Evaluation of Access to Hospitals Most Ready to Achieve National Accreditation for Rectal Cancer Treatment

Quality indicators in surgical oncology: systematic review of measures used to compare quality across hospitals

BACKGROUND

Measurement and reporting of quality indicators at the hospital level has been shown to improve outcomes and support patient choice. Although there are many studies validating individual quality indicators, there has been no systematic approach to understanding what quality indicators exist for surgical oncology and no standardization for their use. The aim of this study was to review quality indicators used to assess variation in quality in surgical oncology care across hospitals or regions. It also sought to describe the aims of these studies and what, if any, feedback was offered to the analysed groups.

METHODS

A literature search was performed to identify studies published between 1 January 2000 and 23 October 2023 that applied surgical quality indicators to detect variation in cancer care at the hospital or regional level.

RESULTS

A total of 89 studies assessed 91 unique quality indicators that fell into the following Donabedian domains: process indicators (58; 64%); outcome indicators (26; 29%); structure indicators (6; 7%); and structure and outcome indicators (1; 1%). Purposes of evaluating variation included: identifying outliers (43; 48%); comparing centres with a benchmark (14; 16%); and supplying evidence of practice variation (29; 33%). Only 23 studies (26%) reported providing the results of their analyses back to those supplying data.

CONCLUSION

Comparisons of quality in surgical oncology within and among hospitals and regions have been undertaken in high-income countries. Quality indicators tended to be process measures and reporting focused on identifying outlying hospitals. Few studies offered feedback to data suppliers.

Impact of National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer guidelines on surgical margin status

BACKGROUND

The American College of Surgeons established the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer (NAPRC) to standardize rectal cancer care. We sought to assess the impact of NAPRC guidelines at a tertiary care center on surgical margin status.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Institutional NSQIP database was queried for patients with rectal adenocarcinoma undergoing surgery for curative intent two years prior to and following implementation of NAPRC guidelines. Primary outcome was surgical margin status before (pre-NAPRC) versus after (post-NAPRC) implementation of NAPRC guidelines.

RESULTS

Surgical pathology in five (5%) pre-NAPRC and seven (8%) post-NAPRC patients had positive radial margins (p = 0.59); distal margins were positive in three (3%) post-NAPRC and six (7%) post-NAPRC patients (p = 0.37). Local recurrence was observed in seven (6%) pre-NAPRC patients, there were no recurrences to date in post-NAPRC patients (p = 0.15). Metastasis was observed in 18 (17%) pre-NAPRC patients and four (4%) post-NAPRC patients (p = 0.55).

CONCLUSION

NAPRC implementation was not associated with a change in surgical margin status for rectal cancer at our institution. However, the NAPRC guidelines formalize evidence-based rectal cancer care and we anticipate that improvements will be greatest in low-volume hospitals which may not utilize multidisciplinary collaboration.

Surgical Cancer Care in Safety-Net Hospitals: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Tertiary medical centers in the USA provide specialized, high-volume surgical cancer care, contributing standards for quality and outcomes. For the most vulnerable populations, safety-net hospitals (SNHs) remain the predominant provider of both complex and routine healthcare needs. The objective of this study was to evaluate access to and quality of surgical oncology care within SNHs.

METHODS

A comprehensive and systematic review of the literature was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases to identify all studies (January 2000-October 2021) reporting the delivery of surgical cancer care at SNHs in the USA (PROSPERO #CRD42021290092). These studies describe the process and/or outcomes of surgical care for gastrointestinal, hepatopancreatobiliary, or breast cancer patients seeking treatment at SNHs.

