Influence of hospital volume on local recurrence and survival in a population sample of rectal cancer patients

European Society of Gynaecological Oncology quality indicators for the surgical treatment of endometrial carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Quality of surgical care as a crucial component of a comprehensive multi-disciplinary management improves outcomes in patients with endometrial carcinoma, notably helping to avoid suboptimal surgical treatment. Quality indicators (QIs) enable healthcare professionals to measure their clinical management with regard to ideal standards of care.

OBJECTIVE

In order to complete its set of QIs for the surgical management of gynecological cancers, the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) initiated the development of QIs for the surgical treatment of endometrial carcinoma.

METHODS

QIs were based on scientific evidence and/or expert consensus. The development process included a systematic literature search for the identification of potential QIs and documentation of the scientific evidence, two consensus meetings of a group of international experts, an internal validation process, and external review by a large international panel of clinicians and patient representatives. QIs were defined using a structured format comprising metrics specifications, and targets. A scoring system was then developed to ensure applicability and feasibility of a future ESGO accreditation process based on these QIs for endometrial carcinoma surgery and support any institutional or governmental quality assurance programs.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine structural, process and outcome indicators were defined. QIs 1-5 are general indicators related to center case load, training, experience of the surgeon, structured multi-disciplinarity of the team and active participation in clinical research. QIs 6 and 7 are related to the adequate pre-operative investigations. QIs 8-22 are related to peri-operative standards of care. QI 23 is related to molecular markers for endometrial carcinoma diagnosis and as determinants for treatment decisions. QI 24 addresses the compliance of management of patients after primary surgical treatment with the standards of care. QIs 25-29 highlight the need for a systematic assessment of surgical morbidity and oncologic outcome as well as standardized and comprehensive documentation of surgical and pathological elements. Each QI was associated with a score. An assessment form including a scoring system was built as basis for ESGO accreditation of centers for endometrial cancer surgery.

Centralisation of rectal cancer care has improved patient survival in the republic of Ireland

BACKGROUND

Centralisation of rectal cancer surgery to designated centres was a key objective of the Irish national cancer control program. A national audit of rectal cancer surgery indicated centralisation was associated with improved early surgical outcomes. This study aimed to determine the impact of implementation of the national cancer strategy on survival from rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were collected from the National Cancer Registry of Ireland to include all patients with Stage I-III rectal cancer undergoing rectal cancer surgery with curative intent between 2003 and 2012. Five-year overall survival and cancer-specific survival was compared between patients in the pre-centralisation (2003-2007) and post-centralisation period (2008-2012) and between patients receiving surgery in designated cancer centres and non-cancer centres.

RESULTS

The proportion of rectal cancer surgery performed in a designated cancer centre increased from 42% during 2003-2007 to 58% during 2008-2012. Five-year overall survival increased from 66.1% in 2003-2007 to 73.5% in 2008-2012 (p < 0.001). Five-year cancer-specific survival increased from 75.3% in 2003-2007 to 81.9% in 2008-2012 (p < 0.001). Surgery in a cancer centre and surgery post-centralisation were significantly associated with overall and cancer specific survival using Cox proportional hazards regression.

CONCLUSION

Survival following resection of rectal cancer was significantly improved following implementation of a national cancer strategy incorporating centralisation of rectal cancer surgery.

Outcomes After Rectal Cancer Surgery: A Population-Based Study Using Quality Indicators

Quality indicators are increasingly being used to measure the safety of cancer treatments. We examined factors associated with poorer outcomes after major resection for rectal cancer over time. We linked population-based cancer registry and cancer-related procedure data for rectal cancer cases over a 15-year period. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine factors associated with 30- and 90-day postoperative mortality, and overall survival (OS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier survival function. The study included 9,222 patients who had major resection for invasive rectal cancer. Thirty-day and 90-day mortality were 2.1% and 3.8%, respectively. Risk of 30-day mortality was elevated in older patients (p < .001); patients with ≥2 comorbidities (p < .001); and those admitted as an emergency (p < .001). An approximate 45% reduction in 30-day mortality (p = .01) was observed over time. Two-year OS was 81.5%, again with significant improvements observed over time (p < .001). No significant association was observed between hospital volume and mortality or 2-year survival. A reduction in rates of postoperative mortality and improved 2-year OS were observed over time. Quality indicators are a valuable tool to monitor clinical outcomes over time and as a means of improving clinical care for all patients.

