Relationship between surgeon caseload and sphincter preservation in patients with rectal cancer

Diagnosing Provider, Referral Patterns, Facility Type, and Patient Satisfaction Among Iowa Rectal Cancer Patients

PURPOSE

Rectal cancer treatment at high-volume centers is associated with higher likelihood of guideline-concordant care and improved outcomes. Whether rectal cancer patients are referred for treatment at high-volume hospitals may depend on diagnosing provider specialty. We aimed to determine associations of diagnosing provider specialty with treating provider specialty and characteristics of the treating facility for rectal cancer patients in Iowa.

METHODS

Rectal cancer patients identified using the Iowa Cancer Registry completed a mailed survey on their treatment experience and decision-making process. Provider type was defined by provider specialty and whether the provider referred patients elsewhere for surgery. Multivariable-adjusted logistic regression models were used to examine predictors of being diagnosed by a general surgeon who also performed the subsequent surgery.

RESULTS

Of 417 patients contacted, 381 (76%) completed the survey; our final analytical sample size was 267. Half of respondents were diagnosed by a gastroenterologist who referred them elsewhere; 30% were diagnosed by a general surgeon who referred them elsewhere, and 20% were diagnosed by a general surgeon who performed the surgery. Respondents who were ≥ 65 years old, had less than a college education, and who made < $50,000 per year were more likely to be diagnosed by a general surgeon who performed surgery. In multivariable-adjusted models, respondents diagnosed and treated by the same general surgeon were more likely to have surgery at hospitals with low annual colorectal cancer surgery volume and less likely to be satisfied with their care.

CONCLUSIONS

Among rectal cancer patients in Iowa, respondents who were diagnosed and treated by the same provider were less likely to get treatment at a high-volume facility. This study informs the importance of provider referral in centralization of rectal cancer care.

Can Pre-Treatment Inflammatory Parameters Predict the Probability of Sphincter-Preserving Surgery in Patients with Locally Advanced Low-Lying Rectal Cancer?

There is evidence suggesting that pre-treatment clinical parameters can predict the probability of sphincter-preserving surgery in rectal cancer; however, to date, data on the predictive role of inflammatory parameters on the sphincter-preservation rate are not available. The aim of the present cohort study was to investigate the association between inflammation-based parameters and the sphincter-preserving surgery rate in patients with low-lying locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). A total of 848 patients with LARC undergoing radiotherapy from 2004 to 2019 were retrospectively reviewed in order to identify patients with rectal cancer localized ≤6 cm from the anal verge, treated with neo-adjuvant radiochemotherapy (nRCT) and subsequent surgery. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to investigate the role of pre-treatment inflammatory parameters, including the C-reactive protein (CRP), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) for the prediction of sphincter preservation. A total of 363 patients met the inclusion criteria; among them, 210 patients (57.9%) underwent sphincter-preserving surgery, and in 153 patients (42.1%), an abdominoperineal rectum resection was performed. Univariable analysis showed a significant association of the pre-treatment CRP value (OR = 2.548, 95% CI: 1.584–4.097, p < 0.001) with sphincter preservation, whereas the pre-treatment NLR (OR = 1.098, 95% CI: 0.976–1.235, p = 0.120) and PLR (OR = 1.002, 95% CI: 1.000–1.005, p = 0.062) were not significantly associated with the type of surgery. In multivariable analysis, the pre-treatment CRP value (OR = 2.544; 95% CI: 1.314–4.926; p = 0.006) was identified as an independent predictive factor for sphincter-preserving surgery. The findings of the present study suggest that the pre-treatment CRP value represents an independent parameter predicting the probability of sphincter-preserving surgery in patients with low-lying LARC.

Clinical parameters predictive for sphincter-preserving surgery and prognostic outcome in patients with locally advanced low rectal cancer

Background

Although controversial, there are data suggesting that clinical parameters can predict the probability of sphincter preserving procedures in rectal cancer. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between clinical parameters and the sphincter-preserving surgery rate in patients who had undergone neoadjuvant combination therapy for advanced low rectal cancer.

Methods

In this single center study, the charts of 540 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who had been treated with induction chemotherapy-and/or neoadjuvant concomitant radiochemotherapy (nRCT) over an 11-year period were reviewed in order to identify patients with rectal cancer ≤6 cm from the anal verge, who had received the prescribed nRCT only. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify pretreatment patient- and tumor associated parameters correlating with sphincter preservation. Survival rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier analyses.

Results

Two hundred eighty of the 540 patients met the selection criteria. Of the 280 patients included in the study, 158 (56.4%) underwent sphincter-preserving surgery. One hundred sixty-four of 280 patients (58.6%) had a downsizing of the primary tumor (ypT < cT) and 39 (23.8%) of these showed a complete histopathological response (ypT0 ypN0). In univariate analysis, age prior to treatment, Karnofsky performance status, clinical T-size, relative lymphocyte value, CRP value, and interval between nRCT and surgery, were significantly associated with sphincter-preserving surgery. In multivariate analysis, age (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.05, CI95%: 1.02–1.09, p = 0.003), relative lymphocyte value (HR = 0.94, CI95%: 0.89–0.99, p = 0.029), and interval between nRCT and surgery (HR = 2.39, CI95%: 1.17–4.88, p = 0.016) remained as independent predictive parameters.

Conclusions

These clinical parameters can be considered in the prognostication of sphincter-preserving surgery in case of low rectal adenocarcinoma. More future research is required in this area.

Association of cumulative surgeon volume and risk of complications in adult uvulopalatopharyngoplasty: a population-based study in Taiwan

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Patients with obstructive sleep apnea undergoing upper airway surgery are known to have an increased perioperative risk, however, the effect of surgeon volume on this risk is largely unknown. We compared the 30-day readmission, bleeding, and mortality rates in adult patients with obstructive sleep apnea undergoing uvulopalatopharyngoplasty by cumulative surgeon volume. The objective of this study is to compare the risks of complications among different cumulative surgeon volume groups in adult patients undergoing uvulopalatopharyngoplasty and multilevel surgery.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, data of all adult inpatients (aged older than 18 years) who underwent uvulopalatopharyngoplasty in Taiwan between 2000 and 2012 were identified from the National Health Insurance Research Database and then analyzed. Using mixed-effect logistic regression, we compared the risks of major complications in patients undergoing uvulopalatopharyngoplasty alone, uvulopalatopharyngoplasty with nasal surgery, and uvulopalatopharyngoplasty with tongue or hypopharyngeal surgery according to groups of cumulative surgeon volume (divided into four quartiles).

RESULTS

A total of 36,483 adults were identified (mean age, 38.6 years; 73.7% men). When quartile 4 was used as reference, very low surgeon volume (quartile 1) was associated with higher risks of readmission within 30 days (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17-1.57, P < .001), in-hospital death (aOR, 6.14, 95% CI 1.33-28.27, P = .020), and 30-day mortality (aOR, 4.90, 95% CI 1.83-13.09, P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Higher complication rates in uvulopalatopharyngoplasty appear to be associated with very low cumulative surgeon volume.

