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

Effect of centre volume on pathological outcomes and postoperative complications after surgery for colorectal cancer: results of a multicentre national study

BACKGROUND

The association between volume, complications and pathological outcomes is still under debate regarding colorectal cancer surgery. The aim of the study was to assess the association between centre volume and severe complications, mortality, less-than-radical oncologic surgery, and indications for neoadjuvant therapy.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 16,883 colorectal cancer cases from 80 centres (2018-2021). Outcomes: 30-day mortality; Clavien-Dindo grade >2 complications; removal of ≥ 12 lymph nodes; non-radical resection; neoadjuvant therapy. Quartiles of hospital volumes were classified as LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH, and VERY HIGH. Independent predictors, both overall and for rectal cancer, were evaluated using logistic regression including age, gender, AJCC stage and cancer site.

RESULTS

LOW-volume centres reported a higher rate of severe postoperative complications (OR 1.50, 95% c.i. 1.15-1.096, P = 0.003). The rate of ≥ 12 lymph nodes removed in LOW-volume (OR 0.68, 95% c.i. 0.56-0.85, P < 0.001) and MEDIUM-volume (OR 0.72, 95% c.i. 0.62-0.83, P < 0.001) centres was lower than in VERY HIGH-volume centres. Of the 4676 rectal cancer patients, the rate of ≥ 12 lymph nodes removed was lower in LOW-volume than in VERY HIGH-volume centres (OR 0.57, 95% c.i. 0.41-0.80, P = 0.001). A lower rate of neoadjuvant chemoradiation was associated with HIGH (OR 0.66, 95% c.i. 0.56-0.77, P < 0.001), MEDIUM (OR 0.75, 95% c.i. 0.60-0.92, P = 0.006), and LOW (OR 0.70, 95% c.i. 0.52-0.94, P = 0.019) volume centres (vs. VERY HIGH).

CONCLUSION

Colorectal cancer surgery in low-volume centres is at higher risk of suboptimal management, poor postoperative outcomes, and less-than-adequate oncologic resections. Centralisation of rectal cancer cases should be taken into consideration to optimise the outcomes.

Objective Resident Characteristics Associated with Performance on the Ophthalmic Knowledge Assessment Program Examination

Background To determine objective resident characteristics that correlate with Ophthalmic Knowledge Assessment Program (OKAP) performance, as well as to correlate OKAP performance with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) milestone assessments, written qualifying examination (WQE) scores, and oral board pass rates.

Methods Review of administrative records at an ACGME-accredited ophthalmology residency training program at an urban, tertiary academic medical center.

Results The study included data from a total of 50 resident physicians who completed training from 2012 to 2018. Mean (standard deviation) OKAP percentile performance was 60.90 (27.51), 60.46 (28.12), and 60.55 (27.43) for Years 1, 2, and 3 examinations, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences based on sex, marital status, having children, MD/PhD degree, other additional degree, number of publications, number of first author publications, or grades on medical school medicine and surgery rotations. OKAP percentile scores were significantly associated with United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 scores (linear regression coefficient 0.88 [0.54–1.18], p = 0.008). Finally, continuous OKAP scores were significantly correlated with WQE (r s = 0.292, p = 0.049) and oral board (r s = 0.49, p = 0.001) scores.

Conclusion Higher OKAP performance is correlated with passage of both WQE and oral board examinations during the first attempt. USMLE Step 1 score is the preresidency academic factor with the strongest association with success on the OKAP examination. Programs can utilize this information to identify those who may benefit from additional OKAP, WQE, and oral board preparation assistance.

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

BACKGROUND

Comprehensive and multidisciplinary care are critical in rectal cancer treatment. We sought to determine if completeness of preoperative care was associated with pathologic specimen quality and postoperative morbidity.

STUDY DESIGN

Clinical stage I-III rectal adenocarcinoma patients who underwent elective low anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection were identified from the 2016-2017 American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (ACS-NSQIP) database. The 3 preoperative NSQIP variables (colonoscopy, stoma marking, and neoadjuvant chemoradiation) were used to divide patients into 2 cohorts: complete vs incomplete preoperative care. The primary outcome was a composite higher pathologic specimen quality score (>12 lymph nodes, negative circumferential, and negative distal margins). The secondary outcome was 30-day morbidity. Preoperative characteristics were compared with ANOVAs and chi-square tests. Outcomes measures were evaluated with logistic regression.