RESULTS

Of 3753 records, 37 studies met the inclusion criteria. Surgical care for breast cancer (43%) was the most represented, followed by colorectal (30%) and hepatopancreatobiliary (16%) cancers. Financial constraints, cultural and language barriers, and limitations to insurance coverage were cited as common reasons for disparities in care within SNHs. Advanced disease at presentation was common among cancer patients seeking care at SNHs (range, 24-61% of patients). Though reports comparing cancer survival between SNHs and non-SNHs were few, results were mixed, underscoring the variability in care seen across SNHs.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings highlight barriers in care facing many cancer patients. Continued efforts should address improving both access and quality of care for SNH patients. Future models include a transition away from a two-tiered system of resourced and under-resourced hospitals toward an integrated cancer system.

Lack of Complete Pretreatment Staging Is Associated With Omission of Neoadjuvant Therapy for Rectal Cancer: A Statewide Study

BACKGROUND

Standardized local staging and neoadjuvant therapy are rectal cancer management quality measures supported by the Commission on Cancer and National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer for the management of rectal cancer. Previous studies suggested that up to 25% of patients with stage II/III rectal cancer patients do not receive neoadjuvant therapy. We hypothesized that failure to receive neoadjuvant therapy may be caused by failure to properly stage patients before surgery.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine whether lack of local rectal cancer staging is associated with underutilization of neoadjuvant therapy and to determine risk factors for omission of neoadjuvant therapy.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study. Bivariate and multivariable analyses were performed on patient, tumor, and 30-day outcome factors associated with neoadjuvant therapy and staging.

SETTINGS

hospitals participated in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative Colorectal Cancer Project from January 2014 to December 2019.

PATIENTS

Elective, clinical stage II/III, mid-to-low rectal cancer resections. Patients with upper rectal cancer were excluded.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Percentage of patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy.

RESULTS

The final cohort included 350 patients with clinical stage II/III mid or low rectal cancer-80.9% of patients who had received neoadjuvant therapy and 83.2% of patients who had MRI and/or endoscopic ultrasound. A significant association was found between receiving neoadjuvant therapy and MRI/endorectal ultrasound staging ( p < 0.0001). Eighty-seven percent of patients who had MRI/endorectal ultrasound received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy; 49% of patients who did not have MRI/endorectal ultrasound staging received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Multivariate analysis revealed that risk factors for the omission of neoadjuvant therapy were older age and incomplete staging.

LIMITATIONS

Observational study with the possibility of unmeasured confounding variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant therapy is underused in patients with stage II/III rectal cancer. Omission of pretreatment staging with MRI/endorectal ultrasound is associated with omission of neoadjuvant therapy. These data suggest the need for regional and national quality improvement strategies to standardize the multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B923 .

LA FALTA DE ESTADIFICACIN COMPLETA PREVIA AL TRATAMIENTO SE ASOCIA CON LA OMISIN DE LA TERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE PARA EL CNCER DE RECTO UN ESTUDIO ESTATAL

