to PS, the most common reason patients choose CPM is a perceived increased contralateral cancer risk (86%). Most plastic surgeons (63%) assessed the benefits of CPM as worth the risk of additional surgery and the majority (53%) estimated the complication rate at 2X the risk of unilateral surgery. The majority (61%) of PS estimated risk of contralateral cancer in an average risk patient between <2 and 5% over 10 years, which is consistent with data reported from the current literature. Most plastic surgeons (87%) reported that there was no evidence or limited evidence for breast cancer specific survival benefit with CPM. A minority of PS (18.5%) reported discomfort with a patient's choice for CPM. Of those surgeons reporting discomfort, the most common reasons for their reservations were a concern with the risk/benefit ratio of CPM and with lack of patient understanding of expected outcomes. Common reasons for PS comfort with CPM were a respect for autonomy and non-oncologic benefits of CPM. Discussion: To our knowledge, this is the first survey reporting PS perspectives on CPM. According to PS, CPM dialogue appears to be patient driven and dominated by a perceived increased risk of contralateral cancer. Few PS reported discomfort with CPM. While many PS acknowledge both the limited oncologic benefit of CPM and the increased risk of complications, the majority have the opinion that the benefits of CPM are worth the additional risk. This apparent contradiction may be due to an appreciation of the non-oncologic benefits CPM and a desire to respect patients' choices for treatment.

Project description:BackgroundPartial anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears, particularly injuries detected with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) but stable on ligamentous examination, appear to be recognized more frequently; however, there remains no consensus management for this complex pathology.PurposeTo present the results of a survey of a group of international ACL experts on the management of partial ACL injuries.Study designSurvey study; Level of evidence, 5.MethodsThe ACL Study Group is an international group of orthopaedic surgeons with a special interest in the ACL. There are 169 members overall, with 135 clinically active surgeons. A branching logic survey was developed and circulated to members of the ACL Study Group via electronic mail. Categories included member demographics as well as recommended management strategies of partial ACL injuries, including recommendations on return to play.ResultsOf the 135 clinically active surgeon members, 113 responded to the survey (84%). Nonoperative management of partial ACL injuries was selected by 92% of respondents. Of those who managed nonoperatively, 75% indicated they would not restrict weightbearing and 59% would not recommend a knee brace. When those who managed the patient nonoperatively determined criteria for return to sports (RTS), 33% would use differential knee laxity, 87% would assess functional testing, 26% would utilize imaging, and 40% selected time from injury. When using time as a guide for RTS, 13% chose RTS between 7 and 11 weeks postinjury, 56% selected no sport before 3 months, and 22% favored waiting 4 to 6 months before allowing an athlete with a partial ACL injury to RTS. With regard to function as a tool to determine RTS, painless Lachman, strength, swelling, and functional performance tests were all chosen by a majority of respondents.ConclusionThis study presented the results of a survey on partial ACL injury management administered to ACL Study Group active surgical members. The majority favored nonoperative management for partial ACL injuries (stable ligament examination but MRI changes in the ligament). Nonoperative treatment and RTS protocols varied and must be customized to the patient.

Dataset Information

International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons survey of surgeons' preference on rectal cancer treatment.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons survey of surgeons' preference on rectal cancer treatment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets