The association of hospital volume with rectal cancer surgery outcomes

Is centralization for rectal cancer surgery necessary?

Rectal cancer surgery is complex and more technically challenging than colonic surgery. Over the last 30 years internationally, there has been a growing impetus for centralizing care to improve outcomes for rectal cancer. Centralizing care may potentially reduce variations of care, increase standardization and compliance with clinical practice guidelines. However, there are barriers to implementation at a professional, political, governance and resource allocation level. Centralization may increase inequalities to accessing healthcare, particularly impacting socioeconomically disadvantaged and rural populations with difficulties to commuting longer distances to "centres of excellence". Furthermore, it is unclear if centralization actually improves outcomes. Recent studies demonstrate that individual surgeon volume rather than hospital volume may be more important in achieving optimal outcomes. In this review, we examine the literature to assess the value of centralization for rectal cancer surgery.

Perspectives on Referring for Rectal Cancer Surgery: a Survey Study of Gastroenterologist and General Surgeons in Iowa

PURPOSE

To understand referral practices for rectal cancer surgical care and to secondarily determine differences in referral practices by two main hypothesized drivers of referral: the rurality of the community endoscopists' practice and their affiliation with a colorectal surgeon.

METHODS

Community gastroenterologists and general surgeons in Iowa completed a mailed questionnaire on practice demographics, volume, and referral practices for rectal cancer patients. Rurality was operationalized with RUCA codes.

RESULTS

Twenty-two of 53 gastroenterologists (42%) and 120 of 188 general surgeons (64%) (total 144/241, 60%) in Iowa responded. Most performed colonoscopies, including 22 gastroenterologists (100%) and 96 general surgeons (80%). Regular referral of rectal cancer patients to colorectal surgeons was reported for 57% of urban physicians affiliated with a colorectal surgeon, 33% of urban physicians not affiliated with a colorectal surgeon, and 57% and 72% of physicians in large and small rural areas, respectively, who were not affiliated with a colorectal surgeon. High surgeon volume, high hospital volume, and colorectal surgeon specialty were important factors in the referral decisions for over half the physicians. 69% of diagnosing urban general surgeons reported performing rectal cancer surgery about half the time or more, while 85% of small rural and 60% of large rural diagnosing general surgeons reported never or rarely performing rectal cancer surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnosing physicians have variable rectal cancer referral practices, including consistency in referred to surgeon and prioritization of volume and specialization. Prioritizing specialized or high-volume rectal cancer surgical care would require changing existing referring patterns.

The value of national accreditation program for rectal cancer: A survey of accredited programs and programs seeking accreditation

BACKGROUND

Significant variation in rectal cancer care has been demonstrated in the United States. The National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer was established in 2017 to improve the quality of rectal cancer care through standardization and emphasis on a multidisciplinary approach. The aim of this study was to understand the perceived value and barriers to achieving the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer accreditation.

METHODS

An electronic survey was developed, piloted, and distributed to rectal cancer programs that had already achieved or were interested in pursuing the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer accreditation. The survey contained 40 questions with a combination of Likert scale, multiple choice, and open-ended questions to provide comments. This was a mixed methods study; descriptive statistics were used to analyze the quantitative data, and thematic analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data.

RESULTS

A total of 85 rectal cancer programs were sent the survey (22 accredited, 63 interested). Responses were received from 14 accredited programs and 41 interested programs. Most respondents were program directors (31%) and program coordinators (40%). The highest-ranked responses regarding the value of the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer accreditation included "improved quality and culture of rectal cancer care," "enhanced program organization and coordination," and "challenges our program to provide optimal, high-quality care." The most frequently cited barriers to the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer accreditation were cost and lack of personnel.

CONCLUSION

Our survey found significant perceived value in the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer accreditation. Adhering to standards and a multidisciplinary approach to rectal cancer care are critical components of a high-quality care rectal cancer program.

Update on The National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer (NAPRC): the radiologist's role

The National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer (NAPRC) was established by the American College of Surgeons with the goal of standardizing care of rectal cancer patients in order to improve outcomes. NAPRC accreditation requires compliance with an established set of standards, many of which are directly related to radiology participation in multidisciplinary conference, rectal MR image acquisition, interpretation and reporting, and radiologist education. This paper outlines the pertinent standards/requirements for radiologists as part of the Rectal Cancer Multidisciplinary Team in the NAPRC guidelines, with proposed methods and tips for implementation of these standards from the perspective of the radiologist.

How Far Is Too Far? Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Regionalized Rectal Cancer Surgery

BACKGROUND

Regionalized rectal cancer surgery may decrease postoperative and long-term cancer-related mortality. However, the regionalization of care may be an undue burden on patients.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of regionalized rectal cancer surgery.

DESIGN

Tree-based decision analysis.

PATIENTS

Patients with stage II/III rectal cancer anatomically suitable for low anterior resection were included.

SETTING

Rectal cancer surgery performed at a high-volume regional center rather than the closest hospital available.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental costs ($) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life year) reflected a societal perspective and were time-discounted at 3%. Costs and benefits were combined to produce the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ($ per quality-adjusted life year). Multivariable probabilistic sensitivity analysis modeled uncertainty in probabilities, costs, and effectiveness.

RESULTS

Regionalized surgery economically dominated local surgery. Regionalized rectal cancer surgery was both less expensive on average ($50,406 versus $65,430 in present-day costs) and produced better long-term outcomes (10.36 versus 9.51 quality-adjusted life years). The total costs and inconvenience of traveling to a regional high-volume center would need to exceed $15,024 per patient to achieve economic breakeven alone or $112,476 per patient to satisfy conventional cost-effectiveness standards. These results were robust on sensitivity analysis and maintained in 94.6% of scenario testing.

LIMITATIONS

Decision analysis models are limited to policy level rather than individualized decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

Regionalized rectal cancer surgery improves clinical outcomes and reduces total societal costs compared to local surgical care. Prescriptive measures and patient inducements may be needed to expand the role of regionalized surgery for rectal cancer. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C83 .

QU TAN LEJOS ES DEMASIADO LEJOS ANLISIS DE COSTOEFECTIVIDAD DE LA CIRUGA DE CNCER DE RECTO REGIONALIZADO

ANTECEDENTES:La cirugía de cáncer de recto regionalizado puede disminuir la mortalidad posoperatoria y a largo plazo relacionada con el cáncer. Sin embargo, la regionalización de la atención puede ser una carga indebida para los pacientes.OBJETIVO:Evaluar la rentabilidad de la cirugía oncológica de recto regionalizada.DISEÑO:Análisis de decisiones basado en árboles.PACIENTES:Pacientes con cáncer de recto en estadio II/III anatómicamente aptos para resección anterior baja.AJUSTE:Cirugía de cáncer rectal realizada en un centro regional de alto volumen en lugar del hospital más cercano disponible.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los costos incrementales ($) y la efectividad (años de vida ajustados por calidad) reflejaron una perspectiva social y se descontaron en el tiempo al 3%. Los costos y los beneficios se combinaron para producir la relación costo-efectividad incremental ($ por año de vida ajustado por calidad). El análisis de sensibilidad probabilístico multivariable modeló la incertidumbre en las probabilidades, los costos y la efectividad.RESULTADOS:La cirugía regionalizada predominó económicamente la cirugía local. La cirugía de cáncer de recto regionalizado fue menos costosa en promedio ($50 406 versus $65 430 en costos actuales) y produjo mejores resultados a largo plazo (10,36 versus 9,51 años de vida ajustados por calidad). Los costos totales y la inconveniencia de viajar a un centro regional de alto volumen necesitarían superar los $15,024 por paciente para alcanzar el punto de equilibrio económico o $112,476 por paciente para satisfacer los estándares convencionales de rentabilidad. Estos resultados fueron sólidos en el análisis de sensibilidad y se mantuvieron en el 94,6% de las pruebas de escenarios.LIMITACIONES:Los modelos de análisis de decisiones se limitan al nivel de políticas en lugar de la toma de decisiones individualizada.CONCLUSIONES:La cirugía de cáncer de recto regionalizada mejora los resultados clínicos y reduce los costos sociales totales en comparación con la atención quirúrgica local. Es posible que se necesiten medidas prescriptivas e incentivos para los pacientes a fin de ampliar el papel de la cirugía regionalizada para el cáncer de recto. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C83 . (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon ).