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.

Determinants of Rectal Cancer Patients' Decisions on Where to Receive Surgery: a Qualitative Analysis

BACKGROUND

Current literature suggests surgeons who perform large volumes of rectal cancer resections achieve superior outcomes, but only about half of rectal cancer resections are performed by high-volume surgeons in comprehensive hospitals. Little is known about the considerations of patients with rectal cancer when deciding where to receive surgery.

METHODS

A purposive sample of stage II/III rectal adenocarcinoma survivors diagnosed 2013-2015 were identified through the Iowa Cancer Registry and interviewed by telephone about factors influencing decisions on where to receive rectal cancer surgery.

RESULTS

Fifteen survivors with an average age of 63 were interviewed: 60% were male, 53% resided in non-metropolitan areas, and 60% received surgery at low-volume facilities. Most patients considered surgeon volume and experience to be important determinants of outcomes, but few assessed it. Recommendation from a trusted source, usually a physician, appeared to be a main determinant of where patients received surgery. Patients who chose low-volume centers noted comfort and familiarity as important decision factors.

CONCLUSION

Most rectal cancer patients in our sample relied on physician referrals to decide where to receive surgery. Interventions facilitating more informed decision-making by patients and referring providers may be warranted.

Hospital Characteristics Associated with Stage II/III Rectal Cancer Guideline Concordant Care: Analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare Data

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests that high-volume facilities achieve better rectal cancer outcomes.

METHODS

Logistic regression was used to evaluate association of facility type with treatment after adjusting for patient demographics, stage, and comorbidities. SEER-Medicare beneficiaries who were diagnosed with stage II/III rectal adenocarcinoma at age ≥66 years from 2005 to 2009 and had Parts A/B Medicare coverage for ≥1 year prediagnosis and postdiagnosis plus a claim for cancer-directed surgery were included. Institutions were classified according to National Cancer Institute (NCI) designation, presence of residency program, or medical school affiliation.

RESULTS

Two thousand three hundred subjects (average age = 75) met the criteria. Greater proportions of those treated at NCI-designated facilities received transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-pelvis (62.1 vs. 29.9 %), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (63.9 vs. 41.8 %), and neoadjuvant radiation (70.8 vs. 46.3 %), all p < 0.0001. On multivariate analysis, odds ratios (95 % confidence intervals) for receiving TRUS or MRI, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, or neoadjuvant radiation among beneficiaries treated at NCI-designated facilities were 3.51 (2.60-4.73), 2.32 (1.71-3.16), and 2.66 (1.93-3.67), respectively. Results by residency and medical school affiliation were similar in direction to NCI designation.

CONCLUSIONS

Those treated at hospitals with an NCI designation, residency program, or medical school affiliation received more guideline-concordant care. Initiatives involving provider education and virtual tumor boards may improve care.

Risk factors associated with sphincter-preserving resection in patients with low rectal cancer

Abdominoperineal resection (APR) and sphincter-preserving resection (SPR) are the two primary surgical options for rectal cancer. Retrospectively we collected rectal cancer patients for SPR and APR observation between 2005 and 2007. The patient-related, tumor-related, and surgery-related variables of the SPR and APR groups were analyzed by using logistic regression techniques. The mean distance from the anal verge (DAV) of cancer is significantly higher in SPR than that in APR (P<0.001). In cancers with DAV<40 mm (SPR, 40 versus APR, 110), multivariate analysis shows that surgeon procedure volume (odds ratio [OR]=0.244; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.077-0.772; P=0.016) and neoadjuvant radiotherapy (OR=0.031; 95% CI: 0.002-0.396; P=0.008) are factors influencing SPR. In cancers with DAV ranging from 40 mm to 59 mm (SPR 190 versus APR 50), analysis shows that patient age (OR=2.139; 95% CI: 1.124-4.069; P=0.021), diabetes (OR=2.657; 95% CI: 0.872-8.095; P=0.086), and colorectal surgeon (OR=0.122, 95% CI: 0.020-0.758; P=0.024), are influencing factors for SPR. The local recurrence and disease-free survival reveal no significant difference. A significant difference exists in DAV, surgeon specialization, procedure volume, age, diabetes, and neoadjuvant radiotherapy between SPR and APR.

Current concepts in rectal cancer

The history of rectal cancer management informs current therapy and points us in the direction of future improvements. Multidisciplinary team management of rectal cancer will move us to personalized treatment for individuals with rectal cancer in all stages.

Building an academic colorectal division

Colon and rectal surgery is fully justified as a valid subspecialty within academic university health centers, but such formal recognition at the organizational level is not the norm. Creating a colon and rectal division within a greater department of surgery requires an unfailing commitment to academic concepts while promulgating the improvements that come in patient care, research, and teaching from a specialty service perspective. The creation of divisional identity then opens the door for a strategic process that will grow the division even more as well as provide benefits to the institution within which it resides. The fundamentals of core values, academic commitment, and shared success reinforced by receptive leadership are critical. Attention to culture, commitment, collaboration, control, cost, and compensation leads to a successful academic division of colon and rectal surgery.

Multi-institutional assessment of sphincter preservation for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Sphincter-preserving surgery (SPS) has been proposed as a quality measure for rectal cancer surgery. However, previous studies on SPS rates lack critical clinical characteristics, rendering it unclear if variation in SPS rates is due to unmeasured case-mix differences or surgeons' selection criteria. In this context, we investigate the variation in SPS rates at various practice settings.

METHODS

Ten hospitals in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative collected rectal cancer-specific data, including tumor location and reasons for non-SPS, of patients who underwent rectal cancer surgery from 2007 to 2012. Hospitals were divided into terciles of SPS rates (frequent, average, and infrequent). Patients were categorized as 'definitely SPS eligible' a priori if they did not have any of the following: sphincter involvement, tumor <6 cm from the anal verge, fecal incontinence, stoma preference, or metastatic disease. Fixed-effects logistic regression was used to evaluate for factors associated with SPS.

RESULTS

In total, 329 patients underwent rectal cancer surgery at 10 hospitals (5/10 higher volume, and 6/10 major teaching). Overall, 72 % had SPS (range by hospital 47-91 %). Patient and tumor characteristics were similar between hospital terciles. On multivariable analysis, only hospital ID, younger age, and tumor location were associated with SPS, but not sex, race, body mass index, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage, preoperative radiation, or American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class. Analysis of the 181 (55 %) 'definitely-eligible' patients revealed an SPS rate of 90 % (65-100 %).

CONCLUSIONS

SPS rates vary by hospital, even after accounting for clinical characteristics using detailed chart review. These data suggest missed opportunities for SPS, and refute the general hypothesis that hospital variation in previous studies is due to unmeasured case-mix differences.

