Citations

Introduction With the rapidly changing landscape of rectal cancer treatment, it is becoming increasingly challenging for clinicians to interpret and synthesise the vast amount of high-quality evidence being generated. A core outcome set (COS) for clinical trials in rectal cancer would help address issues surrounding outcome selection and reporting. The purpose of this research project is to develop a COS to be used in research comparing different treatment paradigms in the management of rectal cancer. Methods and analysis This will be a mixed-methods project, including a systematic review, semi-structured interviews and a Delphi consensus process. The project was designed in accordance with the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Handbook, which provides a framework for COS development based on existing evidence. A multidisciplinary Study Advisory Group, composed of rectal cancer providers, methodologists and patients, will oversee the project. A systematic review will be performed to identify an inclusive list of outcomes reported by researchers in previous rectal cancer trials. Outcomes will be collapsed into various core areas and domains according to the OMERACT Filter V.2.0. Semi-structured interviews with rectal cancer survivors and their partners/caregivers will help identify additional patient-centric outcomes not captured in the systematic review. Finally, after a final list of outcomes is generated, patients and healthcare professionals will be invited to participate in a Delphi process to develop the final COS. Ethics and dissemination The study has received full approval with the Research Ethics Committee at the Integrated Health and Social Services Network for West-Central Montreal (health network responsible for the Jewish General Hospital) (REC: 2025-4377) and the Institutional Review Board of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine (IRB: STUDY-25-00515). The results of this study will be presented at national and international meetings and a manuscript will be submitted for publication in a high-impact surgery and/or oncology peer-reviewed journal. Trial registration number The study was registered in the COMET database in December 2023 ( https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2941 ). The full systematic review protocol, along with the search strategy and inclusion/exclusion criteria, was registered online in September 2023 (researchregistry.com; reviewregistry1705).

Abstract Background Minimally invasive colorectal surgery is characterized by significant procedural variability, a difficult learning curve, and complications that affect patient outcomes. Video-based assessment offers an opportunity to generate data-driven insights to reduce variability, optimize training, and improve surgical performance. This mixed-methods study aimed to develop and validate a video-based assessment tool for workflow analysis across minimally invasive colorectal procedures. Methods An international steering committee panel of seven members coordinated a three-round modified Delphi process. Experts in colorectal surgery and video-based assessment were invited to reach consensus (≥ 70% agreement) on the phases and steps that describe workflows across colorectal surgery procedural videos. The resulting framework informed the development of ColoWorkflow. Four independent raters then applied ColoWorkflow to a multicentre video data set of laparoscopic and robotic colorectal procedures. Applicability and inter-rater reliability were evaluated. Results Of 66 invited experts, 41 (62%) from 11 countries completed round 1, 40 (98%) completed round 2, 20 attended the final online consensus meeting, and all (40 of 40) approved the final workflow descriptors. Consensus was achieved on nine procedure-agnostic phases (port placement and abdomen exploration; vascular dissection and ligation, mesocolon/mesorectum dissection, additional lymphadenectomy; colon and/or rectum mobilization; colorectal transection; anastomosis; completion of operation; preplanned additional procedures; unplanned procedures; extracorporeal procedures) and 34 procedure-specific steps that describe colorectal surgery workflows. ColoWorkflow was developed and applied to 54 colorectal surgery videos (left and right hemicolectomies, sigmoid and rectosigmoid resections, and total proctocolectomies) from five centres in four countries. The tool demonstrated broad applicability, as all phase and step labels, except one, were represented in at least one video. Inter-rater reliability was moderate, with a mean Cohen’s κ value of 0.72 for phases and 0.67 for steps. Most discrepancies arose at phase transitions and step boundary definitions. Conclusion Based on this preliminary work, ColoWorkflow is a promising tool for workflow analysis across minimally invasive colorectal procedures. Its adoption may help standardize training, accelerate competency acquisition, and advance data-informed surgical quality improvement.

Background: Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) facilitates sphincter preservation in low rectal cancer. Preliminary results and functional outcomes from the North American multicenter phase II taTME trial (NCT03144765) have been published. Three-year outcomes are reported. Methods: Patients with stage I to III rectal adenocarcinoma were enrolled across 11 centers (2017–2022). Endpoints included TME grade, 3-year overall survival, disease-free survival, cancer-specific survival, recurrence, late (beyond 90 d) complications, and stoma-free survival. Surveillance followed National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, with pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at 3 years to assess for pelvic sidewall recurrence when possible. Kaplan–Meier analysis assessed oncologic outcomes. Results: One hundred patients underwent taTME for tumors at a median of 5.8 cm from the anal verge, with intersphincteric resection in 36% and handsewn anastomosis in 54%. Median follow-up was 50.9 months. Late complications occurred in 32 patients, including 21 severe (Clavien-Dindo ≥3). Late anastomotic complications occurred in 5 patients; one required surgical revision. Estimated 3-year overall survival, cancer-specific survival, and disease-free survival were 93.7%, 96.6%, and 84.6%, respectively. Distant recurrence occurred in 15 patients (median: 17.6 months), most commonly in the lung and liver. Locoregional recurrence occurred in 2 patients. Preoperative N stage, lymph node yield, tumor deposits, and perineural invasion were associated with recurrence. Among 100 patients diverted at taTME, 97% were stoma-free at 3 years; 4 patients later underwent secondary diversion. Conclusions: Three-year outcomes of this multicenter trial support the safety and efficacy of taTME in resectable mid and low rectal tumors, with outcomes comparable to contemporary studies. Longer-term oncologic and functional outcomes are needed.