RESULTS

We identified 1,125 patients: 591 (52.5%) complete and 534 (47.5%) incomplete. The complete group was younger, had more women, lower-third rectal tumors, clinical stage III disease, and neoadjuvant treatment. The complete group had higher odds of better pathologic specimen quality after adjusting for age, sex, tumor location, stage, and neoadjuvant therapy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.75, p = 0.001). The complete group had decreased rates of transfusions (odds ratio [OR] 0.47, p < 0.001), postoperative ileus (OR 0.67, p = 0.01), sepsis (OR 0.32, p = 0.01), and readmissions (OR 0.60, p = 0.003). Other complications did not statistically differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Complete preoperative care in rectal adenocarcinoma is associated with higher pathologic specimen quality and reduced postoperative morbidity. This highlights the importance of adherence to guideline-directed care.

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.

Resident and program characteristics that impact performance on the Ophthalmic Knowledge Assessment Program (OKAP)

BACKGROUND

To determine which resident and program characteristics correlate with ophthalmic knowledge, as assessed by resident Ophthalmic Knowledge Assessment Program (OKAP) performance.

METHODS

An online survey was sent in June 2017 to all US ophthalmology residents who took the OKAP in April 2017.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 13.8% (192/1387 residents). The mean respondent age was 30.4 years, and 57.3% were male. The mean [SD] self-reported 2017 OKAP percentile was 61.9 [26.7]. OKAP performance was found to have a significant positive correlation with greater number of hours spent/week studying for the OKAPs (p = 0.007), with use of online question banks (p < 0.001), with review sessions and/or lectures arranged by residency programs (p < 0.001), and with OKAP-specific didactics (p = 0.002). On multivariable analysis, factors most predictive of residents scoring ≥75th percentile were, higher step 1 scores (OR = 2.48, [95% CI: 1.68-3.64, p < 0.001]), presence of incentives (OR = 2.75, [95% CI: 1.16-6.56, p = 0.022]), greater number of hours/week spent studying (OR = 1.09, [95% CI:1.01-1.17, p = 0.026]) and fewer hours spent in research 3 months prior to examination (OR = 1.08, [95% CI: 1.01-1.15, p = 0.020]. Lastly, residents less likely to depend on group study sessions as a learning method tended to score higher (OR = 3.40, [95% CI: 1.16-9.94, p = 0.026]).

CONCLUSIONS

Programs wishing to improve resident OKAP scores might consider offering incentives, providing effective access to learning content e.g. online question banks, and adjusting the curriculum to highlight OKAP material. Step 1 scores may help educators identify residents who might be at risk of not performing as well on the OKAP.

A Comparison of Pathologic Outcomes of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Resections for Rectal Cancer Using the ACS-NSQIP Proctectomy-Targeted Database: a Propensity Score Analysis

BACKGROUND

There is ongoing debate regarding the benefits of minimally invasive techniques for rectal cancer surgery. The aim of this study was to compare pathologic outcomes of patients who underwent rectal cancer resection by open surgery, laparoscopy, and robotic surgery using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) proctectomy-targeted database.

METHODS

All patients from the 2016 ACS-NSQIP proctectomy-targeted database who underwent elective proctectomy for rectal cancer were identified. Patients were divided into three groups based on initial operative approach: open surgery, laparoscopy, and robotic surgery. Pathologic and 30-day clinical outcomes were then compared between the groups. A propensity score analysis was performed to control for confounders, and adjusted odds ratios for pathologic outcomes were reported.

RESULTS

A total of 578 patients were included-211 (36.5%) in the open group, 213 (36.9%) in the laparoscopic group, and 154 (26.6%) in the robotic group. Conversion to open surgery was more common among laparoscopic cases compared to robotic cases (15.0% vs. 6.5%, respectively; p = 0.011). Positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) was observed in 4.7%, 3.8%, and 5.2% (p = 0.79) of open, laparoscopic, and robotic resections, respectively. Propensity score adjusted odds ratios for positive CRM (open surgery as a reference group) were 0.70 (0.26-1.85, p = 0.47) for laparoscopy and 1.03 (0.39-2.70, p = 0.96) for robotic surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of minimally invasive surgical techniques for rectal cancer surgery does not appear to confer worse pathologic outcomes.