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.

Systematic review and a meta-analysis of hospital and surgeon volume/outcome relationships in colorectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Numerous hospitals worldwide are considering setting minimum volume standards for colorectal surgery. This study aims to examine the association between hospital and surgeon volume on outcomes for colorectal surgery.

METHODS

Two investigators independently reviewed six databases from inception to May 2016 for articles that reported outcomes according to hospital and/or surgeon volume. Eligible studies included those in which assessed the association hospital or surgeon volume with outcomes for the surgical treatment of colon and/or rectal cancer. Random effects models were used to pool the hazard ratios (HRs) for the association between hospital/surgeon volume with outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 47 articles pooled (1,122,303 patients, 9,877 hospitals and 9,649 surgeons). The meta-analysis demonstrated that there is a volume-outcome relationship that favours high volume facilities and high volume surgeons. Higher hospital and surgeon volume resulted in reduced 30-day mortality (HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.78-0.87, P<0.001 & HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.80-0.89, P<0.001 respectively) and intra-operative mortality (HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.76-0.86, P<0.001 & HR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.40-0.62, P<0.001 respectively). Post-operative complication rates depended on hospital volume (HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.81-0.98, P<0.05), but not surgeon volume except with respect to anastomotic leak (HR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.37-0.94, P<0.01). High volume surgeons are associated with greater 5-year survival and greater lymph node retrieval, whilst reducing recurrence rates, operative time, length of stay and cost. The best outcomes occur in high volume hospitals with high volume surgeons, followed by low volume hospitals with high volume surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

High volume by surgeon and high volume by hospital are associated with better outcomes for colorectal cancer surgery. However, this relationship is non-linear with no clear threshold of effect being identified and an apparent ceiling of effect.

Variation in treatment modalities, costs and outcomes of rectal cancer patients in Poland

Aim of the study

To evaluate outcome, costs and treatment differences in rectal cancer patients between various regions in Poland.

Material and methods

Data from the Polish National Health Fund of all patients with rectal cancer diagnosed and treated between 2005 and 2007 were analyzed. Overall, relative 5-year survival and the percentage of patients receiving chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery were analyzed. The possible influence of cost of treatment per patient and mean number of rectal cancer patients per surgical oncologist were analyzed as well.

Results

In total 15,281 patients with rectal cancer were diagnosed and treated in Poland in 2005–2007 within the services of the National Health Fund. The overall, relative 5-year survival rate was 51.6%. Curative surgery was performed in 64.1% of patients. Radiotherapy and chemotherapy were used in 47.5% and 60.7% of patients, respectively. The mean cost of treatment of one rectal cancer patient was 32,800 PLN and there were 49.8 rectal cancer patients per specialist in surgical oncology. Important differences between regions were found in all these factors, but without a significant influence on survival. A correlation between numbers of patients per specialist in different voivodeships and survival rates was observed, as well as a correlation between percentage of surgical resection in voivodeships and survival rates (p = 0.07).

Conclusions

Results of treatment of colorectal cancer in Poland improved significantly during the last decade. There exist however, important disparities between regions in terms of method of treatment, costs and outcomes.

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.

Rectal cancer and teaching hospitals: hospital teaching status affects use of neoadjuvant radiation and survival for rectal cancer patients

BACKGROUND

For rectal cancer, it is unknown how use of radiation, treatment cost, and survival differ based on hospital teaching designation.

METHODS

Private insurance claims data linked with the Pennsylvania Cancer Registry were used to identify rectal cancer patients undergoing surgery from 2004 to 2006. Patients with missing data of interest were excluded. Hospitals were characterized as follows: large (≥200 beds) versus small size (<200 beds), teaching versus nonteaching, and urban versus rural. Logistic regression was used to model the use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy, and Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare cancer-specific survival between hospital types.

RESULTS

A total of 432 patients were analyzed. There was no difference in the distribution of cancer stages among the various hospital types (all p > 0.20). Teaching hospitals were associated with significantly higher utilization of neoadjuvant radiotherapy for stage II and III cancers compared with nonteaching facilities (57 vs. 28 %; p < 0.0001). On multivariate analysis, teaching status was the only hospital designation associated with use of neoadjuvant radiation (p < 0.001); hospital size and rural/urban designation were not significant. Nonteaching hospitals were more likely to use adjuvant radiotherapy for stage II and III disease (13 vs. 30 %; p < 0.01). Teaching hospitals had lower odds of death from rectal cancer when evaluating all stages [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.35; p < 0.0001] with similar costs of inpatient treatment (teaching: US $30,769 versus nonteaching: US $26,892; p = 0.22).