Referrals and Decision-Making Considerations Involved in Selecting a Surgeon for Rectal Cancer Treatment in the Midwestern United States

BACKGROUND

Despite evidence of superior outcomes for rectal cancer at high-volume, multidisciplinary cancer centers, many patients undergo surgery in low-volume hospitals.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine considerations of former patients with rectal cancer when selecting their surgeon and to evaluate which considerations were associated with surgery at high-volume hospitals.

DESIGN

In this retrospective cohort study, patients were surveyed about what they considered when selecting a cancer surgeon.

SETTINGS

Study data were obtained via survey and the statewide Iowa Cancer Registry.

PATIENTS

All eligible individuals diagnosed with invasive stages II/III rectal cancer from 2013 to 2017 identified through the registry were invited to participate.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes were the characteristics of the hospital where they received surgery (ie, National Cancer Institute designation, Commission on Cancer accreditation, and rectal cancer surgery volume).

RESULTS

Among respondents, 318 of 417 (76%) completed surveys. Sixty-nine percent of patients selected their surgeon based on their physician's referral/recommendation, 20% based on surgeon/hospital reputation, and 11% based on personal connections to the surgeon. Participants who chose their surgeon based on reputation had significantly higher odds of surgery at National Cancer Institute-designated (OR 7.5; 95% CI, 3.8-15.0) or high-volume (OR 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2-5.7) hospitals than those who relied on referral.

LIMITATIONS

This study took place in a Midwestern state with a predominantly white population, which limited our ability to evaluate racial/ethnic associations.

CONCLUSION

Most patients with rectal cancer relied on referrals in selecting their surgeon, and those who did were less likely to receive surgery at a National Cancer Institute-designated or high-volume hospitals compared to those who considered reputation. Future research is needed to determine the impact of these decision factors on clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and quality of life. In addition, patients should be aware that relying on physician referral may not result in treatment from the most experienced or comprehensive care setting in their area. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B897.REMISIONES Y CONSIDERACIONES PARA LA TOMA DE DECISIONES RELACIONADAS CON LA SELECCIÓN DE UN CIRUJANO PARA EL TRATAMIENTO DEL CÁNCER DE RECTO EN EL MEDIO OESTE DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOSANTECEDENTES:A pesar de la evidencia de resultados superiores para el tratamiento del cáncer de recto en centros oncológicos de gran volumen y multidisciplinarios, muchos pacientes se someten a cirugía en hospitales de bajo volumen.OBJETIVOS:Examinar las consideraciones de los antiguos pacientes con cáncer de recto al momento de seleccionar a su cirujano y evaluar qué consideraciones se asociaron con la cirugía en hospitales de gran volumen.DISEÑO:Encuestamos a los pacientes sobre qué aspectos consideraron al elegir un cirujano oncológico para completar este estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.AJUSTE:Los datos del estudio se obtuvieron mediante una encuesta y el Registro de Cáncer del estado de Iowa.PACIENTES:Se invitó a participar a todas las personas elegibles diagnosticadas con cáncer de recto invasivo en estadios II/III entre 2013 y 2017 identificadas a través del registro.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los resultados principales fueron las características del hospital donde fue realizada la cirugía (es decir, designación del Instituto Nacional del Cáncer, acreditación de la Comisión de Cáncer y volumen de cirugía del cáncer de recto).RESULTADOS:Hubo 318 de 417 (76%) encuestas completadas. El sesenta y nueve por ciento seleccionó a su cirujano en función de la referencia / recomendación de su médico, el 20% por la reputación del cirujano/hospital, y el 11% por sus conexiones personales con el cirujano. Los participantes que eligieron a su cirujano en función a la reputación tuvieron probabilidades significativamente más altas de cirugía en el Instituto Nacional del Cáncer designado (OR = 7,5, IC del 95%: 3,8-15,0) o en hospitales de alto volumen (OR = 2,6, IC del 95%: 1,2-5,7) que aquellos que dependían de la derivación.LIMITACIONES:Este estudio se llevó a cabo en un estado del medio oeste con una población predominantemente blanca, lo que limitó nuestra capacidad para evaluar las asociaciones raciales/étnicas.CONCLUSIONES:La mayoría de los pacientes con cáncer de recto dependían de las derivaciones para seleccionar a su cirujano, y los que lo hacían tenían menos probabilidades de recibir cirugía en un hospital designado por el Instituto Nacional del Cáncer o en hospitales de gran volumen en comparación con los que consideraban la reputación. Se necesitan investigaciones a futuro para determinar el impacto de estos factores de decisión en los resultados clínicos, la satisfacción del paciente y la calidad de vida. Además, los pacientes deben ser conscientes de que depender de la remisión de un médico puede no resultar en el tratamiento más experimentado o integral en su área. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B897. (Traducción-Dr Osvaldo Gauto).

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.

What's the magic number? Impact of time to initiation of treatment for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

National guidelines, including the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer, recommend initiation of rectal cancer treatment within 60 days of diagnosis; however, the effect of timely treatment initiation on oncologic outcomes is unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact on oncologic outcomes of initiation of rectal cancer treatment within 60 days of diagnosis.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of stage II/III rectal cancer patients performed using the United States Rectal Cancer Consortium, a collaboration of 6 academic medical centers. Patients with clinical stage II/III rectal cancer who underwent radical resection between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2018 were included. The primary exposure was treatment initiation, defined as either resection or initiation of chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, within 60 days of diagnosis. The primary outcome was disease recurrence, and the secondary outcome was all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 1,031 patients meeting inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. Treatment was initiated within 60 days of diagnosis in 830 patients (80.5%) and after 60 days in 201 patients (20.3%). In multivariable logistic regression, older age, non-White race, and residence greater than 100 miles from the treatment center were significantly associated with delay in treatment beyond 60 days. In survival analysis, 167 patients (16.2%) experienced recurrent disease, and 127 patients (12.3%) died of any cause. In an adjusted model accounting for pathologic staging, treatment sequence, distance to care, age, comorbidities, treatment center, and receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, neither progression-free survival nor all-cause mortality was significantly associated with timely initiation of therapy with hazard ratios of 1.09 (0.70, 1.69) and 1.03 (0.63, 1.66), respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study found no difference in oncologic outcomes with initiation of treatment beyond 60 days.

Center-Level Procedure Volume Does Not Predict Failure-to-Rescue After Severe Complications of Oncologic Colon and Rectal Surgery

Background

The relationship between hospital surgical volume and outcome after colorectal cancer surgery has thoroughly been studied. However, few studies have assessed hospital surgical volume and failure-to-rescue (FTR) after colon and rectal cancer surgery. The aim of the current study is to evaluate FTR following colorectal cancer surgery between clinics based on procedure volume.