Clinical competence in the surgery of rectal cancer: the Italian Consensus Conference

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The literature continues to emphasize the advantages of treating patients in "high volume" units by "expert" surgeons, but there is no agreed definition of what is meant by either term. In September 2012, a Consensus Conference on Clinical Competence was organized in Rome as part of the meeting of the National Congress of Italian Surgery (I Congresso Nazionale della Chirurgia Italiana: Unità e valore della chirurgia italiana). The aims were to provide a definition of "expert surgeon" and "high-volume facility" in rectal cancer surgery and to assess their influence on patient outcome.

METHOD

An Organizing Committee (OC), a Scientific Committee (SC), a Group of Experts (E) and a Panel/Jury (P) were set up for the conduct of the Consensus Conference. Review of the literature focused on three main questions including training, "measuring" of quality and to what extent hospital and surgeon volume affects sphincter-preserving procedures, local recurrence, 30-day morbidity and mortality, survival, function, choice of laparoscopic approach and the choice of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The difficulties encountered in defining competence in rectal surgery arise from the great heterogeneity of the parameters described in the literature to quantify it. Acquisition of data is difficult as many articles were published many years ago. Even with a focus on surgeon and hospital volume, it is difficult to define their role owing to the variability and the quality of the relevant studies.

Working with existing databases

Outcomes research has established itself as an integral part of surgical research as physicians and hospitals are increasingly required to demonstrate attainment of performance markers and surgical safety indicators. Large-volume and clinical and administrative databases are used to study regional practice pattern variations, health care disparities, and resource utilization. Understanding the unique strengths and limitations of these large databases is critical to performing quality surgical outcomes research. In the current work, we review the currently available large-volume databases including selection processes, modes of analyses, data application, and limitations.

Hospital variation in sphincter preservation for elderly rectal cancer patients

BACKGROUND

The primary goal of an operation for rectal cancer is to cure cancer and, where possible, preserve continence. A wide range of sphincter preservation rates have been reported. This study evaluated hospital variation in the use of low anterior resection (LAR), local excision (LE), and abdominoperineal resection (APR) in the treatment of elderly rectal cancer patients.

METHODS

Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked data, we identified 4959 patients older than 65 y with stage I-III rectal cancer diagnosed from 2000-2005 who underwent operative intervention at one of 370 hospitals. We evaluated the distribution of hospital-specific procedure rates and used generalized mixed models with random hospital effects to examine the influence of patient characteristics and hospital on operation type, using APR as a reference.

RESULTS

The median hospital performed APR on 33% of elderly patients with rectal cancer. Hospital was a stronger predictor of LAR receipt than any patient characteristic, explaining 32% of procedure choice, but not a strong predictor of LE, explaining only 3.8%. Receipt of LE was primarily related to tumor size and tumor stage, which combined explained 31% of procedure variation.

CONCLUSIONS

Receipt of LE is primarily determined by patient characteristics. In contrast, the hospital where surgery is performed significantly influences whether a patient undergoes an LAR or APR. Understanding the factors that cause this institutional variation is crucial to ensuring equitable availability of sphincter preservation.

Patterns of colorectal cancer care in the United States and Canada: a systematic review

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in the United States and Canada. Given the high incidence and increased survival of colorectal cancer patients, prevalence is increasing over time in both countries. Using MEDLINE, we conducted a systematic review of the literature published between 2000 and 2010 to describe patterns of colorectal cancer care. Specifically we examined data sources used to obtain treatment information and compared patterns of cancer-directed initial care, post-diagnostic surveillance care, and end-of-life care among colorectal cancer patients diagnosed in the United States and Canada. Receipt of initial treatment for colorectal cancer was associated with the anatomical position of the tumor and extent of disease at diagnosis, in accordance with consensus-based guidelines. Overall, care trends were similar between the United States and Canada; however, we observed differences with respect to data sources used to measure treatment receipt. Differences were also present between study populations within country, further limiting direct comparisons. Findings from this review will allow researchers, clinicians, and policy makers to evaluate treatment receipt by patient, clinical, or system characteristics and identify emerging trends over time. Furthermore, comparisons between health-care systems in the United States and Canada can identify disparities in care, allow the evaluation of different models of care, and highlight issues regarding the utility of existing data sources to estimate national patterns of care.

Assessment of abdominoperineal resection rate as a surrogate marker of hospital quality in rectal cancer surgery

Background

Rates of abdominoperineal resection (APR) have been suggested as a solitary surrogate marker for comparing overall hospital quality in rectal cancer surgery. This study investigated the value of this marker by examining the associations between hospital APR rates and other quality indicators.

Methods

Hospital-level correlations between risk-adjusted APR rates for low rectal cancer and six risk-adjusted outcomes and six care processes were performed (such as 30-day mortality, complications, timely treatment). The ability of APR rates to discriminate between hospitals' performance was examined by means of hospital variance results in multilevel regression models and funnel plots.

Results

A linked population-based data set identified 1703 patients diagnosed in 2007 and 2008 who underwent surgery for rectal cancer. Some 15·9 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 14·2 to 17·6) per cent of these patients had an APR. Among 707 people with low rectal cancer, 38·2 (34·6 to 41·8) per cent underwent APR. Although risk-adjusted hospital rates of APR for low rectal cancer varied by up to 100 per cent, only one hospital (1 per cent) fell outside funnel plot limits and hospital variance in multilevel models was not very large. Lower hospital rates of APR for low rectal cancer did not correlate significantly with better hospital-level outcomes or process measures, except for recording of pathological stage (r = −0·55, P = 0·019). Patients were significantly more likely to undergo APR for low rectal cancer if they attended a non-tertiary metropolitan hospital (adjusted odds ratio 2·14, 95 per cent c.i. 1·11 to 4·15).

Conclusion

APR rates do not appear to be a useful surrogate marker of overall hospital performance in rectal cancer surgery.

Population-based use of sphincter-preserving surgery in patients with rectal cancer: is there room for improvement?

BACKGROUND

Treatment of rectal cancer in North America has been associated with lower rates of sphincter-preserving surgery in comparison with other regions. It is unclear if these lower rates are due to patient, tumor, or treatment factors; thus, the potential to increase the use of sphincter-preserving surgery is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to identify the factors associated with the use of sphincter-preserving surgery and to quantify the potential for an increase in sphincter preservation.

DESIGN

This population-based retrospective cohort study used patient-level data collected through a comprehensive, standardized review of hospital inpatient and outpatient medical records and cancer center charts.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted in all hospitals providing rectal cancer surgery in a Canadian province.

PATIENTS

All patients with a new diagnosis of rectal cancer from July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2006 who underwent potentially curative radical surgery were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with receiving a permanent colostomy. Patients were categorized as having received an appropriate or potentially inappropriate colostomy based on a priori determined patient, tumor, operative, and pathologic criteria.