CONCLUSIONS

Teaching designation was associated with higher incidence of neoadjuvant radiotherapy for stage II and III disease, with improved cancer-specific survival compared with nonteaching hospitals, and with similar treatment costs.

Increased use of multidisciplinary treatment modalities adds little to the outcome of rectal cancer treated by optimal total mesorectal excision

PURPOSE

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard surgical treatment for rectal cancer. The roles of chemotherapy and radiotherapy have become more defined, accompanied by improvements in preoperative staging and histopathological assessment. We analyse our ongoing results in the light of changing patterns of treatment over consecutive time periods.

METHODS

In total, 151 consecutive patients underwent potentially curative rectal excision for cancer in a single institution. Management and outcomes were compared between 1993-1999 and 2000-2007 which corresponded with the restructuring of the regional oncological services.

RESULTS

We found an increase in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy after 1999 (20/89 vs 1/62, p < 0.001). There was an increase in the mean number of lymph nodes examined (11.9 vs 9.4, p = 0.037). The locoregional recurrence rate was 5.3%. The rates were not significantly different between the two study periods [4/89 (4.5%) 1999-2007 vs 4/62 (6.5%) 1993-1999, p = 0.597]. There was no statistical difference in overall or disease-free survival in the time periods examined.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing use of neoadjuvant therapy and concomitant improvement in lymph node assessment did not translate into a concurrent reduction in the local recurrence, disease-free and overall survival rates. Our results demonstrate the enduring benefit of specialist training in TME in the outcome of rectal cancer surgery. This observational study suggests that low local recurrence rates are surrogate markers for improved overall and disease-free survival. Multidisciplinary team practice should be examined and made cost effective according to the individual unit's local recurrence rate in the light of this and other reports.

Quality of rectal cancer surgery and its relationship to surgeon and hospital caseload: a population-based study

AIM

A population-based audit of all rectal cancers diagnosed in Ireland in 2007 has shown an inconsistent relationship between surgeon and hospital caseload and a range of quality measures. Better outcome for rectal cancer has been associated with increasing surgeon and hospital caseload, but there is less evidence of how this may relate to quality of care. Our aim was to examine how measures of quality in rectal cancer surgery related to surgeon and hospital workload and to outcome.

METHOD

All colorectal surgeons in Ireland participated in an audit of rectal cancer based on an evidence-based instrument. Data were extracted from medical records by trained coders. Generalized linear mixed models were used to determine the relationship between surgeon or hospital caseload and measures of quality of care.

RESULTS

Five hundred and eighty-one (95%) of the 614 rectal cancers diagnosed in Ireland in 2007 were audited; 49 hospitals and 86 surgeons participated. Ten (28%) hospitals treated fewer than five cases and seven fewer than three. A positive relationship between caseload and quality was seen for a few measures, more frequently for hospital than surgeon caseload. The relationship between caseload and quality of care was inconsistent, suggesting these measures do not represent a single dimension of quality. One-year survival was negatively associated with hospital caseload. There was no statistically significant relationship between survival and measures of quality of care.

DISCUSSION

Quality of care was inconsistently influenced by surgeon and hospital caseload. Caseload may affect only one aspect of surgical management, such as the quality of preoperative workup, and is not necessarily related to the quality of other hospital care. Simple measures of outcome, such as survival, cannot represent the complexity of this relationship.