Methods

Patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery in Sweden from January 2015 to January 2020 were recruited through the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry. The primary endpoint was FTR, defined as the proportion of patients with 30-day mortality after severe postoperative complications in colorectal cancer surgery. Severe postoperative complications were defined as Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3. FTR incidence rate ratios (IRR) were calculated comparing center volume stratified in low-volume (≤ 200 cases/year) and high-volume centers (> 200 cases/year), as well as with an alternative stratification comparing low-volume (< 50 cases/year), medium-volume (50–150 cases/year) and high-volume centers (> 150 cases/year).

Results

A total of 23,351 patients were included in this study, of whom 2964 suffered severe postoperative complication(s). Adjusted IRR showed no significant differences between high- and low-volume centers with an IRR of 0.97 (0.75–1.26, p = 0.844) in high-volume centers in the first stratification and an IRR of 2.06 (0.80–5.31, p = 0.134) for high-volume centers and 2.15 (0.83–5.56, p = 0.116) for medium-volume centers in the second stratification.

Conclusion

This nationwide retrospectively analyzed cohort study fails to demonstrate a significant association between hospital surgical volume and FTR after colorectal cancer surgery. Future studies should explore alternative characteristics and their correlation with FTR to identify possible interventions for the improvement of quality of care after colorectal cancer surgery.

Comparing outcomes for non-metastatic rectal cancer in academic vs. community centers: A propensity-matched analysis of the National Cancer Database

BACKGROUND

Little is known regarding the impact of hospital academic status on outcomes following rectal cancer surgery. We compare these outcomes for nonmetastatic rectal adenocarcinoma at academic versus community institutions.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database (2010-2016) was queried for patients with nonmetastatic rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent resection. Propensity score matching was performed across facility cohorts to balance confounding covariates. Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox-proportional hazards regression were used to analyze survival, other short and long-term outcomes were analyzed by way of logistic regression.

RESULTS

After matching, 15,096 patients were included per cohort. Academic centers were associated with significantly decreased odds of conversion and positive margins with significantly increased odds of ≥12 regional nodes examined. Academic programs also had decreased odds of 30 and 90-day mortality and decreased 5-year mortality hazard. After matching for facility volume, no significant differences in outcomes between centers was seen.

CONCLUSIONS

No difference between academic and community centers in outcomes following surgery for non-metastatic rectal cancer was seen after matching for facility procedural volume.

Volume-outcome relationship in rectal cancer surgery

INTRODUCTION

Hospital centralization effect is reported to lower complications and mortality for high risk and complex surgery operations, including colorectal surgery. However, no linear relation between volume and outcome has been demonstrated. Aim of the study was to evaluate the increased surgical volume effect on early outcomes of patient undergoing laparoscopic restorative anterior rectal resection (ARR).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all consecutive patients undergoing ARR with primary anastomosis between November 2016 and December 2020 after centralization of rectal cancer cases in an academic Centre. Short-term outcomes are compared to those of patients operated in the same unit during the previous 10 years before service centralization. The primary outcome was estimated anastomotic leak rate. Mean operative time, need of conversion, postoperative use of blood transfusion, radicality, in-hospital stay, number and type of complications, readmission and reoperation rate, mortality and 1-year and stoma persistence rates were evaluated as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

86 patients were operated in the study period and outcomes compared to those of 101 patients operated during the previous ten years. Difference in volume of surgery was significant between the two periods (p 0.019) and the estimated leak rate was significantly lower in the higher volume unit (p 0.047). Mean operative time, need of conversion, postoperative use of blood transfusion and in-hospital stay (p < 0.05) were also significantly reduced in Group A.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that the shift toward higher volume in rectal cancer surgery is associated to decreased anastomotic leak rate. Potentiation of lower volume surgical units may yield optimal perioperative outcomes.

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.

The volume-outcome relationship in robotic protectectomy: does center volume matter? Results of a national cohort study

BACKGROUND

Utilization of robotic proctectomy (RP) for rectal cancer has steadily increased since the inception of robotic surgery in 2002. Randomized control trials evaluating the safety of RP are in process to better understand the role of robotic assistance in proctectomy. This study aimed to characterize the trends in the use of RP for rectal cancer, and to compare oncologic outcomes with center-level RP volume.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

8107 patients with rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent RP were identified in the National Cancer Database (2010-2015). Logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between center-level volume and conversion to open proctectomy, margin status, lymph node yield, 30- and 90-day post-operative mortality, and overall survival.

RESULTS

The utilization of RP increased from 2010 to 2015. On multivariate regression, lower center-level volume of RP was associated with significantly higher rates of conversion to open, positive margins, inadequate lymph node harvest (≥ 12), and lower overall survival. The present study was limited by its retrospective design and lack of information regarding disease-specific survival.

CONCLUSIONS

This series suggests a volume-outcome relationship association; patients who have robot-assisted proctectomies performed at low-volume centers are more likely to have poorer overall survival, positive margins, inadequate lymph node harvest, and require conversion to open surgery. While these data demonstrate the increased adoption of robot-assisted proctectomy, an understanding of the appropriateness of this intervention is still lacking. As with any new intervention, further information from ongoing randomized controlled trials is needed to better clarify the role of RP in order to optimize patient outcomes.

Improving Rectal Cancer Outcomes with the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer

Background  The treatment of rectal cancer has undergone dramatic changes over the past 50 years. It has evolved from a rather morbid disease usually requiring a permanent stoma, almost exclusively managed by surgeons, to one that involves experts across numerous disciplines to provide the best care for the patient. With significant improvements in surgical techniques, the use of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, advanced imaging, and standardization of pathological assessment, the perioperative morbidity and permanent colostomy rates have significantly decreased. We have seen improvements in the quality of the specimen and rates of recurrence as well as disease-free survival. Rectal cancer, as demonstrated in European trials, has now been recognized as a disease best managed by a multidisciplinary team. Objective  The aim of this article is to evaluate the main body of literature leading to the advances made possible by the new American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer. Results  Following the launch of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer, we expect dramatic increases in membership and accreditation, with associated improvement in center performance and, ultimately, in patient outcomes. Limitations  The National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer began in 2017. To date, the only data that have been analyzed are from the preintervention phase. Conclusions  Based on the results of studies within the United States and on the successes demonstrated in Europe, it remains our hope and expectation that the management of rectal cancer in the United States will rapidly improve.

Academic Affiliation and Surgical Volume Predict Survival in Head and Neck Cancer Patients Receiving Surgery

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the academic affiliation or surgical volume affects the overall survival (OS) of human papillomavirus (HPV)-negative head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients receiving surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective study of 39 North Carolina Medical Centers was conducted. Treatment centers were classified as academic hospitals, community cancer centers, or community hospitals and were divided into thirds by volume. The primary outcome was 5-year OS. Hazard ratios (HR) were determined using Cox proportional hazard models, adjusting for demographics, tumor site, stage, insurance status, tobacco use, alcohol use, stage, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy. Patients were also stratified by stage (early stage and advanced stage).

RESULTS

Patients treated at community cancer centers had significantly better 5-year OS (HR 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.48-0.98), and patients treated at academic hospitals trended toward better 5-year OS (HR 0.72, 95% CI = 0.50-1.04) compared to patients treated at community hospitals. The effect for academic affiliation on survival was more pronounced for patients with advanced stage cancer at diagnosis (HR 0.60, 95% CI = 0.37-0.95). There were no significant survival differences among early stage patients by treatment center type. Top-third (HR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.42-0.96) centers by surgical volume had significantly better 5-year OS, and middle-third (HR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.51-1.03) centers by volume trended toward better 5-year OS when compared to the bottom-third centers by volume.