RESULTS

Of 466 patients who underwent radical surgery, 48% received a permanent colostomy. There was significant variation in the rate of sphincter-preserving surgery among the 10 hospitals that provided rectal cancer care (12%-73%, p = 0.0001). On multivariate analysis, male sex, low tumor height, and increasing tumor stage were associated with the receipt of a permanent colostomy. Among patients who received a permanent stoma, 65 of 224 (29%) patients received a potentially inappropriate stoma. On multivariate analysis, male sex and treatment in a medium- or low-volume hospital was associated with the receipt of a potentially inappropriate colostomy.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its retrospective design.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that the receipt of a permanent colostomy by many patients with rectal cancer may be inappropriate, and there is potential to increase the use of sphincter-preserving surgery in patients with rectal cancer.

Surgeon knowledge contributes to the relationship between surgeon volume and patient outcomes in rectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether surgeon knowledge contributes to the relationship between surgeon procedure volume and patient outcomes in rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND

Although previous research has shown that treatment by high-volume surgeons is associated with improved outcomes among patients with rectal cancer, the mechanisms for such an association are not well understood.

METHODS

In 2009, a mail survey with 8 questions pertaining to rectal cancer care was created, modified for content validity, and sent to all general surgeons in Nova Scotia, Canada. Patients with rectal cancer, who were treated by the survey respondents between July 1, 2002, and June 30, 2006, were identified retrospectively, and a comprehensive standardized review of medical records was used to collect outcome data for this population-based cohort. The association between surgeon survey score (dichotomized into high- and low-score groups on the basis of the median score), surgeon procedure volume, and patient outcomes was examined.

RESULTS

Of 521 patients who underwent treatment with curative intent from July 1, 2002, to June 30, 2006, 377 patients (72%) were treated by 25 surgeons who responded to the survey. After controlling for patient and tumor factors, patients treated by high-volume surgeons were more likely to receive a total mesorectal excision (TME) [odds ratio (OR) = 3.89; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.20-5.83], more likely to undergo an adequate lymph node harvest (OR = 3.67; 95%CI, 2.36-5.70), less likely to have a permanent colostomy (OR = 0.53; 95%CI, 0.30-0.93), and less likely to develop local recurrence (HR = 0.54; 95%CI, 0.29-0.99). When surgeon survey score was included in the multivariate regression models, the relationship between surgeon procedure volume and permanent colostomy was diminished. There was a significant interaction between surgeon survey score and surgeon volume for the outcomes of use of TME (P < 0.01) and local recurrence (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that surgeon knowledge may, at least in part, explain surgeon volume-associated differences in rectal cancer outcomes.

Multimodality salvage of recurrent disease after local excision for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Local excision, alone or in combination with chemoradiation, is increasingly considered for rectal cancer. Higher risks of disease recurrence have been demonstrated after local excision.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine the outcomes of current-era multimodality salvage for recurrent rectal cancer after local excision.

DESIGN

This was a single-institutional retrospective study.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at a tertiary-referral cancer center between 1993 and 2011.

PATIENTS

Forty-six patients with recurrent rectal cancer after initial local excision were included.

INTERVENTION

Multimodality salvage treatment was performed as appropriate.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were the pattern of disease recurrence, salvage treatments, and resultant overall and re-recurrence-free survival.

RESULTS

After the initial local excision, recurrent disease was diagnosed after a median interval of 1.9 years: local/regionally in 67%, distantly in 18%, and both in 15%. Four patients (9%) had recurrence that was unsalvageable, 2 (4%) declined treatment, and 40 (87%) underwent surgical salvage. Preoperative chemoradiation was given in 30 (75%) patients. The R0 resection rate was 80%, requiring multivisceral resection (33%), total pelvic exenteration (5%), and metastasectomy (25%). The rate of sphincter preservation was 33%, and perioperative morbidity was 50%. The first site of failure after salvage was distant in 38% and was local only in 10%. The 5-year overall and 3-year re-recurrence-free survival were 63% and 43%. Pathologic stage at initial local excision, receipt of neoadjuvant chemoradiation before local excision, recurrence pattern after local excision, pathologic stage at salvage, and R0 resection at salvage influenced re-recurrence-free survival.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by the referral and selection biases inherent in a small study cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Failure after local excision for rectal cancer may not be salvageable. When feasible, multimodality treatment, including multivisceral resection, pelvic irradiation, and chemotherapy, was associated with potentially lasting treatment-related morbidities and only modest success in long-term disease control. These findings should be compared with the expected stage-specific outcomes of standard proctectomy for early-stage rectal cancer, when local excision is being considered.

Improved access and visibility during stapling of the ultra-low rectum: a comparative human cadaver study between two curved staplers

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare in human cadavers the applicability of a commonly used stapling device, the CONTOUR® curved cutter (CC) (Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Cincinnati, OH) to a newly released, curved stapler, the Endo GIA™ Radial Reload with Tri-Staple™ Technology (RR) (Covidien, New Haven, CT) METHODS: Four experienced surgeons performed deep pelvic dissection with total mesorectal excision (TME) of the rectum in twelve randomized male cadavers. Both stapling devices were applied to the ultra-low rectum in coronal and sagittal configurations. Extensive measurements were recorded of anatomic landmarks for each cadaver pelvis along with various aspects of access, visibility, and ease of placement for each device.

RESULTS

The RR reached significantly lower into the pelvis in both the coronal and sagittal positions compared to the CC. The median distance from the pelvic floor was 1.0 cm compared to 2.0 cm in the coronal position, and 1.0 cm versus 3.3 cm placed sagitally, p < 0.0001. Surgeons gave a higher visibility rating with less visual impediment in the sagittal plane using the RR Stapler. Impediment of visibility occurred in only 10% (5/48) of RR applications in the coronal position, compared to a rate of 48% (23/48) using the CC, p = 0.0002.

CONCLUSIONS

The RR device performed significantly better when compared to the CC stapler in regards to placing the stapler further into the deep pelvis and closer to the pelvic floor, while causing less obstructing of visualization.

System-based factors influencing intraoperative decision-making in rectal cancer by surgeons: an international assessment

AIM

Sound surgical judgement is the goal of training and experience; however, system-based factors may also colour selection of options by a surgeon. We analysed potential organizational characteristics that might influence rectal cancer decision-making by an experienced surgeon.

METHOD

One hundred and seventy-three international centres treating rectal cancer were invited to participate in a survey assessment of key treatment options for patients undergoing curative rectal-cancer surgery. The key organizational characteristics were analysed using multivariate methods for association with intra-operative surgical decision-making.