Centralisation of services for gynaecological cancer

BACKGROUND

Gynaecological cancers are the second most common cancers among women. It has been suggested that centralised care improves outcomes but consensus is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of centralisation of care for patients with gynaecological cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2010), MEDLINE, and EMBASE up to November 2010. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, and reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, controlled before-and-after studies, interrupted time series studies, and observational studies that examined centralisation of services for gynaecological cancer, and used multivariable analysis to adjust for baseline case mix.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted data, and two assessed risk of bias. Where possible, we synthesised the data on survival in a meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies met our inclusion criteria; all were retrospective observational studies and therefore at high risk of bias.Meta-analysis of three studies assessing over 9000 women suggested that institutions with gynaecologic oncologists on site may prolong survival in women with ovarian cancer, compared to community or general hospitals: hazard ratio (HR) of death was 0.90 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.99). Similarly, another meta-analysis of three studies assessing over 50,000 women, found that teaching centres or regional cancer centres may prolong survival in women with any gynaecological cancer compared to community or general hospitals (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99). The largest of these studies included all gynaecological malignancies and assessed 48,981 women, so the findings extend beyond ovarian cancer. One study compared community hospitals with semi-specialised gynaecologists versus general hospitals and reported non-significantly better disease-specific survival in women with ovarian cancer (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01). The findings of included studies were highly consistent. Adverse event data were not reported in any of the studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low quality, but consistent evidence to suggest that women with gynaecological cancer who received treatment in specialised centres had longer survival than those managed elsewhere. The evidence was stronger for ovarian cancer than for other gynaecological cancers.Further studies of survival are needed, with more robust designs than retrospective observational studies. Research should also assess the quality of life associated with centralisation of gynaecological cancer care. Most of the available evidence addresses ovarian cancer in developed countries; future studies should be extended to other gynaecological cancers within different healthcare systems.

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.

Concomitant boost radiotherapy and multidrug chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer: results of a phase II study

BACKGROUND

An intensified multidrug chemotherapy regimen (raltitrexed plus oxaliplatin, Tom-Ox) plus concomitant boost radiotherapy, in the neoadjuvant treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer patients, was shown feasible in our previous study. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy in terms of pathologic complete response to pre-operative therapy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A Phase II study was designed and clinical stage T3-T4 and/ or N ≥ 1 patients were treated with concomitant boost radiotherapy (55 Gy/5 weeks) plus concurrent chemotherapy (Tom-Ox). The primary endpoint was the assessment of efficacy in terms of clinical and pathologic response to pre-operative therapy. According to the Gehan's design study, 25 patients were enrolled. Toxicity was assessed according to the RTOG-EORTC and CTCAE v.3.0 criteria.

RESULTS

Twenty-five consecutive patients were treated. Twenty-two of the 25 (88%) patients had a partial clinical response at the time of pre-operative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Only one patient showed progressive systemic disease at pre-surgical revaluation and was subjected only to biopsy to evaluate pathological response. Twenty-four patients (96%) underwent surgery. Overall, pathologic complete response was observed in eight patients (32%; CI 0.95:12-55%) and only microscopic tumor foci (pTmic) in two patients (pT0-mic: 40%; CI 0.95:18-63%). Nineteen patients (76%) showed tumor down-staging. Proctitis and/or diarrhea were the most frequent acute side effects experienced. Eighteen patients had grade 1-2 toxicity (77%); whereas two patients experienced grade 3 toxicity (8%). Two-year Local control and actuarial Disease Free Survival were 100% and 91%, respectively. CONCLUSION. An intensified regimen of concomitant boost radiotherapy plus concurrent raltitrexed and oxaliplatin, can be safely administered in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. This regimen produces high rates of pathological complete response. Based on available data, this type of treatment could be offered to patients with more advanced tumors (T4 or local recurrence).

Establishing quality in colorectal surgery

AIM

The review aimed to offer a contemporary perspective of the quality of current colorectal surgery.

METHOD

A literature search was undertaken to identify relevant indicators. Citations were included if they related to quality in colorectal surgery. The search terms used included the Medical Subject Heading terms and Boolean characters: 'colon' OR 'colorectal', OR 'rectal' OR 'rectum' AND 'Quality Indicators', OR 'Quality Assurance', OR 'Quality of healthcare', OR 'Reference Standards', OR 'Quality' plus a variable floating term. A two-person independent review was undertaken from resulting citations and their consequent reference lists. The search was limited to citations from 2000 to 2010 in humans and to the English language.

RESULTS

Metrics identified as potential quality indicators in colorectal surgery are discussed according to the structure, process and outcome framework.

CONCLUSION

A clear appreciation of the scope of individual metrics for quality appraisal purposes is necessary if they are to be used meaningfully for performance benchmarking.

[Intra-operative local tumor cell dissemination in rectal carcinoma surgery: effect of operation principles and neoadjuvant therapy]

BACKGROUND

The influence of surgical principles and neoadjuvant therapy on the frequency of local tumor cell dissemination (LTCD) in rectal carcinoma surgery and its consequences for local recurrence and survival rates were analyzed.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data from the Erlangen registry for colorectal carcinomas (ERCRC) from 1969-2008 were compared with data from the literature published in 1980-2008.