CONCLUSION

Patients treated at academic hospitals, community cancer centers, and hospitals in the top third by case volume have favorable survival for HPV-negative HNSCC. The effect for academic hospitals is most pronounced among advanced stage patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 Laryngoscope, 131:E479-E488, 2021.

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.

Compliance With Preoperative Elements of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Rectal Cancer Surgery Checklist Improves Pathologic and Postoperative Outcomes

BACKGROUND

In 2016, the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons published a rectal cancer surgery checklist composed of the essential elements of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative care for patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess whether compliance with preoperative checklist elements was associated with improved pathologic and 30-day postoperative outcomes after rectal cancer surgery.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study.

SETTINGS

The study involved North American hospitals contributing to the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program.

PATIENTS

Adult patients who underwent elective rectal cancer surgery from 2016 to 2017 were included.

INTERVENTION

The study encompassed checklist compliance with 6 preoperative elements from the checklist.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pathologic outcomes (circumferential resection margin status, distal resection margin status, and adequate lymph node harvest ≥12), 30-day surgical morbidity, and length of stay were measured.

RESULTS

In total, 2217 patients were included in the analysis. Individual compliance with the 6 available preoperative checklist items was variable, including 91.3% for pretreatment documentation of tumor location within the rectum, 86.8% for complete colonoscopy, 84.0% for appropriate preoperative stoma marking, 79.8% for appropriate use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy, 76.6% for locoregional staging, and 70.8% for distant staging. Only 836 patients (37.7%) had all 6 checklist elements complete, whereas 1381 (62.3%) did not. Compared with patients without checklist compliance, patients with checklist compliance were younger (60.0 vs 63.0 y; p < 0.001) but otherwise had similar demographic characteristics. On multivariate regression, checklist compliance was associated with lower odds of circumferential resection margin positivity (OR = 0.47 (95% CI, 0.31-0.71); p < 0.001), higher odds of an adequate lymph node harvest ≥12 (OR = 1.60 (95% CI, 1.29-2.00); p < 0.001), reduced surgical morbidity (OR = 0.78 (95% CI, 0.65-0.95); p = 0.01), and shorter length of stay (β = -0.87 (95% CI, -1.51 to -0.24); p = 0.007). The association between checklist compliance and reduced odds of circumferential resection margin positivity remained on sensitivity analysis (OR = 0.61 (95% CI, 0.42-0.88); p = 0.009) when adjusting for neoadjuvant radiation.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its absence of long-term oncologic data and missing variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Compliance with 6 preoperative elements of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons rectal cancer surgery checklist was associated with significantly improved pathologic outcomes and reduced postoperative morbidity. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B80. EL CUMPLIMIENTO CON LOS ELEMENTOS PREOPERATORIOS DE LA LISTA DE VERIFICACIÓN DE CIRUGÍA PARA CÁNCER RECTAL DE LA SOCIEDAD AMERICANA DE CIRUJANOS DE COLON Y RECTO MEJORA LOS RESULTADOS HISTOPATOLÓGICOS Y POSTOPERATORIOS: En 2016, la Sociedad Americana de Cirujanos de Colon y Recto publicó una lista de verificación de cirugía de cáncer de recto que comprende los elementos esenciales de la atención pre, intra y postoperatoria para pacientes sometidos a cirugía de cáncer de recto.Evaluar si el cumplimiento con los elementos preoperatorios de la lista de verificación se asoció con mejores resultados histopatológicos y postoperatorios a 30 días después de la cirugía de cáncer rectal.Estudio de cohorte retrospectiva.Hospitales norteamericanos que contribuyen al Programa Nacional de Mejora de la Calidad Quirúrgica del Colegio Americano de Cirujanos.Pacientes adultos que se sometieron a cirugía electiva de cáncer rectal entre 2016 y 2017.Cumplimiento de la lista de verificación con seis elementos preoperatorios de la lista de verificación.Resultados histopatológicos (estado del margen de resección circunferencial, estado del margen de resección distal, cosecha adecuada de ganglios linfáticos ≥12), morbilidad quirúrgica a 30 días y duración de la estadía.En total, 2,217 pacientes fueron incluidos en el análisis. El cumplimiento individual de los seis ítems disponibles de la lista de verificación preoperatoria fue variable: 91.3% para la documentación previa al tratamiento de la localización del tumor dentro del recto, 86.8% para colonoscopía completa, 84.0% para el marcado preoperatorio apropiado del sitio de estoma, 79.8% para el uso apropiado de radioterapia neoadyuvante, 76.6 % para estadificación locorregional y 70.8% para estadificación distante. Solo 836 (37.7%) pacientes tenían los seis elementos de la lista de verificación completos, mientras que 1,381 (62.3%) no. En comparación con los pacientes sin cumplimiento de la lista de verificación, los pacientes con cumplimiento de la lista de verificación eran más jóvenes (60.0 vs. 63.0 años, p <0.001), pero por lo demás tenían características demográficas similares. En la regresión multivariada, el cumplimiento de la lista de verificación se asoció con menores probabilidades de positividad en el margen de resección circunferencial (OR = 0.47; IC del 95%: 0.31-0.71, p <0.001), mayores probabilidades de una cosecha adecuada de ganglios linfáticos ≥12 (OR = 1.60, IC 95% 1.29-2.00, p <0.001), menor morbilidad quirúrgica (OR = 0.78, IC 95% 0.65-0.95, p = 0.01) y menor duración de estadía (β = -0.87, IC 95% -1.51 - - 0.24, p = 0.007). La asociación entre el cumplimiento de la lista de verificación y las probabilidades reducidas de positividad del margen de resección circunferencial se mantuvo en el análisis de sensibilidad (OR = 0.61; IC del 95%: 0.42-0.88, p = 0.009) al ser ajustado con radiación neoadyuvante.Ausencia de datos oncológicos a largo plazo y variables faltantes.El cumplimiento de seis elementos preoperatorios de la lista de verificación de cirugía de cáncer rectal de la Sociedad Americana de Cirujanos de Colon y Recto se asoció con resultados histopatológicos significativamente mejores y una menor morbilidad postoperatoria. Vea el resumen en video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B80.

State-wide outcomes in elective rectal cancer resection: is there a case for centralization in Victoria?

BACKGROUND

The role of service centralization in rectal cancer surgery is controversial. Recent studies suggest centralization to high-volume centres may improve postoperative mortality. We used a state-wide administrative data set to determine the inpatient mortality for patients undergoing elective rectal cancer surgery and to compare individual hospital volumes.

METHODS

The Victorian Admitted Episodes Dataset was explored using the Dr Foster Quality Investigator tool. The inpatient mortality rate, 30-day readmission rate and the proportion of patients with increased length of stay were measured for all elective admissions for rectal cancer resections between 2012 and 2016. A peer group of 14 hospitals were studied using funnel plots to determine inter-hospital variation in mortality. Procedure types were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

There were 2241 elective resections performed for rectal cancer in Victoria over 4 years. The crude inpatient mortality rate was 1.1%. There were no significant differences in mortality among 14 hospitals within the peer group. The number of elective resections over 4 years ranged from 14 to 136 (median 65) within these institutions. Ultralow anterior resection was the commonest procedure performed.

CONCLUSION

Inpatient mortality after elective rectal cancer surgery in Victoria is rare and compares favourably internationally. Based on inpatient mortality alone, there is no compelling evidence to further centralize elective rectal cancer surgery in Victoria. More work is needed to develop data sets with oncological information capable of providing accurate complete state-wide data which will be essential for future service planning, training and innovation.