ANTECEDENTES: La estadificación local estandarizada y la terapia neoadyuvante son medidas de calidad de la Comisión sobre el Cáncer y el Programa Nacional de Acreditación para el Cáncer de Recto para el tratamiento del cáncer de recto. Estudios previos sugirieron que hasta el 25% de los pacientes con cáncer de recto en estadio II/III no reciben terapia neoadyuvante. Planteamos la hipótesis de que la falla en recibir la terapia neoadyuvante puede deberse a la falla en la estadificación adecuada de los pacientes antes de la cirugía.OBJETIVO: El propósito de este estudio es determinar si la falta de estadificación local del cáncer de recto está asociada con la infrautilización de la terapia neoadyuvante y determinar los factores de riesgo para la omisión de la terapia neoadyuvante.DISEÑO: Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo. Se realizaron análisis bivariados y multivariados sobre el paciente, el tumor y los factores de resultado a los 30 días asociados con la terapia neoadyuvante y la estadificación.AJUSTE: Un total de 31 hospitales que participaron en el Proyecto Quirugico Colaborativo de Cáncer Colorrectal de Calidad de Michigan desde enero de 2014 hasta diciembre de 2019.PACIENTES: Resecciones electivas, en estadio clínico II/III, de cáncer de recto medio a bajo. Se excluyeron los pacientes con cáncer de recto superior.MEDIDA DE RESULTADO PRINCIPAL: Porcentaje de pacientes que reciben terapia neoadyuvante. Porcentaje de pacientes que reciben terapia neoadyuvante.RESULTADOS: La cohorte final fue de 350 casos con cáncer de recto medio o bajo en estadio clínico II/III. El 80,9% tenía terapia neoadyuvante y el 83,2%, resonancia magnética y/o ultrasonido endoscópico. Hubo una asociación significativa entre recibir terapia neoadyuvante y la estadificación MRI/ERUS ( p < 0,0001). El 87% de los pacientes a los que se les realizaron imágenes con MRI/ERUS recibieron NT, mientras que el 49% de los pacientes a los que no se les realizó la estadificación con MRI/ERUS tuvieron NT. El análisis multivariante reveló que los factores de riesgo para la omisión de la terapia neoadyuvante fueron la edad avanzada y la estadificación incompleta.LIMITACIONES: Estudio observacional con posibilidad de confusión de variables no medidas.CONCLUSIONES: La terapia neoadyuvante está infrautilizada en pacientes con cáncer de recto en estadio II/III. La omisión de la estadificación previa al tratamiento con MRI/ERUS se asocia con la omisión de la terapia neoadyuvante. Estos datos sugieren la necesidad de estrategias regionales y nacionales de mejora de la calidad para estandarizar el manejo multidisciplinario del cáncer de recto. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B923 . (Traducción-Dr Yolanda Colorado ).

Association between hospital surgical case volume and postoperative mortality in patients undergoing gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative mortality is an important indicator for evaluating surgical safety. Postoperative mortality is influenced by hospital volume; however, this association is not fully understood. This study aimed to investigate the volume-outcome association between the hospital surgical case volume for gastrectomies per year (hospital volume) and the risk of postoperative mortality in patients undergoing a gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

METHODS

Studies assessing the association between hospital volume and the postoperative mortality in patients who underwent gastrectomy for gastric cancer were searched for eligibility. Odds ratios were pooled for the highest versus lowest categories of hospital volume using a random-effects model. The volume-outcome association between hospital volume and the risk of postoperative mortality was analyzed. The study protocol was registered with Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO).

RESULTS

Thirty studies including 586 993 participants were included. The risk of postgastrectomy mortality in patients with gastric cancer was 35% lower in hospitals with higher surgical case volumes than in their lower-volume counterparts (odds ratio: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.56-0.76; P <0.001). This relationship was consistent and robust in most subgroup analyses. Volume-outcome analysis found that the postgastrectomy mortality rate remained stable or was reduced after the hospital volume reached a plateau of 100 gastrectomy cases per year.

CONCLUSIONS

The current findings suggest that a higher-volume hospital can reduce the risk of postgastrectomy mortality in patients with gastric cancer, and that greater than or equal to 100 gastrectomies for gastric cancer per year may be defined as a high hospital surgical case volume.

Could meeting the standards of the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer in the National Cancer Database improve patient outcomes?

AIM

The National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer (NAPRC) was developed to improve rectal cancer patient outcomes in the United States. The NAPRC consists of a set of process and outcome measures that hospitals must meet in order to be accredited. We aimed to assess the potential of the NAPRC by determining whether achievement of the process measures correlates with improved survival.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients undergoing curative proctectomy for non-metastatic rectal cancer from 2010 to 2014. NAPRC process measures identified in the National Cancer Database included clinical staging completion, treatment starting <60 days from diagnosis, carcinoembryonic antigen level measured prior to treatment, tumour regression grading and margin assessment.