Objective: To investigate fecal incontinence and defecatory, urinary, and sexual functional outcomes after transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME). Background: Proctectomy for rectal cancer may result in alterations in defecatory, urinary, and sexual function that persist beyond 12 months. The recent multicenter phase II taTME trial demonstrated the safety of taTME in patients with stage I to III tumors. Methods: Prospectively registered self-reported questionnaires were collected from 100 taTME patients. Fecal continence [Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life (FIQL), Wexner], defecatory function [Colorectal Functional Outcome (COREFO)], urinary function (International Prostate Symptom Score), and sexual function (Female Sexual Function Index-female, International Index of Erectile Function-male) were assessed preoperatively (PQ), 3 to 4 months postileostomy closure (FQ1), and 12 to 18 months post-taTME [postoperative questionnaire 2 (FQ2)]. Results: Among 83 patients who responded at all 3 time points, FIQL, Wexner, and COREFO significantly worsened postileostomy closure. Between FQ1 and FQ2, FIQL lifestyle and coping, Wexner, and COREFO incontinence, social impact, frequency, and need for medication significantly improved, while FIQL depression and embarrassment did not change. International Prostate Symptom Score did not change relative to preoperative scores. For females, Female Sexual Function Index declined for desire, orgasm, and satisfaction between PQ and FQ1, and did not improve between FQ1 and FQ2. In males, International Index of Erectile Function declined with no change between FQ1 and FQ2. Conclusions: Although taTME resulted in initial decline in defecatory function and fecal continence, most functional domains improved by 12 months after ileostomy closure, without returning to preoperative status. Urinary function was preserved while sexual function declined without improvement by 18 months post-taTME. Our results address patient expectations and inform shared decision-making regarding taTME.

Objectives: To report the results of a rigorous quality control (QC) process in the grading of total mesorectal excision (TME) specimens during a multicenter prospective phase 2 trial of transanal TME. Background: Grading of TME specimens is based on the macroscopic assessment of the mesorectum and standardized through synoptic pathology reporting. TME grade is a strong predictor of outcomes with incomplete (IC) TME associated with increased rates of local recurrence relative to complete or near complete (NC) TME. Although TME grade serves as an endpoint in most rectal cancer trials, in protocols incorporating centralized review of TME specimens for quality assurance, discordance in grading and the management thereof has not been previously described. Methods: A phase 2 prospective transanal TME trial was conducted from 2017 to 2022 across 11 North American centers with TME quality as the primary study endpoint. QC measures included (1) training of site pathologists in TME protocols, (2) blinded grading of de-identified TME specimen photographs by central pathologists, and (3) reconciliation of major discordance before trial reporting. Cohen Kappa statistic was used to assess agreement in grading. Results: Overall agreement in grading of 100 TME specimens between site and central reviewer was rated as fair, (κ = 0.35; 95% CI: 0.10–0.61; P < 0.0001). Concordance was noted in 54%, with minor and major discordance in 32% and 14% of cases, respectively. Upon reconciliation, 13/14 (93%) major discordances were resolved. Pre versus postreconciliation rates of complete or NC and IC TME are 77%/16% and 7% versus 69%/21% and 10%. Reconciliation resulted in a major upgrade (IC–NC; N = 1) or major downgrade (NC/C–IC, N = 4) in 5 cases overall (5%). Conclusions: A 14% rate of major discordance was observed in TME grading between the site and central reviewers. The resolution resulted in a major change in final TME grade in 5% of cases, which suggests that reported rates or TME completeness are likely overestimated in trials. QC through a central review of TME photographs and reconciliation of major discordances is strongly recommended.

Objective: The aim of this work is to formulate recommendations based on global expert consensus to guide the surgical community on the safe resumption of surgical and endoscopic activities. Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused marked disruptions in the delivery of surgical care worldwide. A thoughtful, structured approach to resuming surgical services is necessary as the impact of COVID-19 becomes better controlled. The Coronavirus Global Surgical Collaborative sought to formulate, through rigorous scientific methodology, consensus-based recommendations in collaboration with a multidisciplinary group of international experts and policymakers. Methods: Recommendations were developed following a Delphi process. Domain topics were formulated and subsequently subdivided into questions pertinent to different aspects of surgical care in the COVID-19 crisis. Forty-four experts from 15 countries across 4 continents drafted statements based on the specific questions. Anonymous Delphi voting on the statements was performed in 2 rounds, as well as in a telepresence meeting. Results: One hundred statements were formulated across 10 domains. The statements addressed terminology, impact on procedural services, patient/staff safety, managing a backlog of surgeries, methods to restart and sustain surgical services, education, and research. Eighty-three of the statements were approved during the first round of Delphi voting, and 11 during the second round. A final telepresence meeting and discussion yielded acceptance of 5 other statements. Conclusions: The Delphi process resulted in 99 recommendations. These consensus statements provide expert guidance, based on scientific methodology, for the safe resumption of surgical activities during the COVID-19 pandemic.