Guideline-Recommended Chemoradiation for Patients With Rectal Cancer at Large Hospitals: A Trend in the Right Direction

BACKGROUND

Many patients with rectal cancer are treated at small, low-volume hospitals despite evidence that better outcomes are associated with larger, high-volume hospitals.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to examine trends of patients with rectal cancer who are receiving care at large hospitals, to determine the patient characteristics associated with treatment at large hospitals, and to assess the relationships between treatment at large hospitals and guideline-recommended therapy.

DESIGN

This study was a retrospective cohort analysis to assess trends in rectal cancer treatment.

SETTINGS

Data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Patterns of Care studies were used.

PATIENTS

The study population consisted of adults diagnosed with stages II/III rectal cancer in 1990/1991, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was treatment at large hospitals (≥500 beds). The receipt of guideline-recommended preoperative chemoradiation therapy and postoperative chemotherapy was assessed for patients diagnosed in 2005+.

RESULTS

Two thousand two hundred thirty-one patients were included. The proportion treated at large hospitals increased from 19% in 1990/1991 to 27% in 2015 (ptrend < 0.0001). Black race was associated with treatment at large hospitals (vs white) (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.30-2.31), as was being 55 to 64 years of age (vs 75+), and diagnosis in 2015 (vs 1990/1991). Treatment in large hospitals was associated with twice the odds of preoperative chemoradiation, as well as younger age and diagnosis in 2010 or 2015 (vs 2005).

LIMITATIONS

The study did not account for the change in the number of large hospitals over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that patients with rectal cancer are increasingly being treated in large hospitals where they receive more guideline-recommended therapy. Although this trend is promising, patients receiving care at larger, higher-volume facilities are still the minority. Initiatives increasing patient and provider awareness of benefits of specialized care, as well as increasing referrals to large centers may improve the use of recommended treatment and ultimately improve outcomes. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A994. QUIMIORRADIACIÓN RECOMENDADA EN GUÍAS PARA PACIENTES CON CÁNCER RECTAL EN HOSPITALES DE GRAN TAMAÑO: UNA TENDENCIA EN LA DIRECCIÓN CORRECTA: Muchos pacientes con cáncer rectal se tratan en hospitales pequeños y de bajo volumen a pesar de evidencia de que los mejores resultados se asocian con hospitales más grandes y de gran volumen.

OBJETIVOS

Examinar las tendencias en los pacientes con cáncer rectal que reciben atención en hospitales de gran tamaño, determinar las características de los pacientes asociadas con el tratamiento en hospitales grandes y evaluar la relación entre el tratamiento en hospitales grandes y la terapia recomendada en guías. DISEÑO:: Este estudio fue un análisis de cohorte retrospectivo para evaluar las tendencias en el tratamiento del cáncer de recto.

ESCENARIO

Se utilizaron datos de los estudios del programa Patrones de Atención, Vigilancia, Epidemiología y Resultados Finales (SEER) del Instituto Nacional de Cáncer (NIH).

PACIENTES

La población de estudio consistió en adultos diagnosticados con cáncer rectal en estadio II / III en 1990/1991, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 y 2015.

PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO

El resultado primario fue el tratamiento en hospitales grandes (≥500 camas). La recepción de quimiorradiación preoperatoria recomendada según las guías y la quimioterapia posoperatoria se evaluaron para los pacientes diagnosticados en 2005 y posteriormente.

RESULTADOS

Se incluyeron 2,231 pacientes. La proporción tratada en los hospitales grandes aumentó del 19% en 1990/1991 al 27% en 2015 (ptrend < 0.0001). La raza afroamericana se asoció con el tratamiento en hospitales grandes (vs. blanca) (OR, 1.73; IC 95%, 1.30-2.31), al igual que 55-64 años de edad (vs ≥75) y diagnóstico en 2015 (vs 1990/1991). El tratamiento en los hospitales grandes se asoció con el doble de probabilidad de quimiorradiación preoperatoria, así como con una edad más temprana y diagnóstico en 2010 o 2015 (vs 2005).

LIMITACIONES

El estudio no tomó en cuenta el cambio en el número de hospitales grandes a lo largo del tiempo.

CONCLUSIONES

Los resultados sugieren que los pacientes con cáncer rectal reciben cada vez más tratamiento en hospitales grandes donde reciben terapia recomendada por las guías mas frecuentemente. Aunque esta tendencia es prometedora, los pacientes que reciben atención en hospitales más grandes y de mayor volumen siguen siendo una minoría. Las iniciativas que aumenten la concientización del paciente y del proveedor de servicios médicos sobre los beneficios de la atención especializada, así como el aumento de las referencias a centros grandes podrían mejorar el uso del tratamiento recomendado y, en última instancia, mejorar los resultados. Vea el Resumen en video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/A994.

Health Care Policy and Outcomes after Colon and Rectal Surgery: What Is the Bigger Picture?-Cost Containment, Incentivizing Value, Transparency, and Centers of Excellence

Early in the 21st century, the costs of health care in the United States have spiraled out of control, where the per capita spending is $9,237 per person-the highest in the world. By 2020, an estimated 20% of GDP will be spent on health care. The issue of cost and quality is now becoming a national crisis, with ∼50% of hospitals losing money on clinical operations, forcing closure of essential critical access hospitals, and forcing health care workers to relocate or change professions. This crisis will only worsen with the graying of America, as an estimated 17% of Americans will be over the age of 65 years by the year 2020. The policy and financial structures on which these changes are based are important factors of which practicing surgeons should be aware. This review discusses recent national health care policy reform and specific topics including cost-containment legislation, value-based incentives and penalties, transparency, and centers of excellence in colorectal surgery.

Association Between Hospital and Surgeon Volume and Rectal Cancer Surgery Outcomes in Patients With Rectal Cancer Treated Since 2000: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous reviews and meta-analyses, which predominantly focused on patients treated before 2000, have reported conflicting evidence about the association between hospital/surgeon volume and rectal cancer outcomes. Given advances in rectal cancer resection, such as total mesorectal excision, it is essential to determine whether volume plays a role in rectal cancer outcomes among patients treated since 2000.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is an association between hospital/surgeon volume and rectal cancer surgery outcomes among patients treated since 2000.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed and EMBASE for articles published between January 2000 and December 29, 2017.

STUDY SELECTION

Articles that analyzed the association between hospital/surgeon volume and rectal cancer outcomes were selected.

INTERVENTION

Rectal cancer resection was the study intervention.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The outcome measures of this study were surgical morbidity, postoperative mortality, surgical margin positivity, permanent colostomy rates, recurrence, and overall survival.

RESULTS

Although 2845 articles were retrieved and assessed by the search strategy, 21 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. There was a significant protective association between higher hospital volume and surgical morbidity (OR = 0.80 (95% CI, 0.70-0.93); I = 35%), permanent colostomy (OR = 0.51 (95% CI, 0.29-0.92); I = 34%), and postoperative mortality (OR = 0.62 (95% CI, 0.43-0.88); I = 34%), and overall survival (OR = 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-1.00); I = 3%). Stratified analysis showed that the magnitude of association between hospital volume and rectal cancer surgery outcomes was stronger in the United States compared with other countries. Surgeon volume was not significantly associated with overall survival. The articles included in this analysis were high quality according to the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Funnel plots suggested that the potential for publication bias was low.

LIMITATIONS

Some articles included rectosigmoid cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients diagnosed since 2000, higher hospital volume has had a significant protective effect on rectal cancer surgery outcomes.

Endoscopic ultrasound for rectal cancer staging: A population-based study of utilization, impact on treatment patterns, and survival

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Optimal rectal cancer (RC) outcomes depend on accurate locoregional staging. The study sought to describe the impact of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) on RC treatment patterns and survival.

