Impact of Preoperative Care for Rectal Adenocarcinoma on Pathologic Specimen Quality and Postoperative Morbidity: A NSQIP Analysis

Association of National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer Accreditation with Outcomes after Rectal Cancer Surgery

BACKGROUND

The National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer (NAPRC) defined a set of standards in 2017 centered on multidisciplinary program structure, evidence-based care processes, and internal audit to address widely variable rectal cancer practices and outcomes across US hospitals. There have been no studies to-date testing the association between NAPRC accreditation and rectal cancer outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective, observational study of Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 to 99 years with rectal cancer who underwent proctectomy from 2017 to 2020. The primary exposure was NAPRC accreditation and the primary outcomes included mortality (in-hospital, 30 day, and 1 year) and 30-day complications, readmissions, and reoperations. Associations between NAPRC accreditation and each outcome were tested using multivariable logistic regression with risk-adjustment for patient and hospital characteristics.

RESULTS

Among 1,985 hospitals, 65 were NAPRC-accredited (3.3%). Accredited hospitals were more likely to be nonprofit and teaching with 250 or more beds. Among 20,202 patients, 2,078 patients (10%) underwent proctectomy at an accredited hospital. Patients at accredited hospitals were more likely to have an elective procedure with a minimally invasive approach and sphincter preservation. Risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality (1.1% vs 1.3%; p = 0.002), 30-day mortality (2.1% vs 2.9%; p < 0.001), 30-day complication (18.3% vs 19.4%; p = 0.01), and 1-year mortality rates (11% vs 12.1%; p < 0.001) were significantly lower at accredited compared with nonaccredited hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

NAPRC-accredited hospitals have lower risk-adjusted morbidity and mortality for major rectal cancer surgery. Although NAPRC standards address variability in practice, without directly addressing surgical safety, our findings suggest that NAPRC-accredited hospitals may provide higher quality surgical care.

Redo-surgery after failed colorectal or coloanal anastomosis: Morbidity, mortality and factors predictive of success. A retrospective study of 200 patients

AIM

In cases of anastomotic failure after colorectal (CRA) or coloanal anastomosis (CAA), revision of the anastomosis is an ambitious surgical option that can be proposed in order to maintain bowel continuity. Our aim was to assess postoperative morbidity, risk of failure and risk factor for failure in patients after CRA or CAA.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent redo-CRA/CAA in our institution between 2007-2018 were retrospectively included. The success of redo-CRA/CAA was defined by the restoration of bowel continuity 12 months after the surgery.

RESULTS

Two hundred patients (114 male: 57%) were analyzed. The indication for redo-CRA/CAA was chronic pelvic infection in 74 patients (37%), recto-vaginal or urinary fistula in 59 patients (30%), anastomotic stenosis in 36 patients (18%) and redo anastomosis after previous anastomosis takedown in 31 patients (15%). Twenty-three percent of the patients developed a severe postoperative complication. Anastomotic leakage was diagnosed in 39 patients (20%). One-year-success of the redo-CRA/CAA was obtained in 80% of patients. In multivariate analysis, only obesity was associated with redo-CRA/CAA failure (p = 0.042). We elaborated a pre-operative predictive score of success using the four variables: male sex, age > 60 years, obesity and history of pelvic radiotherapy. The success of redo-CRA/CAA was 92%, 86%, 80% and 62% for a preoperative predictive score value of 0, 1, 2 and ≥3, respectively (p = 0.010).

CONCLUSIONS

In case of failure of primary CRA/CAA, bowel continuity can be saved in 4 out of 5 patients by redo-CRA/CAA despite 23% suffering severe postoperative morbidity.

Association of Adherence to Quality Metrics with Recurrence or Mortality among Veterans with Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network has defined metrics for colorectal cancer; however, the association of metric adherence with patient clinical outcomes remains underexplored. The study aim was to evaluate the association of National Comprehensive Cancer Network metric adherence with recurrence and mortality in Veterans with nonmetastatic colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Veterans with stage I-III colorectal cancer who underwent non-emergent resection from 2001 to 2015 at a single Veterans Affairs Medical Center were included. The primary predictor was completion of eligible National Comprehensive Cancer Network metrics. The primary outcome was a composite of recurrence or all-cause death in three phases of care: surgical (up to 6 months after resection), treatment (6-18 months after resection), and surveillance (18 months-3 years after resection). Hazard ratios were estimated via Cox proportional hazards regression in a propensity score-weighted cohort.

RESULTS

A total of 1107 electronic medical records of patients undergoing colorectal surgery were reviewed, and 379 patients were included (301 colon and 78 rectal cancer). In the surgical phase, the weighted analysis yielded a hazard ratio of 0.37 (95% confidence interval 0.12-1.13) for metric-adherent patients compared with non-adherent patients. In the treatment and surveillance phases, the hazard ratios for metric-adherent care were 0.68 (95% confidence interval 0.25-1.85) and 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.31-2.68), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline metric adherence was associated with a lower rate of recurrence and death in the surgical phase of care among stage I-III patients with resected colorectal cancer.

Evaluating disparities in delivery of neoadjuvant guideline-based chemoradiation for rectal cancer: A multicenter, propensity score-weighted cohort study

BACKGROUND

Despite guideline recommendations, some patients still receive care inappropriate for their clinical stage of disease. Identification of factors that contribute to variation in guideline base care may help eradicate disparities in the treatment of early and locally advanced rectal cancer.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Cancer Database from 2010 to 2015 was analyzed with propensity score weighting to identify factors associated with delivery and omission of neoadjuvant guideline-based chemoradiation (GBC) for those with early and locally advanced rectal cancer.

RESULTS

Only 74% of patients with rectal cancer received stage-appropriate neoadjuvant chemoradiation; 4544 (88%) of those with early stage disease and 8675 (68%) in locally advanced disease. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy were not planned in 27% and 34% respectively, of those who did not receive GBC. Factors associated with receipt of non-guideline-based neoadjuvant chemoradiation were age >65 years, Medicare insurance, treatment at a community facility, West-South-Central geography, having locally advanced disease, and Charlson-Deyo score >3. Receipt of ideal guideline-based neoadjuvant chemoradiation conferred a survival benefit at 5 years.

CONCLUSION

Patient and non-patient factors contribute to disparities in guideline-based delivery of neoadjuvant chemoradiation in the treatment of rectal cancer. Identification of these risk factors are important to help standardize care and improve survival outcomes.