Association Between Hospital and Surgeon Volume and Rectal Cancer Surgery Outcomes in Patients With Rectal Cancer Treated Since 2000: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous reviews and meta-analyses, which predominantly focused on patients treated before 2000, have reported conflicting evidence about the association between hospital/surgeon volume and rectal cancer outcomes. Given advances in rectal cancer resection, such as total mesorectal excision, it is essential to determine whether volume plays a role in rectal cancer outcomes among patients treated since 2000.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is an association between hospital/surgeon volume and rectal cancer surgery outcomes among patients treated since 2000.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed and EMBASE for articles published between January 2000 and December 29, 2017.

STUDY SELECTION

Articles that analyzed the association between hospital/surgeon volume and rectal cancer outcomes were selected.

INTERVENTION

Rectal cancer resection was the study intervention.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The outcome measures of this study were surgical morbidity, postoperative mortality, surgical margin positivity, permanent colostomy rates, recurrence, and overall survival.

RESULTS

Although 2845 articles were retrieved and assessed by the search strategy, 21 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. There was a significant protective association between higher hospital volume and surgical morbidity (OR = 0.80 (95% CI, 0.70-0.93); I = 35%), permanent colostomy (OR = 0.51 (95% CI, 0.29-0.92); I = 34%), and postoperative mortality (OR = 0.62 (95% CI, 0.43-0.88); I = 34%), and overall survival (OR = 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-1.00); I = 3%). Stratified analysis showed that the magnitude of association between hospital volume and rectal cancer surgery outcomes was stronger in the United States compared with other countries. Surgeon volume was not significantly associated with overall survival. The articles included in this analysis were high quality according to the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Funnel plots suggested that the potential for publication bias was low.

LIMITATIONS

Some articles included rectosigmoid cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients diagnosed since 2000, higher hospital volume has had a significant protective effect on rectal cancer surgery outcomes.

Surgeons' knowledge regarding the diagnosis and management of pancreatic cancer in China: a cross-sectional study

Background

Pancreatic cancer is rare but highly malignant. Studies have shown that surgeons’ knowledge closely links to the correct diagnosis and treatment outcomes of pancreatic cancer. The purpose of this study was to survey current surgeons’ knowledge regarding pancreatic cancer.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted among 705 surgeons who attended the 2011 China Surgical Week’s meeting in Beijing. A questionnaire regarding the risk factors, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and treatment of pancreatic cancer was used. Surgeons’ answers were analyzed and compared among different regions, levels of hospital, and professional ranks.

Results

Most surgeons had a correct knowledge toward the risk factors, diagnosis, and management of pancreatic cancer. However, several knowledge gaps were identified. They include “The association between type 2 diabetes and pancreatic cancer”, “The most common histologic type of pancreatic neoplasm”, “the typical clinical symptoms of pancreatic cancer”, “The accuracy of ultrasound in screening pancreatic cancer”, “Enhanced CT in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer”, and “Which is more superior between MRI and CT in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer”. We also found that overall surgeons’ responses did not depend on their geographic locations, but on hospital levels and professional ranks. Surgeons working at level three hospitals had better knowledge than others in certain areas and resident surgeons had fewer correct answers in some areas.

Conclusions

Although most surgeons have a good knowledge in most areas related to the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic cancer in China, certain knowledge gaps exist, particularly among trainees and those from low level hospitals. Continuing medical education programs to improve these knowledge gaps should be implemented.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2345-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Development of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons' Rectal Cancer Surgery Checklist

BACKGROUND

There is excellent evidence that surgical safety checklists contribute to decreased morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to develop a surgical checklist composed of the key phases of care for patients with rectal cancer.

DESIGN

A consensus-oriented decision-making model involving iterative input from subject matter experts under the auspices of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons was designed.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted through meetings and discussion to consensus.