RESULTS

The response rate was 71% (123 centres). Sphincter-saving surgery was more likely to be performed at university hospitals (OR=3.63, P=0.01) and by high-caseload surgeons (OR=2.77 P=0.05). A diverting stoma was performed more frequently in departments with clinical audits (OR=3.06, P=0.02), and a diverting stoma with coloanal anastomosis was more likely in European centres (OR=4.14, P=0.004). One-stage surgery was less likely where there was assessment by a multidisciplinary team (OR=0.24, P=0.02). Multivariate analysis showed that university hospital, clinical audit, European centre, multidisciplinary team and high caseload significantly impacted on surgical decision-making.

CONCLUSION

Treatment variance of rectal cancer surgeons appears to be significantly influenced by organizational characteristics and complex team-based decision-making. System-based factors may need to be considered as a source of outcome variation that may impact on quality metrics.

Workload and surgeon's specialty for outcome after colorectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

A large body of research has focused on investigating the effects of healthcare provider volume and specialization on patient outcomes including outcomes of colorectal cancer surgery. However there is conflicting evidence about the role of such healthcare provider characteristics in the management of colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the available literature for the effects of hospital volume, surgeon caseload and specialization on the outcomes of colorectal, colon and rectal cancer surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and LILACS using free text search words (as well as MESH-terms). We also searched Medline (January 1990-September 2011), Embase (January 1990-September 2011) and registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Non-randomised and observational studies that compared outcomes for colorectal cancer, colon cancer and rectal cancer surgery (overall 5-year survival, five year disease specific survival, operative mortality, 5-year local recurrence rate, anastomotic leak rate, permanent stoma rate and abdominoperineal excision of the rectum rate) between high volume/specialist hospitals and surgeons and low volume/specialist hospitals and surgeons.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias in included studies. Results were pooled using the random effects model in unadjusted and case-mix adjusted meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Overall five year survival was significantly improved for patients with colorectal cancer treated in high-volume hospitals (HR=0.90, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.96), by high-volume surgeons (HR=0.88, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.93) and colorectal specialists (HR=0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.94). Operative mortality was significantly better for high-volume surgeons (OR=0.77, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.91) and specialists (OR=0.74, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.91), but there was no significant association with higher hospital caseload (OR=0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.04) when only case-mix adjusted studies were included. There were differences in the effects of caseload depending on the level of case-mix adjustment and also whether the studies originated in the US or in other countries. For rectal cancer, there was a significant association between high-volume hospitals and improved 5-year survival (HR=0.85, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.93), but not with operative mortality (OR=0.97, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.33); surgeon caseload had no significant association with either 5-year survival (HR=0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.14) or operative mortality (OR=0.86, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.19) when case-mix adjusted studies were reviewed. Higher hospital volume was associated with significantly lower rates of permanent stomas (OR=0.64, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.90) and APER (OR=0.55, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.72). High-volume surgeons and specialists also achieved lower rates of permanent stoma formation (0.75, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.88) and (0.70, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.94, respectively).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results confirm clearly the presence of a volume-outcome relationship in colorectal cancer surgery, based on hospital and surgeon caseload, and specialisation. The volume-outcome relationship appears somewhat stronger for the individual surgeon than for the hospital; particularly for overall 5-year survival and operative mortality, there were differences between US and non-US data, suggesting provider variability at hospital level between different countries, making it imperative that every country or healthcare system must establish audit systems to guide changes in the service provision based on local data, and facilitate centralisation of services as required. Overall quality of the evidence was low as all included studies were observational by design. In addition there were discrepancies in the definitions of caseload and colorectal specialist. However ethical challenges associated with the conception of randomised controlled trials addressing the volume outcome relationship makes this the best available evidence.

Extended abdominoperineal excision vs. standard abdominoperineal excision in rectal cancer--a systematic overview

BACKGROUND

After introduction of total mesorectal excision (TME) as the gold standard for rectal cancer surgery, oncologic results appeared to be inferior for abdominoperineal excision (APE) as compared to anterior resection. This has been attributed to the technique of standard APE creating a waist at the level of the tumor-bearing segment. This systematic review investigates outcome of both standard and extended techniques of APE regarding inadvertent bowel perforation, circumferential margin (CRM) involvement, and local recurrence.

METHODS

A literature search was performed to identify all articles reporting on APE after the introduction of TME using Medline, Ovid, and Embase. Extended APE was defined as operations that resected the levator ani muscle close to its origin. All other techniques were taken to be standard. Studies so identified were evaluated using a validated instrument for assessing nonrandomized studies. Rates for perforation, CRM involvement, and local recurrence were compared using chi-square statistics.

RESULTS

In the extended group, 1,097 patients, and in the standard group, 4,147 patients could be pooled for statistical analysis. The rate of inadvertent bowel perforation and the rate of CRM involvement for extended vs. standard APE was 4.1% vs. 10.4% (relative risk reduction 60.6%, p = 0.004) and 9.6% vs. 15.4% (relative risk reduction 37.7%, p = 0.022), respectively. The local recurrence rate was 6.6% vs. 11.9% (relative risk reduction 44.5%, p < 0.001) for the two groups.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review suggests that extended techniques of APE result in superior oncologic outcome as compared to standard techniques.

How low is low? Evolving approaches to sphincter-sparing resection techniques

Although advances in rectal cancer staging may ultimately be accurate enough to reliably exclude disease outside the rectal wall (thereby allowing local approaches to be more widely and safely applied) and advances in the use of neoadjuvant chemo- and radiation therapy may ultimately produce more "complete responders" that can be accurately identified and spared surgery altogether, as it stands, radical resection forms the basis of curative treatment for rectal cancer. However, the concepts that guide the surgeon in choosing the optimal approach in radical resection are changing. In the past, the decision as to how to proceed surgically with radical resection was based primarily on the level of the tumor above the anal verge or anorectal ring. The issue was primarily "How low is the tumor?" and "Is the distal margin safe?" A more modern approach focuses attention on achieving a negative circumferential margin despite what historically may seem to be a very minimal distal margin, the current issue is not "How low is the tumor?" so much as it is "How deep does the tumor go?". This shift in focus has been a major impetus in the evolution of sphincter sparing resection techniques.

Stapler access and visibility in the deep pelvis: A comparative human cadaver study between a computerized right angle linear cutter versus a curved cutting stapler

Purpose

Distal rectal stapling is often challenging because of limited space and visibility. We compared two stapling devices in the distal rectum in a cadaver study: the iDrive™ right angle linear cutter (RALC) (Covidien, New Haven, CT) and the CONTOUR^® curved cutter (CC) (Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Cincinnati, OH).

Methods

Twelve male cadavers underwent pelvic dissection by 4 surgeons. After rectal mobilization as in a total mesorectal excision, the staplers were applied to the rectum as deep as possible in both the coronal and sagittal positions. The distance from the pelvic floor was measured for each application. A questionnaire rated the visibility and access of the stapling devices. Measurements were taken between pelvic landmarks to see what anatomic factors hinder the placement of a distal rectal stapler.