METHODS

Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database, the study identified patients with RC between 2005 and 2007. The study excluded patients with stage IV disease, those not enrolled in Medicare parts A and B, those enrolled in managed care, and those staged with pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (because of low numbers). The study then compared outcomes between patients who received EUS and computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis (CTAP) to those staged with CTAP alone after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Between 2005 and 2007, we identified 3,408 nonmetastatic RC patients. Compared with patients staged with CTAP alone, those who received EUS and CTAP were younger (median age: 75 vs 76 years, P < 0.0001), more likely men (57.6% vs 48.7%, P < 0.0001), with a lower Charlson comorbidity index (P < 0.0001). Predictors of EUS included socioeconomic status (highest vs lowest) (odds ratio [OR] 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4-2.5), care by a gastroenterologist (OR 1.713, 95% CI 1.38-2.13), and care in a teaching hospital (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.35-2.08). Receipt of neoadjuvant chemoradiation was higher in EUS-staged patients (50.3% vs 16.0%, P < 0.0001). EUS-staged patients had longer overall survival compared with those staged with CTAP alone (60 vs 57 months), but this was not statistically significant (P = 0.24).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic ultrasound in RC staging is associated with higher utilization of neoadjuvant chemoradiation without a significant difference in overall survival.

Transanal transabdominal TME: how far can we push it?

Over many decades, advances in surgical technology, such as the use of the electrocautery Bovie, development of minimally invasive and advanced endoscopic platforms and the ability to create and maintain pneumorectum have propelled surgical techniques forward to today, with development of the transanal total mesorectal excision TME (taTME) for en bloc resection of rectal cancers. The transanal platform offers, for now, a viable alternative to perform safe and oncologically sound TME, especially favorable in cases of low rectal lesions in a narrow pelvis post neoadjuvant treatment. The aspiration of the colorectal community remains to continue to push the operative boundaries whilst maintaining safe oncological principals with the best possible functional outcomes for patients. In this article we review this evolving technique and focus on future directions.

Session 1: The evolution and development of the multidisciplinary team approach: USA, European and UK experiences - what can we do better?

The process of determining the best treatments that should be offered to patients with newly diagnosed colon and rectal cancer remains highly variable around the world. The aim of this expert review was to agree the key elements of good quality preoperative treatment decision making.

Relationship between hospital volume and short-term outcomes: a nationwide population-based study including 75,280 rectal cancer surgical procedures

There is growing interest on the potential relationship between hospital volume (HV) and outcomes as it might justify the centralization of care for rectal cancer surgery. From the National Italian Hospital Discharge Dataset, data on 75,280 rectal cancer patients who underwent elective major surgery between 2002 and 2014 were retrieved and analyzed. HV was grouped into tertiles: low-volume performed 1-12, while high-volume hospitals performed 33+ procedures/year. The impact of HV on in-hospital mortality, abdominoperineal resection (APR), 30-day readmission, and length of stay (LOS) was assessed. Risk factors were calculated using multivariate logistic regression. The proportion of procedures performed in low-volume hospitals decreased by 6.7 percent (p<0.001). The rate of in-hospital mortality, APR and 30-day readmission was 1.3%, 16.3%, and 7.2%, respectively, and the median LOS was 13 days. The adjusted risk of in-hospital mortality (OR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.25-1.78), APR (OR 1.10, 95%CI 1.02-1.19), 30-day readmission (OR 1.49, 95%CI 1.38-1.61), and prolonged LOS (OR 2.29, 95%CI 2.05-2.55) were greater for low-volume hospitals than for high-volume hospitals. This study shows an independent impact of HV procedures on all short-term outcome measures, justifying a policy of centralization for rectal cancer surgery, a process which is underway.

Benchmarking rectal cancer care: institutional compliance with a longitudinal checklist

BACKGROUND

In 2012, the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons published the Rectal Cancer Surgery Checklist, a consensus document listing 25 essential elements of care for all patients undergoing radical surgery for rectal cancer. The authors herein examine checklist adherence in a mature, multisurgeon specialty academic practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective medical record review of patients undergoing elective radical resection for rectal adenocarcinoma over a 23-mo period was conducted. Checklists were completed post hoc for each patient, and these results were tabulated to determine levels of compliance. Subgroup analyses by compliance and experience levels of the treating surgeon were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 161 patients underwent resection, demonstrating a median completion rate of 84% per patient. Poor compliance was noted consistently in documenting baseline sexual function (0%), multidisciplinary discussion of treatment plans (16.8%), pelvic nerve identification (8.7%) and leak testing (52.9%), and radial margin status reporting (57.5%). Junior surgeons achieved higher rates of compliance and were more likely to restage after neoadjuvant therapy (67.9% versus 29.4%, P < 0.001), discuss patients at tumor board (31.3% versus 13.2%, P = 0.014), and document leak testing (86.7% versus 47.2%, P = 0.005) compared with senior surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

Checklist compliance within a high-volume, specialty academic practice remains varied. Only surgeon experience level was significantly associated with high checklist compliance. Junior surgeons achieved greater compliance with certain items, particularly those that reinforce decision-making. Further efforts to standardize rectal cancer care should focus on checklist implementation, targeted surgeon outreach, and assessment of checklist compliance correlation to clinical outcomes.

The influence of hospital volume on long-term oncological outcome after rectal cancer surgery

PURPOSE

The association between hospital volume and outcome in rectal cancer surgery is still subject of debate. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of hospital volume on outcomes of rectal cancer surgery in the Netherlands in 2011.

METHODS

In this collaborative research with a cross-sectional study design, patients who underwent rectal cancer resection in 71 Dutch hospitals in 2011 were included. Annual hospital volume was stratified as low (< 20), medium (20-50), and high (≥ 50).

RESULTS

Of 2095 patients, 258 patients (12.3%) were treated in 23 low-volume hospitals, 1329 (63.4%) in 40 medium-volume hospitals, and 508 (24.2%) in 8 high-volume hospitals. Median length of follow-up was 41 months. Clinical tumor stage, neoadjuvant therapy, extended resections, circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity, and 30-day or in-hospital mortality did not differ significantly between volume groups. Significantly, more laparoscopic procedures were performed in low-volume hospitals, and more diverting stomas in high-volume hospitals. Three-year disease-free survival for low-, medium-, and high-volume hospitals was 75.0, 74.8, and 76.8% (p = 0.682). Corresponding 3-year overall survival rates were 75.9, 79.1, and 80.3% (p = 0.344). In multivariate analysis, hospital volume was not associated with long-term risk of mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant impact of hospital volume on rectal cancer surgery outcome could be observed among 71 Dutch hospitals after implementation of a national audit, with the majority of patients being treated at medium-volume hospitals.

Defining the Role of Minimally Invasive Proctectomy for Locally Advanced Rectal Adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVE

National examination of open proctectomy (OP), laparoscopic proctectomy (LP), and robotic proctectomy (RP) in pathological outcomes and overall survival (OS).

BACKGROUND

Surgical management for rectal adenocarcinoma is evolving towards utilization of LP and RP. However, the oncological impacts of a minimally invasive approach to rectal cancer have yet to be defined.

METHODS

Retrospective review of the National Cancer Database identified patients with nonmetastatic locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma from 2010 to 2014, who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation, surgical resection, and adjuvant therapy. Cases were stratified by surgical approach. Multivariate analysis was used to compare pathological outcomes. Cox proportional-hazard modeling and Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to estimate long-term OS.