RESULTS

There were 48 669 patients identified with a mean age of 62 ± 12.9 years and 61.3% of patients were men. The process measure completed most often was assessment of proximal and distal margins (98.4%) and the measure completed least often was the serum carcinoembryonic antigen level prior to treatment (63.8%). All six process measures were completed in 23.6% of patients. After controlling for age, gender, comorbidities, annual facility resection volume, race and pathological stage, completion of all process measures was associated with a statistically significant mortality decrease (Cox hazard ratio 0.88, 95% CI 0.81-0.94, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Participating institutions provided complete datasets for all six process measures in less than a quarter of patients. Compliance with all process measures was associated with a significant mortality reduction. Improved adoption of NAPRC process measures could therefore result in improved survival rates for rectal cancer in the United States.

Overall survival and prognostic factors in Stage I lung adenocarcinoma treated with curative intent: A real-life 19-year cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Important differences in Stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are related to the delay in the diagnosis to the treatment, hospitals' specialised status, comorbidities, tumour stage and histological type.

METHODS

A 19-year retrospective cohort study was conducted, including 681 patients with NSCLC in clinical-stage IA-IB. The variables analysed were gender, age, schooling, type of health care provider, type of treatment, period of 5-year treatment, the time between first attendance to diagnosis and the time between diagnosis and treatment, and hospital's specialised status.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent radiotherapy alone had three times more risk of death than those who underwent surgery alone (adjusted hazard ratio [adjHR] = 3.44; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.45-4.82; p <0.001). The independent risk of death factors was being treated in nonhigh complexity centres in oncology hospitals and having started the treatment more than 2 months after diagnosis (adjHR = 1.80; 95% CI: 1.26-2.56; p <0.001) and (adjHR = 2.00; 95% CI: 1.33-3.00; p <0.001), respectively. In addition, the patients diagnosed between 2011 and 2015 had a 40% lower risk of death when compared to those diagnosed between 2000 and 2005 (95% CI: 0.38-0.94; p = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

The overall survival in curative intent Stage-I lung cancer patients' treatment was associated with the 5-year diagnosis group, the delayed time between diagnosis and treatment and the hospital qualification.

Prognostic factors and patients' profile in treated stage I and II lung adenocarcinoma: a Hospital's Cancer Registry-based analysis

Background

It is known that survival from lung cancer can differ between countries and even between different regions of the same country. The variability between hospitals, the age and social profile, and the time when this patient was treated, can influence survival, and these factors are intrinsic to each region. Knowing the profile of patients, hospitals, and other factors associated with the treatment of stage I and II lung cancer in a given region is important to understand outcomes and propose improvements that can be replicated in any region of the world that presents the same profile of patients and care structure. This study evaluates survival and possible predictors in all patients with stage I and II lung cancer adenocarcinoma through the Hospital’s Cancer Registry (HCR), responsible for the State of Sao Paulo’s cancer registry, a geographical area with 40 million inhabitants.

Methods

Based on the HCR, an observational study was conducted, including 1,278 patients diagnosed with lung adenocarcinoma at clinical stages (CS) I and II. Sex, age at diagnosis, education, neighbourhood, CS at diagnosis, the time between diagnosis and treatment, 5-year periods in which patients were treated, treatment modality and hospitals where patients were treated were analysed. Cox univariate and multiple regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR).

Results

A total of 1,278 lung cancer patients with clinical lung cancer adenocarcinoma stages I and II were included. About 40.06% of patients did not receive surgery, and only 55.8% started the treatment within 2 months. The majority of the patients were treated in high complexity hospitals, 69%. Five-year overall survival (OS) was 45.6% in CS I and 27.5% in CS II. Patients treated in high complexity centres have lower mortality rates than those treated in Partial Hospital Complexity Centers in Oncology (PHCCO) (adjHR 1.18; 95% CI: 1.00–1.40; P=0.047). Patients diagnosed between 2010–2014 had a protective factor against the risk of death concerning patients diagnosed between 2000–2004.

Conclusions

The 5-year OS has significantly improved as long as the 5-year group analysed. Also, the 5-year OS of the patients treated in high complexity hospitals is higher than those treated in PHCCO.