Results

The median (range) distance of the stapler from the pelvic floor in the coronal position for the RALC was 1.0 cm (0-4.0) vs. 2.0 cm (0-5.0) for the CC, p = 0.003. In the sagittal position, the median distance was 1.6 cm (0-3.5) for the RALC and 3.3 cm (0-5.0) for the CC, p < 0.0001. The RALC scored better than the CC in respect to: 1. interference by the symphysis pubis, 2. number of stapler readjustments, 3. ease of placement in the pelvis, 4. impediment of visibility, 5. ability to hold and retain tissue, 6. visibility rating, and 7. access in the pelvis. A shorter distance between the tip of the coccyx and the pubic symphysis correlated with a longer distance of the stapler from the pelvic floor (p = 0.002).

Conclusions

The RALC is superior to the CC in terms of access, visibility, and ease of placement in the deep pelvis. This could provide important clinical benefit to both patient and surgeon during difficult rectal surgery.

The rate of abdominoperineal resections for rectal cancer in the state of Victoria, Australia: a population-based study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to document a population-based rate of abdominoperineal resections for adenocarcinoma of the rectum in the state of Victoria, Australia. It also determined whether surgeon caseload or specialist colorectal training affects this rate.

METHODS

All resections for adenocarcinoma of the rectum (International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, 3rd edition C20) that were performed in Victoria in the year 2005 were included. Procedures for rectosigmoid or colon cancer were excluded. The sample was taken from the Victorian Cancer Registry. The rate of abdominoperineal resections was calculated by dividing the total number of abdominoperineal resections by the total number of procedures for rectal cancer. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio for surgeon caseload and specialist colorectal training.

RESULTS

There were 582 resections available for analysis. Patients were mostly males (66%) and over 60 years of age (67.7%). The overall rate of abdominoperineal resection was 23.4%. The rate of abdominoperineal resections for low rectal cancers was lower (42.8%) among surgeons who had specialist colorectal training compared with those who did not (60.6%) (OR = 2.06; 95% CI, 1.24-3.42).

CONCLUSION

The rate of abdominoperineal resection in Victoria for 2005 was 23.4%. Patients with low rectal cancer operated on by surgeons who had had specialist colorectal training were significantly less likely to undergo an abdominoperineal resection compared with patients undergoing an operation by surgeons who did not have specialist colorectal training.

Rectal cancer surgery: volume-outcome analysis

PURPOSE

There is strong evidence supporting the importance of the volume-outcome relationship with respect to lung and pancreatic cancers. This relationship for rectal cancer surgery however remains unclear. We review the currently available literature to assess the evidence base for volume outcome in relation to rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

We analysed the Medline "PubMed" online database using the keyword search parameters of "rectal cancer", "hospital volume or caseload", "surgeon volume or caseload", "outcomes", "mortality", "approach", "local recurrence" and "morbidity" for the time period 1997-2009. Five hundred twenty-six generic articles were identified. Articles that were not specific for, or separately identified, rectal cancer surgery in their individual analysis were excluded. Eighteen articles remained for review. We assessed short-term morbidity and long-term outcomes such as sphincter preservation, mortality and local recurrence rates.

RESULTS

Considerable variance was noted in the definition of high volume and low volume. Postoperative length of stay was lower and sphincter-preserving surgery was more commonly performed in high-volume hospitals and by high-volume surgeons. Surgeon specialisation was an important factor influencing sphincter preservation, survival and local recurrence rates. Volume was found to have no negative relationship with mortality and a positive one with local recurrence. Interestingly, there was no association found between hospital or surgeon caseload and postoperative morbidity.

CONCLUSION

There is a paucity of evidence in the literature regarding the volume-outcome relationship with regard to rectal cancer surgery. High-volume institutions yielded shorter lengths of stay. However, the key finding was that high-volume surgeons that specialised in colorectal surgery yielded objectively improved outcomes for patients with rectal cancer.

Multidisciplinary teams in the management of rectal cancer

A myriad of advances in the treatment of rectal cancer have been achieved over the last few decades. The introduction of total mesorectal excision (TME) has resulted in significant improvements in local recurrence. Surgical education on the technique has made it the standard of care. Radiation and chemotherapy combined with TME have improved results even further with stage II and III cancers. Sphincter-sparing techniques, reservoir procedures, local treatment advances, minimally invasive techniques, surgery for metastatic disease, newer chemotherapies, and extended resections for locally advanced and recurrent lesions, have all benefited the patient with rectal cancer. The goal and responsibility of colorectal surgeons treating rectal cancer patients is to understand and coordinate the wide variety of modalities available to optimize survival, minimize morbidity, and maximize quality of life for those with this difficult problem. Coordination of specialists in this time of evolution in rectal cancer treatment becomes more important than ever. Here the authors briefly review the role of the multidisciplinary team, discuss a model multidisciplinary team approach and look at evidence supporting team use as we begin this issue devoted to the multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer.

Sphincter-sparing resection for rectal cancer

Although there is still a place for abdominoperineal resection in the treatment of rectal cancer, the state of the art is sphincter-preserving resection. Even for the lowest of rectal cancers, using a combination of neoadjuvant chemo/radiation, total mesorectal excision, and intersphincteric proctectomy and colonic J-pouch to anal anastomosis, sphincter preservation can be achieved for most patients. The key concept in pushing sphincter preservation forward has been the realization that the deep, circumferential, or lateral margin is all-important. Unless the rectal tumor involves the external sphincter muscle, there is no oncologic need to remove it, and following resection of the tumor, gastrointestinal tract continuity can be restored.

Patient and hospital factors associated with use of sphincter-sparing surgery for rectal cancer

PURPOSE

Sphincter-sparing surgery for rectal cancer is associated with higher patient satisfaction, equivalent oncologic outcomes, and less morbidity than abdominoperineal resection. No national studies have explored trends in the use of sphincter-preserving rectal resection, while accounting for both hospital and patient factors.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of 47,713 patients from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample who underwent surgery for rectal cancer from 1988 to 2006. Univariate analysis was used to identify patient and hospital factors associated with sphincter preservation. Logistic regression was performed to control for confounding variables. Trends in use of sphincter-sparing surgery over time were examined to identify hospital factors associated with higher rates of adoption.

RESULTS

Patient demographics associated with sphincter preservation in multivariate analysis were age <60, female gender, and white race. Among hospital factors associated with sphincter preservation, the most important predictors were high procedural volume (odds ratio 1.55; 95% CI 1.33-1.79; P < .001), and urban location (odds ratio 1.26; 95% CI 1.33-1.40; P < .001). Although sphincter preservation increased over time in the entire cohort (35.4% in 1988 vs 60.5% in 2006), high-volume hospitals had significantly higher rates of sphincter preservation compared with the lowest-volume hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

Although rates of adoption of sphincter-sparing surgery were similar across hospital volume strata, overall rates of sphincter preservation were consistently higher in high-volume and urban hospitals, and among patients who are female, white, and younger. Further research is needed to determine whether these differences reflect disparities in quality of surgical care, or differences in referral patterns or case mix.

