The Effect of Facility Volume on Survival Following Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer

Disparities in clinical trial enrollment among patients with gastrointestinal cancer relative to minority-serving and safety-netting hospitals

BACKGROUND

For results to be generalizable to all patients with cancer, clinical trials need to include a diverse patient demographic that is representative of the general population. We sought to characterize the effect of receiving care at a minority-serving hospital (MSH) and/or safety-net hospital on clinical trial enrollment among patients with gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies.

METHODS

Adult patients with GI cancer who underwent oncologic surgery and were enrolled in institutional-/National Cancer Institute-funded clinical trials between 2012 and 2019 were identified in the National Cancer Database. Multivariable regression was used to assess the relationship between MSH and safety-net status relative to clinical trial enrollment.

RESULTS

Among 1,112,594 patients, 994,598 (89.4%) were treated at a non-MSH, whereas 117,996 (10.6%) were treated at an MSH. Only 1857 patients (0.2%) were enrolled in a clinical trial; most patients received care at a non-MSH (1794 [96.6%]). On multivariable analysis, the odds of enrollment in a clinical trial were markedly lower among patients treated at an MSH vs non-MSH (odds ratio [OR], 0.32; 95% CI, 0.22-0.46). In addition, even after controlling for receipt of care at MSH, Black patients remained at lower odds of enrollment in a clinical trial than White patients (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.45-0.73; both P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Overall, clinical trial participation among patients with GI cancer was extremely low. Patients treated at an MSH and high safety-net burden hospitals and Black individuals were much less likely to be enrolled in a clinical trial. Efforts should be made to improve trial enrollment and address disparities in trial representation.

Patient management after primary rectal cancer diagnosis. Special focus on surgical treatment for non-metastatic disease

Background: Rectal cancer is a public health priority. Primary objectives of this study were to evaluate the quality of care for non-metastatic rectal cancer using process and outcome indicators. Delay of management, length of stay and readmission rate, sphincter preservation, morbidity, number of examined lymph nodes, mortality, overall and disease-free survivals were evaluated. Secondary objectives were to estimate the relationship between possible predictive parameters for (1) anastomotic leakage (logistic regression), (2) overall or disease-free survivals (cox regression).Methods: We performed a retrospective study on 312 consecutive patients diagnosed with primary rectal cancer between 2016 and 2019. We focused on the 163 patients treated by surgery for non-metastatic cancer.Results: The treatment began within 33 days (range 0-264) after incidence, resection rate was 67%. Digestive continuity rate in lower, middle and upper rectum was 30%, 87% and 96%. Median of 14 lymph nodes (range 1-46) was analyzed. Length of stay and readmission rate were 11 days (range 3-56) and 4%, respectively. Within 90 postoperative days, clinical anastomotic leakage occurred in 9.2% of cases, major morbidity rate was 17%, mortality 1.2%. Multivariate analysis revealed that stoma decreased the risk of anastomotic leakage [hazard ratio: 0.16; 95% confidence intervals: 0.04-0.63; p = 0.008]. The 5-year overall survival after surgery was 85 ± 4%, disease-free survival 83 ± 4%. Patients with major complications, male gender and R1/R2 resection margin had a poorer prognosis.Conclusion: This work showed encouraging results in rectal cancer treatment in our institution, our results were in line with recommendations at the time.

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.