The rising prevalence of overweight and obesity places a financial burden on health services and on the wider economy. Health service and societal costs of overweight and obesity are typically estimated by top-down approaches which derive population attributable fractions for a range of conditions associated with increased body fat or bottom-up methods based on analyses of cross-sectional or longitudinal datasets. The evidence base of cost of obesity studies is continually expanding, however, the scope of these studies varies widely and a lack of standardised methods limits comparisons nationally and internationally. The objective of this review is to contribute to this knowledge pool by examining direct costs and indirect (lost productivity) costs of both overweight and obesity to provide comparable estimates. This review was undertaken as part of the introductory work for the Irish cost of overweight and obesity study and examines inconsistencies in the methodologies of cost of overweight and obesity studies. Studies which evaluated the direct costs and indirect costs of both overweight and obesity were included. A computerised search of English language studies addressing direct and indirect costs of overweight and obesity in adults between 2001 and 2011 was conducted. Reference lists of reports, articles and earlier reviews were scanned to identify additional studies. Five published articles were deemed eligible for inclusion. Despite the limited scope of this review there was considerable heterogeneity in methodological approaches and findings. In the four studies which presented separate estimates for direct and indirect costs of overweight and obesity, the indirect costs were higher, accounting for between 54% and 59% of the estimated total costs. A gradient exists between increasing BMI and direct healthcare costs and indirect costs due to reduced productivity and early premature mortality. Determining precise estimates for the increases is mired by the large presence of heterogeneity among the available cost estimation literature. To improve the availability of quality evidence an international consensus on standardised methods for cost of obesity studies is warranted. Analyses of nationally representative cross-sectional datasets augmented by data from primary care are likely to provide the best data for international comparisons.

Objective The COVID-19 pandemic has had a major global impact on endoscopic services. This reduced capacity, along with public reluctance to undergo endoscopy during the pandemic, might result in excess mortality from delayed cancer diagnosis. Using the UK’s National Endoscopy Database (NED), we performed the first national analysis of the impact of the pandemic on endoscopy services and endoscopic cancer diagnosis. Design We developed a NED COVID-19 module incorporating procedure-level data on all endoscopic procedures. Three periods were designated: pre-COVID (6 January 2020 to 15 March), transition (16–22 March) and COVID-impacted (23 March–31 May). National, regional and procedure-specific analyses were performed. The average weekly number of cancers, proportion of missing cancers and cancer detection rates were calculated. Results A weekly average of 35 478 endoscopy procedures were performed in the pre-COVID period. Activity in the COVID-impacted period reduced to 12% of pre-COVID levels; at its low point, activity was only 5%, recovering to 20% of pre-COVID activity by study end. Although more selective vetting significantly increased the per-procedure cancer detection rate (pre-COVID 1.91%; COVID-impacted 6.61%; p<0.001), the weekly number of cancers detected decreased by 58%. The proportion of missing cancers ranged from 19% (pancreatobiliary) to 72% (colorectal). Conclusion This national analysis demonstrates the remarkable impact that the pandemic has had on endoscopic services, which has resulted in a substantial and concerning reduction in cancer detection. Major, urgent efforts are required to restore endoscopy capacity to prevent an impending cancer healthcare crisis.

Every cancer‐related death in someone of working age represents an economic loss to society. To inform priorities for cancer control, we estimated costs of lost productivity due to premature cancer‐related mortality across Europe, for all cancers and by site, gender, region and country. Cancer deaths in 2008 were obtained from GLOBOCAN for 30 European countries across four regions. Costs were valued using the human capital approach. Years of productive life lost (YPLL) were computed by multiplying deaths between 15 and 64 years by working‐life expectancy, then by country‐, age‐ and gender‐specific annual wages, corrected for workforce participation and unemployment. Lost productivity costs due to premature cancer‐related mortality in Europe in 2008 were €75 billion. Male costs (€49 billion) were almost twice female costs (€26 billion). The most costly sites were lung (€17 billion; 23% of total costs), breast (€7 billion; 9%) and colorectum (€6 billion; 8%). Stomach cancer (in Southern and Central‐Eastern Europe) and pancreatic cancer (in Northern and Western Europe) were also among the most costly sites. The average lost productivity cost per cancer death was €219,241. Melanoma had the highest cost per death (€312,798), followed by Hodgkin disease (€306,628) and brain and CNS cancer (€288,850). Premature mortality costs were 0.58% of 2008 European gross domestic product, highest in Central‐Eastern Europe (0.81%) and lowest in Northern Europe (0.51%). Premature cancer‐related mortality costs in Europe are significant. These results provide a novel perspective on the societal cancer burden and may be used to inform priority setting for cancer control.

The impact of developments in colorectal cancer surgery on length-of-stay (LOS) and re-admission have not been well described. In a population-based analysis, we investigated predictors of LOS and emergency readmission after the initial surgery episode.

Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) has a high sensitivity for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC). In a symptomatic population FIT may identify those patients who require colorectal investigation with the highest priority. FIT offers considerable advantages over the use of symptoms alone, as an objective measure of risk with a vastly superior positive predictive value for CRC, while conversely identifying a truly low risk cohort of patients. The aim of this guideline was to provide a clear strategy for the use of FIT in the diagnostic pathway of people with signs or symptoms of a suspected diagnosis of CRC. The guideline was jointly developed by the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland/British Society of Gastroenterology, specifically by a 21-member multidisciplinary guideline development group (GDG). A systematic review of 13 535 publications was undertaken to develop 23 evidence and expert opinion-based recommendations for the triage of people with symptoms of a suspected CRC diagnosis in primary care. In order to achieve consensus among a broad group of key stakeholders, we completed an extended Delphi of the GDG, and also 61 other individuals across the UK and Ireland, including by members of the public, charities and primary and secondary care. Seventeen research recommendations were also prioritised to inform clinical management.