RESULTS

Of 6313 cases identified, 53.8% underwent OP, 31.8% underwent LP, and 14.3% underwent RP. Higher-volume academic/research and comprehensive community centers combined to perform 80% of laparoscopic cases and 83% of robotic cases. In an intent-to-treat model, multivariate analysis demonstrated superior circumferential margin negativity rates with LP compared with OP (odds ratio 1.34, 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.77, P = 0.036). Cox proportional-hazard modeling demonstrated a lower death hazard ratio for LP compared with OP (hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.67-0.99, P = 0.037). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated a 5-year OS of 81% in LP compared with 78% in RP and 76% in OP (P = 0.0198).

CONCLUSION

In the hands of experienced colorectal specialists treating selected patients, LP may be a valuable operative technique that is associated with oncological benefits. Further exploration of pathological outcomes and long-term survival by means of prospective randomized trials may offer more definitive conclusions regarding comparisons of open and minimally invasive technique.

Predicting opportunities to increase utilization of laparoscopy for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite proven safety and efficacy, rates of laparoscopy for rectal cancer in the US are low. With reports of inferiority with laparoscopy compared to open surgery, and movements to develop accredited centers, investigating utilization and predictors of laparoscopy are warranted. Our goal was to evaluate current utilization and identify factors impacting use of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

METHODS

The Premier™ Hospital Database was reviewed for elective inpatient rectal cancer resections (1/1/2010-6/30/2015). Patients were identified by ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes, and then stratified into open or laparoscopic approaches by ICD-9-CM procedure codes or billing charge. Logistic multivariable regression identified variables predictive of laparoscopy. The Cochran-Armitage test assessed trend analysis. The main outcome measures were trends in utilization and factors independently associated with use of laparoscopy.

RESULTS

3336 patients were included-43.8% laparoscopic (n = 1464) and 56.2% open (n = 1872). Use of laparoscopy increased from 37.6 to 55.3% during the study period (p < 0.0001). General surgeons performed the majority of all resections, but colorectal surgeons were more likely to approach rectal cancer laparoscopically (41.31 vs. 36.65%, OR 1.082, 95% CI [0.92, 1.27], p < 0.3363). Higher volume surgeons were more likely to use laparoscopy than low-volume surgeons (OR 3.72, 95% CI [2.64, 5.25], p < 0.0001). Younger patients (OR 1.49, 95% CI [1.03, 2.17], p = 0.036) with minor (OR 2.13, 95% CI [1.45, 3.12], p < 0.0001) or moderate illness severity (OR 1.582, 95% CI [1.08, 2.31], p < 0.0174) were more likely to receive a laparoscopic resection. Teaching hospitals (OR 0.842, 95% CI [0.710, 0.997], p = 0.0463) and hospitals in the Midwest (OR 0.69, 95% CI [0.54, 0.89], p = 0.0044) were less likely to use laparoscopy. Insurance status and hospital size did not impact use.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy for rectal cancer steadily increased over the years examined. Patient, provider, and regional variables exist, with hospital status, geographic location, and colorectal specialization impacting the likelihood. However, surgeon volume had the greatest influence. These results emphasize training and surgeon-specific outcomes to increase utilization and quality in appropriate cases.

There is no difference in outcome between laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis on short- and long-term oncologic outcomes

Background

Until recently there has been little data available about long-term outcomes of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. But new randomized controlled trials regarding laparoscopic colorectal surgery have been published. The aim of this study was to compare the short- and long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopy and open surgery for rectal cancer through a systematic review of the literature and a meta-analysis of relevant RCTs.

Methods

A systematic review of Medline, Embase and the Cochrane library from January 1966 to October 2016 with a subsequent meta-analysis was performed. Only randomized controlled trials with data on circumferential resection margins were included. The primary outcome was the status of circumferential resection margins. Secondary outcomes included lymph node yield, distal resection margins, disease-free and overall survival rates for 3 and 5 years and local recurrence rates.

Results

Eleven studies were evaluated, involving a total of 2018 patients in the laparoscopic group and 1526 patients in the open group. The presence of involved circumferential margins was reported in all studies. There were no statistically significant differences in the number of positive circumferential margins between the laparoscopic group and open group, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.89–1.50 and no significant differences in involvement of distal margins (RR 1.13 95% CI 0.35–3.66), completeness of mesorectal excision (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.82–1.82) or number of harvested lymph nodes (mean difference = −0.01, 95% CI −0.89 to 0.87). Disease-free survival rates at 3 and 5 years were not different (p = 0.26 and p = 0.71 respectively), and neither were overall survival rates (p = 0.19 and p = 0.64 respectively), nor local recurrence rates (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.63–1.23).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is associated with similar short-term and long-term oncologic outcomes compared to open surgery. The oncologic quality of extracted specimens seems comparable regardless of the approach used.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10151-017-1662-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Hospital Case Volume Is Associated With Improved Survival for Patients With Metastatic Melanoma

OBJECTIVES

Hospital case volume has been shown to be a predictor of patient mortality for treatment for various cancers. The influence of hospital case volume on malignant melanoma survival and treatment utilization is unknown.

METHODS

We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked databases to identify patients aged 65 years or older diagnosed with metastatic melanoma between 2000 and 2009. We analyzed claims data to ascertain cancer treatment variation by hospital case volume. Overall survival was evaluated using propensity score methods.

RESULTS

Among 1438 patients, 612 (42.6%) were treated in low-volume hospitals (≤5 patients) after receiving their diagnosis, 479 (33.3%) were treated in intermediate-volume hospitals (6 to 10 patients), and 347 (24.1%) were treated in high-volume hospitals (>10 patients). In Cox proportional hazards models, treatment in a high-volume hospital after propensity score adjustment was associated with a significant improvement in survival when adjusting for other characteristics (intermediate volume: hazard ratio [HR]=0.70, P=0.0007; high volume: HR=0.63, P<0.0001). Patients treated in high-volume hospitals were less likely to receive chemotherapy, surgery, and/or radiation therapy after a metastatic melanoma diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients diagnosed with metastatic melanoma, being treated in a high-volume hospital was associated with an improvement in survival and lower utilization of chemotherapy, immunotherapy, surgery, and radiation therapy.

The Rationale for and Reality of the New National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

The treatment of rectal cancer has greatly evolved because of numerous diagnostic and therapeutic advances. More accurate staging by MRI has allowed more appropriate use of neoadjuvant therapy as well as more standardized high-quality total mesorectal excision. Lower rates of perioperative morbidity, permanent colostomy creation, and improved rates of oncologically acceptable rectal excision have led to lower recurrence and greater disease-free survival rates. The recognition of the need for pathologic assessment of the quality of total mesorectal excision, the status of the circumferential resection margins, and the finding of a minimum of 12 lymph nodes as well as identification of extramural vascular invasion has improved staging. These evolutions in imaging, surgical management, and pathologic specimen assessment are interdependent and have been repeatedly shown on national levels to be best operationalized in a multidisciplinary team environment.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this article is to evaluate the evidence leading to these important changes, including the imminent launch of the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Based on the myriad confirmatory experiences in Europe and in the United Kingdom, a multidisciplinary team rectal cancer program was designed by the Consortium for Optimizing Surgical Treatment of Rectal Cancer and subsequently endorsed and accepted by the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measured is the adherence to the new program standards.

RESULTS

Surgical treatment of rectal cancer consortium membership rapidly increased from 14 centers in August 2011 to more than 350 centers in April 2017.

LIMITATIONS

The multidisciplinary team rectal cancer program has not yet launched; thus, its impact cannot yet be assessed.

CONCLUSIONS

It is our hope and expectation that the outstanding improvement in quality outcomes repeatedly demonstrated within Europe, and extensively shown as much needed in the United States, will be rapidly achieved.