Factors associated with sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer at national comprehensive cancer network centers

OBJECTIVE

To determine rate and predictors of sphincter-preserving surgery (SPS) for rectal cancer patients treated at specialty institutions.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

SPS has been considered a surrogate for surgical quality, and sphincter preservation is tremendously important to patients. Evidence of association between case volume and SPS rate has prompted recommendations that all rectal cancer patients undergo surgery at specialty institutions. However, rates of SPS, and the factors associated with ability to perform SPS, have not been well-characterized.

METHODS

A prospective registry of all colorectal cancer patients treated at 7 National Comprehensive Cancer Network institutions was used to identify patients with clinical stage I-III rectal cancer undergoing surgery (n = 674) between September 2005 and October 2007. Patient, tumor and treatment factors were abstracted; patients' clinical characteristics with and without SPS were compared using descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 674 identified patients (median age, 58.2; 60% male), 520 (77%) had SPS. Of these, 240 had low anterior resection with coloanal anastomosis, 268 low anterior resection without coloanal anastomosis; 12 had other SPS procedures. Sixty-two percent had a temporary diverting stoma. On multivariable analyses, independent predictors of SPS included younger age at diagnosis, proximal location in the rectum, nonfixed tumor, and institution.

CONCLUSIONS

SPS rates at National Comprehensive Cancer Network institutions exceed those seen in population-based samples and clinical trials. In addition to expected variation in SPS rates based on patient and tumor characteristics, we identified variation among institutions. Although the optimal rate of SPS remains unknown, this provides areas for further research and potential performance improvement.

The effect of hospital and surgeon volume on outcomes for rectal cancer surgery

Despite many studies of rectal cancer outcomes, no clear relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and patient outcomes has emerged for rectal cancer. We aimed to characterize the effect of hospital and surgical volume on surgery type and surgical outcomes in rectal cancer through a systematic review of the literature. We conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating the association between hospital or surgeon volume and rectal cancer outcomes. We searched PubMed for relevant articles and reviewed 23 articles. We describe each study and report outcomes in terms of the effect of hospital or surgeon volume on the type of surgery performed, surgical complications, postoperative mortality, survival, and recurrence. Hospitals and surgeons with higher caseloads appear to perform more sphincter-preserving surgeries and have lower postoperative mortality rates. Hospital and surgeon volume appear to have no effect or a small beneficial effect on the rate of leaks, complication rates, local recurrence, overall survival, and cancer-specific survival. For rectal cancer, the effects of hospital volume may be stronger for more short-term outcomes. Beyond the immediate recovery period, the effect of hospital and surgeon volume may be minimal. As more technically challenging surgeries, such as total mesorectal resection, become more widespread it will be important to evaluate the impact of hospital and surgeon volume on outcomes.

Effect of the Deyo score on outcomes and costs in shoulder arthroplasty patients

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of preoperative comorbidity status (defined by the Deyo index) on hospital mortality, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and hospital costs for shoulder arthroplasty patients.

METHODS

The overall mean hospital mortality and postoperative complication rates, and length of hospital stay and hospital costs stratified by the Deyo score were compared using the Pearson Chi squared test and the F-test, respectively. The effects of the Deyo score on hospital mortality and postoperative complications were estimated using multiple logistic regression. The length of hospital stay and hospital costs were estimated using multiple linear regression. The magnitude of the estimated effects of the Deyo score on the 4 outcomes were expressed as crude odds ratios (ORs) and adjusted ORs for age, race, gender, surgeon volume, and hospital volume.

RESULTS

Higher Deyo scores tended to be associated with higher hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and hospital costs. Compared with the referent group (Deyo score=0), patients with the highest Deyo scores (5-36) exhibited adjusted ORs of 11.8 for hospital mortality (p=0.011) and 1.1 for developing postoperative complications (p=0.098), and had the highest length of hospital stay (mean, 4.1 days) and hospital costs (mean, US$18,549).

CONCLUSION

The Deyo score was a predictor of outcomes and costs in the shoulder arthroplasty population. By identifying relevant factors, health care providers can better determine who should be referred for shoulder arthroplasty and what should be considered when assessing risks and benefits.

Colorectal cancer care knowledge mapping: identifying priorities for knowledge translation research

OBJECTIVE

We do not know the extent and nature of knowledge translation (KT) in oncology. This study examined colorectal cancer (CRC) health services research, and engaged researchers and decision makers in prioritizing KT research gaps.

METHODS

MEDLINE was searched from 1996 to 2006 for CRC health services research in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and United States. Studies were tabulated by indicator, type of research and country to reveal gaps. Researchers and decision makers prioritized gaps via questionnaire, then generated research questions for top-ranked gaps at a one-day workshop.

RESULTS

A total of 132 articles were categorized and 29 individuals attended the workshop. We lack knowledge about factors influencing rates of many indicators. Researchers and decision makers prioritized KT research on factors that could either influence the utilization of screening or enhance the quality of surgical outcomes. They acknowledged lack of research capacity and policy support as barriers, and confusion about the concept of KT.

CONCLUSIONS

Several opportunities were revealed for improving the quality of CRC screening and surgery. Greater coordination of, and support for KT research is required to address these gaps. Further research should evaluate different methods of achieving KT between researchers and decision makers for research planning.

Does practice make perfect?

Extensive literature supports the correlation between surgical volume and improved clinical outcome in the management of various cancers. It is this evidence that has catalysed the creation of centres of excellence. However, on closer inspection, many of these studies are poor quality, low weight and use vastly heterogenous end points in assessment of both volume and outcome. We critically appraise the English language literature published over the last ten years pertaining to the volume outcome relationship in the context of cancer care. Future balanced unbiased studies may enable equipoise in planning international cancer management strategies.

Assessing the quality of colorectal cancer care: do we have appropriate quality measures? (A systematic review of literature)

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The burden of illness from colorectal cancer (CRC) can be reduced by improving the quality of care. Identifying appropriate quality measures is the first step in this direction. We identified process measures currently available to assess the quality of diagnosis and management of CRC. We also evaluated the extent to which these measures are ready to be implemented in clinical practice, and identified areas for future research.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and relevant grey literature. We identified 3771 abstracts and reviewed 74 articles that included quality measures for diagnosis or management of CRC. Measures from traditional quality improvement literature, and from epidemiological and other studies that included quality measures as part of their research agenda, were considered. In addition, we devised a summary rating scale (IST) to appraise the extent of a measure's importance and usability, scientific acceptability and extent of testing.