RESULTS

LTCD was observed in 6.7% in the ERCRC (n=2764) and a frequency of 6.9% was reported in in the literature (n=13,395). In the course of time and especially since the introduction of total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery, the incidence of LTCD has significantly decreased. Neoadjuvant treatment did not influence the frequency of LTCD. Following LTCD the rate of local recurrence significantly increased and the 5 year survival rate significantly decreased. This also applied to patients with neoadjuvant therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Even in the era of TME surgery attention must to be paid to avoidance of LTCD. It is obligatory to document the occurrence of LTCD and it must be taken into consideration in routine quality assurance. In cases of LTCD postoperative chemoradiation is indicated for patients without neoadjuvant irradiation.

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.

The management of rectal cancer in Ireland in 2007--room for improvement?

INTRODUCTION

Effective management of rectal cancer relies on accurate pre-operative assessment, surgical technical excellence and integrated neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemo and/or radiotherapy. The aim of this study was to examine the management of rectal cancer in Ireland.

METHODS

This was a retrospective chart review. All cases of rectal cancer (15 cm or less from the anal verge) diagnosed in Ireland in the year 2007 were included in the audit.

RESULTS

In total data for 585 patients were included, under the care of 87 consultant surgeons operating in 48 hospitals. Only data recorded in medical charts were included. Pre-operative investigations were less utilised than recommended by current guidelines and consequently many cancers were inadequately staged. In total 52.5% of cases were discussed at a multi-disciplinary meeting. Overall, 88% of the patients had surgery, and the 30-day mortality rate was 1.7%. The quality of post-operative pathology reporting was variable, with adequacy of total mesorectal excision status unclear or unknown in 74% of cases. Cases were managed in a large number of centres, and in lower volume centres (<5 cases per annum) patients appeared to be less adequately investigated.

CONCLUSION

This study gives a snapshot of recent practice in the management of rectal cancer in Ireland but is of necessity limited as the audit was retrospective and long term outcomes have not been assessed. In 2007 rectal cancer was managed in a large number of centres and best practice was frequently not adhered to. The impending centralisation of cancer services is likely to impact on the management of rectal cancer in Ireland.

Volume-outcome analysis of colorectal cancer-related outcomes

BACKGROUND

Significant associations between caseload and surgical outcomes highlight the conflict between local cancer care and the need for centralization. This study examined the effect of hospital volume on short-term outcomes and survival, adjusting for the effect of surgeon caseload.

METHODS

Between 1998 and 2002, 8219 patients with colorectal cancer were identified in a regional population-based audit. Outcomes were assessed using univariable and multivariable analysis to allow case mix adjustment. Surgeons were categorized as low (26 or fewer operations annually), medium (27-40) or high (more than 40) volume. Hospitals were categorized as low (86 or fewer), medium (87-109) or high (more than 109) volume.

RESULTS

Some 7411 (90.2 per cent) of 8219 patients underwent surgery with an anastomotic leak rate of 2.9 per cent (162 of 5581), perioperative mortality rate of 8.0 per cent (591 of 7411) and 5-year survival rate of 46.8 per cent. Medium- and high-volume surgeons were associated with significantly better operative mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.74, P = 0.010 and OR 0.66, P = 0.002 respectively) and survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.88, P = 0.003 and HR 0.93, P = 0.090 respectively) than low-volume surgeons. Rectal cancer survival was significantly better in high-volume versus low-volume hospitals (HR 0.85, P = 0.036), with no difference between medium- and low-volume hospitals (HR 0.96, P = 0.505).

CONCLUSION

This study has confirmed the relevance of minimum volume standards for individual surgeons. Organization of services in high-volume units may improve survival in patients with rectal cancer.

Variation in treatment and outcome of patients with rectal cancer by region, hospital type and volume in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Aim of this study was to describe treatment patterns and outcome according to region and hospital type and volume among patients with rectal cancer in the Netherlands.

METHODS

All patients with rectal carcinoma diagnosed in the period 2001-2006 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the influence of relevant factors on the odds of receiving preoperative radiotherapy and on the odds of postoperative mortality. Relative survival analysis was used to estimate relative excess risk of dying according to hospital type and volume.