Variation in the volume-outcome relationship after rectal cancer surgery in the United States: Retrospective study with implications for regionalization

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have demonstrated improved outcomes for patients with rectal cancer treated at higher-volume hospitals. However, little is known whether heterogeneity in this effect exists. The objective was to test whether the effect of increased annual rectal cancer resection volume on outcomes is consistent across all hospitals treating rectal cancer.

METHODS

Adult stage I to III patients who underwent surgical resection for rectal adenocarcinoma from 2004 to 2016 were identified in the National Cancer Database.

RESULTS

We included 120,522 patients treated at 763 hospitals in this retrospective cohort study. Higher volume was linearly and incrementally related to outcomes in unadjusted analyses. In adjusted models, for an average patient at the average hospital, the effect of increasing the annual caseload of rectal cancer resections by 20 resections per year was associated with 8%, (hazard ratio = 0.92, 95% confidence interval = 0.87, 0.97), 18% (odds ratio = 0.82, 95% confidence interval = 0.70, 0.98), and 16% (odds ratio = 0.84, 95% confidence interval = 0.73, 0.95) relative reductions in 5-year overall survival, 30-, and 90-day mortality, respectively, and with a 19% (odds ratio = 1.19, 95% confidence interval = 1.04, 1.36) relative increase in the rate of neoadjuvant chemoradiation. These effects varied by individual hospitals such that 39% of hospitals do not see any benefit in 5-year overall survival associated with higher volumes. Increased volume was associated with lower positive circumferential resection margin rates at 19% of the hospitals.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms that higher-volume hospitals have improved outcomes after rectal cancer surgery. However, there exists significant variation in these effects induced by individual within-hospital effects. Regionalization policies may need to be flexible in identifying the hospitals that would achieve enhanced benefits from treating a larger volume of patients.

Hospital and Surgeon Selection for Medicare Beneficiaries With Stage II/III Rectal Cancer: The Role of Rurality, Distance to Care, and Colonoscopy Provider

OBJECTIVE

To determine factors associated with rectal cancer surgery performed at high-volume hospitals (HVHs) and by high-volume surgeons (HVSs), including the roles of rurality and diagnostic colonoscopy provider characteristics.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Although higher-volume hospitals/surgeons often achieve superior surgical outcomes, many rectal cancer resections are performed by lower-volume hospitals/surgeons, especially among rural populations.

METHODS

Patients age 66+ diagnosed from 2007 to 2011 with stage II/III primary rectal adenocarcinoma were selected from surveillance, epidemiology, and end results-medicare data. Patient ZIP codes were used to classify rural status. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with surgery by HVH and HVS.

RESULTS

Of 1601 patients, 22% were rural and 78% were urban. Fewer rural patients received surgery at a HVH compared to urban patients (44% vs 65%; P < 0.0001). Compared to urban patients, rural patients more often had colonoscopies performed by general surgeons (and less often from gastroenterologists or colorectal surgeons), and lived substantially further from HVHs; these factors were both associated with lower odds of surgery at a HVH or by a HVS. In addition, whereas over half of both rural and urban patients received their colonoscopy and surgery at the same hospital, rural patients who stayed at the same hospital were significantly less likely to receive surgery at a HVH or by a HVS compared to urban patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Rural rectal cancer patients are less likely to receive surgery from a HVH/HVS. The role of the colonoscopy provider has important implications for referral patterns and initiatives seeking to increase centralization.

Racial Disparities in Treatment for Rectal Cancer at Minority-Serving Hospitals

BACKGROUND

Racial disparities exist in patients with rectal cancer with respect to both treatment and survival. Minority-serving hospitals (MSHs) provide healthcare to a disproportionately large percent of minority patients in the USA. We examined the effects of rectal cancer treatment at MSH to understand drivers of these disparities.

METHODS

The NCDB was queried (2004-2015), and patients diagnosed with stage II or III rectal adenocarcinoma were identified. Racial case mix distribution was calculated at the institutional level, and MSHs were defined as those within the top decile of Black and Hispanic patients. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of receipt of standard of care treatment. Survival was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate adjusted risk of death. Analyses were clustered by facility.