Pathologic Complete Response Rates After Neoadjuvant Treatment in Rectal Cancer: An Analysis of the National Cancer Database

BACKGROUND

Pathologic complete response (pCR) of rectal cancer following neoadjuvant therapy is associated with decreased local recurrence and increased overall survival. This study utilizes a national dataset to identify predictors of pCR in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with nonmetastatic rectal cancer (2004-2014) who underwent neoadjuvant therapy and surgical resection. Unadjusted associations were assessed using rank-sum tests and χ ² tests where appropriate. Backward elimination and forward selection multivariable logistic regression models were created to determine the relationship of annual surgical volume with pCR rate, adjusting for preoperative characteristics and radiation-surgery interval. Statistical tests were two-sided, with a significance level of p ≤ 0.05. Analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4.

RESULTS

A total of 27,532 patients from 1179 participating hospitals met the inclusion criteria. Generalized linear mixed models demonstrated that the odds of achieving pCR was independently associated with more recent diagnosis, female sex, private insurance, lower grade, lower clinical T classification, lower clinical N classification, increasing interval between the end of radiation and surgery, and treatment at higher-volume institutions.

CONCLUSIONS

pCR was associated with favorable tumor factors, insurance status, time between radiation and surgery, and institutional volume. It is not clear what is driving the higher rates of pCR at high-volume institutions. Research targeted at understanding processes that are associated with pCR in high-volume institutions is needed so that similar results can be achieved across the spectrum of facilities caring for patients in this population.

Risk factors, short and long term outcome of anastomotic leaks in rectal cancer

Background

An anastomotic leak (AL) after colorectal surgery is one major reason for postoperative morbidity and mortality. There is growing evidence that AL affects short and long term outcome. This prospective German multicentre study aims to identify risk factors for AL and quantify effects on short and long term course after rectal cancer surgery.

Methods

From 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2010 381 hospitals attributed patients to the prospective multicentre study Quality Assurance in Colorectal Cancer managed by the Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg (Germany). Included were 17 867 patients with histopathologically confirmed rectal carcinoma and primary anastomosis. Risk factor analysis included 13 items of demographic patient data, surgical course, hospital volume und tumour stage.

Results

In 2 134 (11.9%) patients an AL was diagnosed. Overall hospital mortality was 2.1% (with AL 7.5%, without AL 1.4%; p < 0.0001). In multivariate analysis male gender, ASA-classification ≥III, smoking history, alcohol history, intraoperative blood transfusion, no protective ileostomy, UICC-stage and height of tumour were independent risk factors. Overall survival (OS) was significantly shorter for patients with AL (UICC I-III; UICC I, II or III - each p < 0.0001). Disease free survival (DFS) was significantly shorter for patients with AL in UICC I-III; UICC II or UICC III (each p < 0.001). Rate of local relapse was not significantly affected by occurrence of AL.

Conclusion

In this study patients with AL had a significantly worse OS. This was mainly due to an increased in hospital mortality. DFS was also negatively affected by AL whereas local relapse was not. This emphasizes the importance of successful treatment of AL related problems during the initial hospital stay.

National Trends in Nonoperative Management of Rectal Adenocarcinoma

Purpose

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation for stage II/III rectal cancer results in up to 49% of patients with a clinical complete response. As a result, many have questioned whether surgery can be omitted for this group of patients. Currently, there is insufficient evidence for chemoradiation only, or nonoperative management (NOM), to support its adoption. Despite this, anecdotal evidence suggests there is a trend toward increased use of NOM. Our objective was to examine the use of NOM for rectal cancer over time, as well as the patient- and facility-level factors associated with its use.

Methods

We included all incident cases of invasive, nonmetastatic rectal adenocarcinoma reported to the National Cancer Database from 1998 to 2010. We performed univariate and multivariate analyses to assess for NOM use over time, as well as associated patient- and facility-level factors.

Results

A total of 146,135 patients met the inclusion criteria: 5,741 had NOM and 140,394 had surgery with or without additional therapy. From 1998 to 2010, NOM doubled, from 2.4% to 5% of all cases annually. Patients who were black (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.71; 95% CI, 1.57 to 1.86), uninsured (AOR, 2.35; 95% CI, 2.08 to 2.65) or enrolled in Medicaid (AOR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.90 to 2.33), or treated at low-volume facilities (AOR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.42 to 1.64) were more likely to receive NOM than were patients who were white, privately insured, and treated at a high-volume facility, respectively.

Conclusion

NOM demonstrates promise for the treatment of rectal cancer; currently, however, the most appropriate strategy is to pursue this approach with well-informed patients in the context of a clinical trial. We observed evidence of increasing NOM use, with this increase occurring more frequently in black and uninsured/Medicaid patients, raising concern that increased NOM use may actually represent increasing disparities in rectal cancer care rather than innovation. Further studies are needed to assess survival differences by treatment strategy.

Nerve-oriented mesorectal excision (NOME): autonomic nerves as landmarks for laparoscopic rectal resection

PURPOSE

We have developed nerve-oriented mesorectal excision (NOME) as a novel concept in rectal cancer surgery by which autonomic pelvic nerves serve as landmarks for a standardized navigation along fascial planes. This article describes the technique step by step and presents our results from 2008 to 2012.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The key steps are: preparation of the splanchnic nerves at the mid-posterior sidewall, the hypogastric nerves at the upper sidewall, and the urogenital nerve branches (Walsh) at the caudal-anterior sidewall. The dissection of the lateral ligament is strictly performed as the last step. NOME was applied in 274 consecutive mesorectal excisions (partial 20.4%, total 79.6%); a subgroup of 42 male patients underwent a questionnaire-based interview on sexual activity.

RESULTS

The conversion rate was 0.7%. High (complete) specimen quality and circumferential margin negativity were achieved in 90.1% and 95.3%, respectively. Anastomotic leaks occurred in 13 (4.7%) patients. Mortality was 1.8%. The frequency of prolonged urinary catheter was 1.8%. Of 22 sexually active males interviewed, 18 (81.8%) maintained activity postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

NOME achieves high-quality mesorectal specimens and a high rate of preservation of autonomic nerve function. The concept of using nerves as laparoscopic landmarks may help to standardize and master laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.

Specialization and utilization after hepatectomy in academic medical centers

BACKGROUND

Specialized procedures such as hepatectomy are performed by a variety of specialties in surgery. We aimed to determine whether variation exists among utilization of resources, cost, and patient outcomes by specialty, surgeon case volume, and center case volume for hepatectomy.

METHODS

We queried centers (n = 50) in the University Health Consortium database from 2007-2010 for patients who underwent elective hepatectomy in which specialty was designated general surgeon (n = 2685; 30%) or specialist surgeon (n = 6277; 70%), surgeon volume was designated high volume (>38 cases annually) and center volume was designated high volume (>100 cases annually). We then stratified our cohort by primary diagnosis, defined as primary tumor (n = 2241; 25%), secondary tumor (n = 5466; 61%), and benign (n = 1255; 14%).

RESULTS

Specialist surgeons performed more cases for primary malignancy (primary 26% versus 15%) while general surgeons operated more for secondary malignancies (67% versus 61%) and benign disease (18% versus 13%). Specialists were associated with a shorter total length of stay (LOS) (5 d versus 6 d; P < 0.01) and lower in-hospital morbidity (7% versus 11%; P < 0.01). Patients treated by high volume surgeons or at high volume centers were less likely to die than those treated by low volume surgeons or at low volume centers, (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.33-0.89) and (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.13-0.56).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical specialization, surgeon volume and center volume may be important metrics for quality and utilization in complex procedures like hepatectomy. Further studies are necessary to link direct factors related to hospital performance in the changing healthcare environment.