RESULTS

The coverage of general process measures in CRC is extensive. Most measures are important, but need to be developed and field-tested. The best available measures relate to pathology and chemotherapy. No measures are available for assessing quality of management of stage IV rectal cancer and hepatic metastasis; chemotherapy for stage II colon cancer; and procedure notes.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an urgent need to refine existing measures and to develop scientifically accurate quality measures for a comprehensive assessment of the quality of CRC care. The role of the federal government and professional societies is critical in pursuing this goal.

Defining the volume-quality debate: is it the surgeon, the center, or the training?

The quality movement in health care is ubiquitous in our society. The volume-quality debate is a central component of this that affects surgeons. In colorectal surgery and other fields, studies have demonstrated improved outcomes for patients having care provided at higher volume centers. What is unclear about this relationship however, is whether this improvement is related to the center, the surgeon, or the surgeon's training and experience. Some studies have tried to better examine this relationship and have suggested that limitations in administrative data may exaggerate the impact of a high-volume center. The use of crude mortality as the primary outcome instead of more specific outcomes such as cancer recurrence, inadequate risk data, and the failure to account for clustering of cases are other important limitations. Although higher volume likely equates to higher quality in some form, this may be more related to surgeon-specific factors rather than high-volume centers alone. The role of subspecialization, especially colorectal-trained surgeons with a high individual case volume may be the most important predictor of higher quality in colorectal surgery. This relationship may be especially important for the treatment of rectal cancer. The relationship of volume to outcomes is difficult to understand, and to appropriately answer these questions will require the collection and analysis of comprehensive, risk-adjusted data after adequate outcome measures are defined. This will only occur with significant institutional support, and a commitment to follow outcomes longitudinally and implement necessary changes to improve outcomes.

Curative rectal cancer surgery in a low-volume hospital: a quality assessment

AIMS

Hospital volume or caseload is often used as a surrogate measure for quality of care in rectal cancer treatment. The aim of this study was to assess outcome in a low-volume hospital and secondly to examine the impact of surgeon volume on the results.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 131 patients' charts identified 102 patients receiving apparently curative resections for rectal cancer in the period 1993-2002. Our study population did not differ significantly from the national average except for shift towards more advanced Dukes stage (p=0.00) and a higher rate of node positive patients at time of diagnosis (p=0.00).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences from the national outcome results, neither in perioperative mortality or complications, nor 5-year survival or local recurrences. Thirteen different on-staff surgeons performed rectal cancer surgery in our hospital in the decade, and median annual caseload was four. We detect a difference in 5-year survival when grouping the surgeons by annual caseload, but the significance is inconclusive. It is, however, interesting that in 85% of the resections, two or more certified gastrointestinal surgeons with specific training were involved. A relatively high number (9%) of discrepancies between the Norwegian Rectal Cancer Registry (NRCR) database and the local hospital database were identified.

CONCLUSION

Adequate results for surgical outcome can be achieved in a low-volume hospital. Surgeon volume showed inconclusive impact for our results of outcome. A local quality initiative is justified in addition to national registries.

Organ preservation for rectal cancer

Organ preservation with maintenance of function in the treatment of rectal cancer is highly valued by patients. Although most patients with resectable rectal cancer can undergo a sphincter-sparing radical procedure, there are patient, tumor, surgeon, and treatment factors that influence the ability to restore intestinal continuity after radical resection. Although population-based data suggest that the rate of sphincter preservation is lower than could be obtained at expert centers, there are patients in whom low anterior resection with colo-anal anastomosis is not technically feasible and/or oncologically sound. Additionally, resection with ultralow anastomosis results in functional compromise in many patients. Local treatment of rectal cancer aims to decrease the morbidity and the functional sequelae associated with radical resection; however, local excision is associated with a higher rate of local recurrence than is radical resection. Strict selection criteria are essential when considering local excision, and patients should be informed of the risk of local recurrence. The use of adjuvant therapy with local excision, particularly in patients with T2 lesions, has promise but should be considered only as part of a clinical trial.

Rectal cancer: from outcomes of care to process of care

This paper represents a current opinion on the impact surgeons may have on the variability of the quality of care of rectal cancer surgery. No systematic review of the evidence available in the literature is provided. The objective is to present a concise insight on selected outcomes of care studies, to review the limitations of such studies and to discuss the value of process of care studies. Outcomes of care studies measure what happens to patients, and process of care studies measure what is done to patients. Three variables are reviewed: training, volume and individual skill. It is concluded that the quality of the selected outcomes of care studies is not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions on whether surgeons are a variable. Further efforts should prompt process of care studies on rectal cancer surgery. This implies that outcomes should be measured, processes of care modified and outcomes measured again. This cycle should be continuously repeated in order to achieve the best quality of care.

Surgical Outcomes Research Based on Administrative Data: Inferior or Complementary to Prospective Randomized Clinical Trials?

The importance of surgical research has gained new prominence over the past decades as the relevance of well designed and well conducted studies has become increasingly evident. There are two basic but diametrically different methods of conducting research: the prospective randomized clinical trial and the retrospective surgical outcomes study based on administrative data. Administrative databases contain data that were initially collected for purposes other than scientific research. Whereas the prospective randomized clinical trial is familiar to most surgeons, surgical outcomes research based on administrative data constitutes a genre of investigation that is often unfamiliar to and even disparaged by the surgical community. In the present article, the strengths and weaknesses of both prospective randomized clinical trials and retrospective surgical outcomes research are discussed. Specifically, the advantages and limitations of investigations based on large administrative databases are outlined. Because both study designs play an important role in surgical research, carefully designed and implemented surgical outcomes research based on administrative data should be viewed as being complementary and not inferior to prospective randomized clinical trials.

Surgeon and hospital volume and the management of colorectal cancer patients in Australia

BACKGROUND

The evidence for a relationship between patient outcomes and clinician and hospital volume is increasing. The National Colorectal Cancer Care Survey was undertaken to determine the management patterns in Australia for individuals newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer in a 3 month period in the year 2000.

METHODS

All new cases of colorectal cancer registered at each Australian State Cancer Registry were entered into the survey. This generated a questionnaire that was sent to the treating surgeon. Chi-squared tests and logistic regression analyses were used to determine levels of statistical significance.

RESULTS

Of 2,383 surgical questionnaires generated, 2,015 (85%) were completed. The majority (58%) of surgeons treated one or two patients with colorectal cancer over the 3 months of the survey. There was variation across surgeon cohorts for preoperative measures including the use of deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis. Patients seen by low volume surgeons were most likely to be given a permanent stoma (P < 0.0001). Patients with rectal cancer who were operated on by high volume surgeons were significantly more likely to receive a colonic pouch (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

This nationwide population-based survey of the treatment of colorectal cancer patients suggests that the delivery of care by surgeons (the majority) who treat patients with rectal cancer infrequently should be evaluated.