RESULTS

In total, 16 039 patients were selected. Patients diagnosed in a teaching or university hospital had a lower odds (OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.73-0.99 and OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.52-0.92) and patients diagnosed in a hospital performing >50 resections per year had a higher odds (OR 1.95; 95% CI 1.09-1.76) of receiving preoperative radiotherapy. A large variation between individual hospitals in rates of preoperative radiotherapy and between Comprehensive Cancer Centre-regions in the administration of preoperative chemoradiation was revealed. Postoperative mortality was not correlated to hospital type or volume. Patients with T1-M0 tumours diagnosed in a hospital with >50 resections per year had a better survival compared to patients diagnosed in a hospital with <25 resections per year (RER 0.11; 95% CI 0.02-0.78).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated variation in treatment and outcome of patients with rectal cancer in the Netherlands, with differences related to hospital volume and hospitals teaching or academic status. However, variation in treatment patterns between individual hospitals proved to be much larger than could be explained by the investigated characteristics. Future studies should focus on the reasons behind these differences, which could lead to a higher proportion of patients receiving optimal treatment for their stage of the disease.

A semiparametric Bayesian proportional hazards model for interval censored data with frailty effects

BACKGROUND

Multivariate analysis of interval censored event data based on classical likelihood methods is notoriously cumbersome. Likelihood inference for models which additionally include random effects are not available at all. Developed algorithms bear problems for practical users like: matrix inversion, slow convergence, no assessment of statistical uncertainty.

METHODS

MCMC procedures combined with imputation are used to implement hierarchical models for interval censored data within a Bayesian framework.

RESULTS

Two examples from clinical practice demonstrate the handling of clustered interval censored event times as well as multilayer random effects for inter-institutional quality assessment. The software developed is called survBayes and is freely available at CRAN.

CONCLUSION

The proposed software supports the solution of complex analyses in many fields of clinical epidemiology as well as health services research.

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.

Surgical volume influences survival in patients undergoing resections for stage II colon cancers

BACKGROUND

There is current interest in the correlation between surgical volume and outcomes. Survival in patients with rectal cancer appears to improve when carried out by surgeons who do high volumes of procedures. A similar correlation for patients with colon cancer has never been clearly established. The aim of this study was to determine whether surgical volume was an independent predictor for survival in patients undergoing surgery for stage II colon cancer.

METHODS

Population-based findings were collected from all patients diagnosed with stage II colon cancer in Western Australia between 1993 and 2003. The Kaplan-Meier product limit estimate of survival was used to calculate overall and cancer-specific survival. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to define the correlation between a number of covariates and survival. The results are recorded as hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

From 1993 to 2003, 1467 patients underwent resections for stage II colon cancers. Significant independent predictors for overall survival were surgeon carrying out more than 25 procedures (P = 0.0001, HR 0.657, 95%CI 0.532-0.811), surgery in a private hospital (P = 0.0001, HR 0.487, 95%CI 0.400-0.594), use of chemotherapy (P = 0.001, HR 0.664, 95%CI 0.496-0.837), age at diagnosis (P = 0.0001, HR 1.014, 95%CI 1.027-1.044) and T staging and vascular invasion (T4 and vascular positive P = 0.001, HR 1.850, 95%CI 1.294-2.645).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical volume was a significant independent predictor for survival in patients undergoing resections for stage II colon cancers. Surgeons carrying out only 25 procedures over a 10-year period outperformed surgeons doing fewer cases.

CPT-11 and concomitant hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy induce efficient local control in rectal cancer patients: results from a phase II

Patients with rectal cancer are at high risk of disease recurrence despite neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy with 5-Fluorouracil (5FU), a regimen that is now widely applied. In order to develop a regimen with increased antitumour activity, we previously established the recommended dose of neoadjuvant CPT-11 (three times weekly 90 mg m⁻²) concomitant to hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (HART) followed by surgery within 1 week. Thirty-three patients (20 men) with a locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the rectum were enrolled in this prospective phase II trial (1 cT2, 29 cT3, 3 cT4 and 21 cN+). Median age was 60 years (range 43–75 years). All patients received all three injections of CPT-11 and all but two patients completed radiotherapy as planned. Surgery with total mesorectal excision (TME) was performed within 1 week (range 2–15 days). The preoperative chemoradiotherapy was overall well tolerated, 24% of the patients experienced grade 3 diarrhoea that was easily manageable. At a median follow-up of 2 years no local recurrence occurred, however, nine patients developed distant metastases. The 2-year disease-free survival was 66% (95% confidence interval 0.48–0.83). Neoadjuvant CPT-11 and HART allow for excellent local control; however, distant relapse remains a concern in this patient population.