RESULTS

A total of 68,842 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of these patients, 63,242 (91.9%) were treated at non-MSH, and 5600 (8.1%) were treated at MSH. In multivariable analysis, treatment at MSH (OR 0.70 95%CI 0.61-0.80 p < 0.001) and Black race (OR 0.75 95%CI 0.70-0.81 p < 0.001) were associated with significantly lower odds of receiving standard of care. In adjusted analysis, Black patients had a significantly higher risk of mortality (HR 1.20 95%CI 1.14-1.26 p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment at MSH institutions and Black race were associated with significantly decreased odds of receipt of recommended standard therapy for locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma. Survival was worse for Black patients compared to White patients despite adjustment for receipt of standard of care.

Provider Viewpoints in the Management and Referral of Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Patients with rectal cancer treated at specialized or high-volume hospitals have better outcomes, but a minority of these patients are treated there. Physician recommendations are important considerations for patients with rectal cancer when making treatment decisions, yet little is known about the factors that affect these physician referral patterns.

METHODS

Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted in 2018-2019 with Iowa gastroenterologists (GIs) and general surgeons (GSs) who performed colonoscopies in a community setting. A thematic approach was used to analyze and code qualitative data.

RESULTS

We interviewed 10 GIs and 6 GSs with self-reported averages of 15.5 y in practice, 1100 endoscopic procedures annually, and 6 rectal cancer diagnoses annually. Physicians believed surgeon experience and colorectal specialization were directly related to positive outcomes in rectal cancer resections. Most GSs performed resections on patients they diagnosed and typically only referred patients to colorectal surgeons (CRS) in complex cases. Conversely, GIs generally referred to CRS in all cases. Adhering to existing referral patterns due to the pressure of health care networks was a salient theme for both GIs and GSs.

CONCLUSIONS

While respondents believe that high volume/specialization is related to improved surgical outcomes, referral recommendations are heavily influenced by existing referral networks. Referral practices also differ by diagnosing specialty and suggest rural patients may be less likely to be referred to a CRS because more GSs perform colonoscopies in rural areas and tend to keep patients for resection. System-level interventions that target referral networks may improve rectal cancer outcomes at the population level.

Characteristics of Patients Seeking Second Opinions at a Multidisciplinary Colorectal Cancer Clinic

BACKGROUND

Patients seeking second opinions are a challenge for the colorectal cancer provider because of complexity, failed therapeutic relationship with another provider, need for reassurance, and desire for exploration of treatment options.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to describe the patient and treatment characteristics of patients seeking initial and second opinions in colorectal cancer care at a multidisciplinary colorectal cancer clinic.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study.

SETTINGS

A prospectively collected clinical registry of a multidisciplinary colorectal cancer clinic was included.

PATIENTS

The study included patients with colon or rectal cancer seen from 2012 to 2017.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Data were analyzed for initial versus second opinion and demographic and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

Of 1711 patients with colorectal cancer, 1008 (58.9%) sought an initial opinion and 700 (40.9%) sought a second opinion. As compared with initial-opinion patients, second-opinion patients were more likely to have stage IV disease (OR = 1.94 (95% CI, 1.47-2.58)), recurrent disease (OR = 1.67 (95% CI, 1.13-2.46)), and be ages 40 to 49 years (OR = 1.47 (95% CI, 1.02-2.12)). Initial- and second-opinion cohorts were similar in terms of sex, race, and proportion of colon versus rectal cancer. Among second-opinion patients, 246 (35%) transitioned their care to the multidisciplinary colorectal cancer clinic.

