Advancing standards of rectal cancer care: lessons from Europe adapted to the vast expanse of North America

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Hospital and Surgeon Selection for Medicare Beneficiaries With Stage II/III Rectal Cancer: The Role of Rurality, Distance to Care, and Colonoscopy Provider

OBJECTIVE

To determine factors associated with rectal cancer surgery performed at high-volume hospitals (HVHs) and by high-volume surgeons (HVSs), including the roles of rurality and diagnostic colonoscopy provider characteristics.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Although higher-volume hospitals/surgeons often achieve superior surgical outcomes, many rectal cancer resections are performed by lower-volume hospitals/surgeons, especially among rural populations.

METHODS

Patients age 66+ diagnosed from 2007 to 2011 with stage II/III primary rectal adenocarcinoma were selected from surveillance, epidemiology, and end results-medicare data. Patient ZIP codes were used to classify rural status. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with surgery by HVH and HVS.

RESULTS

Of 1601 patients, 22% were rural and 78% were urban. Fewer rural patients received surgery at a HVH compared to urban patients (44% vs 65%; P < 0.0001). Compared to urban patients, rural patients more often had colonoscopies performed by general surgeons (and less often from gastroenterologists or colorectal surgeons), and lived substantially further from HVHs; these factors were both associated with lower odds of surgery at a HVH or by a HVS. In addition, whereas over half of both rural and urban patients received their colonoscopy and surgery at the same hospital, rural patients who stayed at the same hospital were significantly less likely to receive surgery at a HVH or by a HVS compared to urban patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Rural rectal cancer patients are less likely to receive surgery from a HVH/HVS. The role of the colonoscopy provider has important implications for referral patterns and initiatives seeking to increase centralization.

Patterns and characteristics of patients' selection of cancer surgeons

OBJECTIVE

Despite evidence of volume-outcome relationships for cancer surgery, treatment at low-volume hospitals remains common. Our objective was to evaluate whether individuals actively involved in selecting their cancer surgeon were more likely to go to hospitals recognized for quality cancer care.

METHODS

Individuals diagnosed with breast, prostate and colorectal cancer in 2015 completed online surveys in 2017-2018. Participants were categorized as "directed" to a surgeon (relied on referral) or "active" (sought additional information), and hospitals were categorized by NCI-designation, CoC accreditation, and academic affiliation.

RESULTS

Of 299 participants, 42% were active. Individuals with breast cancer were more active (aOR = 2.46,95%CI:1.32-4.59). Active participants had nonsignificantly higher odds of surgery at NCI-designated facilities (aOR = 2.04,95%CI:0.95-4.38), or academic centers (aOR = 1.51,95%CI:0.86-2.64).

CONCLUSIONS

While most participants were directed to their cancer surgeon, active participants tended to select NCI-designated/academic hospitals. Although centralization of cancer care would require altering referral patterns, decision-support resources may help patients make informed choices.

Rectal resection following neoadjuvant therapy in a Midwest community hospital setting: The case for standardization over centralization as the means to optimize rectal cancer outcomes in the United States

BACKGROUND

Incomplete and flawed national databases reveal strikingly inferior outcomes for rectal cancer patients resected at "low" versus "high " volume hospitals, therefore, a study of outcomes of a "high" volume surgeon in a "low" volume Midwest community hospital setting examined this perception in comparison to contemporary studies.

METHODS

Review of 109 consecutive patients who underwent open resection of rectal cancer following neoadjuvant therapy, 1999-2010.

RESULTS

Despite the majority of tumors in the low rectum (54%), the rate of abdominoperineal resection was only 39% with R0 resection achieved in 94% and primary anastomosis in 61/109 patients (56%). Disease-free survival (DFS) 73%: stage 0 (complete response)- 100%, stage I- 88%, stage II- 68%, stage III- 50%, stage IV- 0% with recurrence rate of 11% (local recurrence (LR) - 3%, distant - 8%).

CONCLUSION

Outcomes of rectal cancer resection by a "high" volume surgeon in a "low" volume Midwest community hospital setting were comparable to contemporary studies from tertiary care institutions. Geographic location and hospital capacity matter less than access to multispecialty expertise providing neoadjuvant therapy and following standard principles of oncologic resection, in efforts to optimize rectal cancer outcomes.

The impact of age on complications, survival, and cause of death following colon cancer surgery

Background:

Given scarce data regarding the relationship among age, complications, and survival beyond the 30-day postoperative period for oncology patients in the United States, this study identified age-related differences in complications and the rate and cause of 1-year mortality following colon cancer surgery.

Methods:

The NY State Cancer Registry and Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System identified stage I–III colon cancer resections (2004–2011). Multivariable logistic regression and survival analyses assessed the relationship among age (<65, 65–74, ⩾75), complications, 1-year survival, and cause of death.

Results:

Among 24 426 patients surviving >30 days, 1-year mortality was 8.5%. Older age groups had higher complication rates, and older age and complications were independently associated with 1-year mortality (P<0.0001). Increasing age was associated with a decrease in the proportion of deaths from colon cancer with a concomitant increase in the proportion of deaths from cardiovascular disease. Older age and sepsis were independently associated with higher risk of colon cancer-specific death (65–74: HR=1.59, 95% CI=1.26–2.00; ⩾75: HR=2.57, 95% CI=2.09–3.16; sepsis: HR=2.58, 95% CI=2.13–3.11) and cardiovascular disease-specific death (65–74: HR=3.72, 95% CI=2.29–6.05; ⩾75: HR=7.02, 95% CI=4.44–11.10; sepsis: HR=2.33, 95% CI=1.81–2.99).

Conclusions:

Older age and sepsis are associated with higher 1-year overall, cancer-specific, and cardiovascular-specific mortality, highlighting the importance of geriatric assessment, multidisciplinary care, and cardiovascular optimisation for older patients and those with infectious complications.