LIMITATIONS

We were unable to capture the final treatment plan for those patients who did not transfer care to the multidisciplinary colorectal cancer clinic.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients seeking a second opinion represent a unique subset of patients with colorectal cancer. In general, they are younger and more likely to have stage IV or recurrent disease than patients seeking an initial opinion. Although transfer of care to a multidisciplinary colorectal cancer clinic after second opinion is lower than for initial consultations, multidisciplinary colorectal cancer clinics provide an important role for patients with complex disease characteristics and treatment needs. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B192. CARACTERíSTICAS DE LOS PACIENTES QUE BUSCAN UNA SEGUNDA OPINIóN EN CLíNICAS MULTIDISCIPLINARIAS ESPECIALIZADAS EN CáNCER COLORECTAL: Los pacientes que buscan una segunda opinión son un desafío para el médico que trata el cáncer colorrectal debido a la complejidad de la situación, a la relación terapéutica fallida con otro especialista, a la necesidad de tranquilidad y el deseo de explorar otras opciones del tratamiento.El describir las características y el tratamiento de los pacientes que buscan opiniones iniciales y secundarias en la atención del cáncer colorrectal en una clínica especializada de manera multidisciplinaria en cáncer colorrectal.Este es un estudio de cohortes retrospectivo.Registro clínico de casos obtenidos prospectivamente en una clínica especializada de manera multidisciplinaria en cáncer colorrectal.Todos aquellos pacientes con cáncer de colon o recto examinados entre 2012-2017.Se analizaron los datos obtenidos en la opinión inicial y se compararon con la segunda opinión, se revisaron tanto sus características demográficas como clínicas.De 1711 pacientes con cáncer colorrectal, 1008 (58.9%) buscaron una opinión inicial, 700 (40.9%) buscaron una segunda opinión. En comparación con los pacientes de opinión inicial, los pacientes de segunda opinión presentaron más probabilidades de tener enfermedad en estadio IV (OR 1.94, IC 95% 1.47-2.58), enfermedad recurrente (OR 1.67, IC 95% 1.13-2.46) y tener edades entre 40 y 49 (O 1.47, IC 95% 1.02-2.12). Las cohortes iniciales y de segunda opinión fueron similares en términos de género, raza y proporción del cáncer de colon versus cáncer de recto. Entre los pacientes de segunda opinión, 246 (35%) transfirieron su tratamiento hacia una clínica multidisplinaria especializada en cáncer colorrectal.No se obtuvieron los planes del tratamiento final de aquellos pacientes que no transfirieron sus cuidados hacia una la clínica especializada en cáncer colorrectal.Los pacientes que buscan una segunda opinión representan un subconjunto único de personas con cáncer colorrectal. En general, son más jóvenes y tienen más probabilidades de tener enfermedad en estadio IV o recurrente, con relación a aquellos pacientes que buscan una opinión inicial. Aunque la transferencia de los cuidados hacia una clínica multidisciplinaria especializada en cáncer colorrectal después de una segunda opinión es menor que para las consultas iniciales. Las clínicas multidisciplinarias especializadas en cáncer colorrectal juegan un papel importante con los pacientes que tienen características complejas de enfermedad y necesidades particulares en el tratamiento. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B192. (Traducción-Dr Xavier Delgadillo).

Quality Assurance, Metrics, and Improving Standards in Rectal Cancer Surgery in the United States

Rectal cancer surgery has seen significant improvement in recent years. This has been possible in part due to focus on surgeon education and training, specific surgical quality metrics, and longitudinal tracking of data through the use of registries. In countries that have implemented such efforts, data has shown significant improvement in outcomes. However, there continues to be significant variation in rectal cancer outcomes and practices worldwide. Just within the United States, county level mortality rates from rectal cancer range from 8-15 per 100,000 to 38-59 per 100,000. In order to continue to improve rectal cancer patient outcomes, there needs to be evidence based guidelines and standards centered around the framework of structure, process, and outcomes. In addition, there must be a feedback system by which programs can continually assess their performance. Obtaining evidence for specific standards and measures can be challenging and requires analyzing available data and literature, some of which may be conflicting. This article evaluates the evolution of metrics and standards used for quality improvement in rectal cancer and ongoing efforts to further improve patient outcomes.