PATIENTS

Patient data were extracted from an initial literature review.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The checklist was measured by its ability to improve care in complex rectal surgery cases by reducing the possibility of omission through the division of treatment into 3 distinct phases.

RESULTS

The process generated a 25-item checklist covering the spectrum of care for patients with rectal cancer who were undergoing surgery.

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited by its lack of prospective validation.

CONCLUSIONS

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons rectal cancer surgery checklist is composed of the essential elements of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative care that must be addressed during the surgical treatment of patients with rectal cancer.

Self-reported practice patterns and knowledge of rectal cancer care among Canadian general surgeons

BACKGROUND

Our objective was to examine the knowledge and treatment decision practice patterns of Canadian surgeons who treat patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

A mail survey with 6 questions on staging investigations, management of low rectal cancer, lymph node harvest, surgical margins and use of adjuvant therapies was sent to all general surgeons in Canada. Appropriate responses to survey questions were defined a priori. We compared survey responses according to surgeon training (colorectal/surgical oncology v. others) and geographic region (Atlantic, Central, West).

RESULTS

The survey was sent to 2143 general surgeons; of the 1312 respondents, 703 treat patients with rectal cancer. Most surgeons responded appropriately to the questions regarding staging investigations (88%) and management of low rectal cancer (88%). Only 55% of surgeons correctly identified the recommended lymph node harvest as 12 or more nodes, 45% identified 5 cm as the recommended distal margin for upper rectal cancer, and 70% appropriately identified which patients should be referred for adjuvant therapy. Surgeons with subspecialty training were significantly more likely to provide correct responses to all of the survey questions than other surgeons. There was limited variation in responses according to geographic region. Subspecialty-trained surgeons and recent graduates were more likely to answer all of the survey questions correctly than other surgeons.

CONCLUSION

Initiatives are needed to ensure that all surgeons who treat patients with rectal cancer, regardless of training, maintain a thorough and accurate knowledge of rectal cancer treatment issues.

Colon cancer lymph node evaluation among military health system beneficiaries: an analysis by race/ethnicity

BACKGROUND

The number of lymph nodes examined during colon cancer surgery falls below nationally recommended guidelines in the general population, with Blacks and Hispanics less likely to have adequate nodal evaluation in comparison to Whites. The Department of Defense's (DoD) Military Health System (MHS) provides equal access to medical care for its beneficiaries, regardless of racial/ethnic background. This study aimed to investigate whether racial/ethnic treatment differences exist in the MHS, an equal-access medical care system.

METHODS

Linked data from the DoD cancer registry and administrative claims databases were used and included 2,155 colon cancer cases. Multivariate logistic regression assessed the association between race/ethnicity and the number of lymph nodes examined (<12 and ≥12) overall and for stratified analyses.

RESULTS

No overall racial/ethnic differences in the number of lymph nodes examined was identified. Further stratified analyses yielded similar results, except potential racial/ethnic differences were found among persons with poorly differentiated tumors, where non-Hispanic Blacks tended to be less likely to have ≥12 lymph nodes dissected (odds ratio 0.34; 95 % confidence interval 0.14-0.80; p = 0.01) compared with non-Hispanic Whites.

CONCLUSION

Racial/ethnic disparities in the number of lymph nodes evaluated among patients with colon cancer were not apparent in an equal-access healthcare system. However, among poorly differentiated tumors there might be racial/ethnic differences in nodal yield, suggesting the possible effects of factors other than access to healthcare.

Early detection of colorectal cancer recurrence in patients undergoing surgery with curative intent: current status and challenges

Despite advances in neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy, attention to proper surgical technique, and improved pathological staging for both the primary and metastatic lesions, almost half of all colorectal cancer patients will develop recurrent disease. More concerning, this includes ~25% of patients with theoretically curable node-negative, non-metastatic Stage I and II disease. Given the annual incidence of colorectal cancer, approximately 150,000 new patients are candidates each year for follow-up surveillance. When combined with the greater population already enrolled in a surveillance protocol, this translates to a tremendous number of patients at risk for recurrence. It is therefore imperative that strategies aim for detection of recurrence as early as possible to allow initiation of treatment that may still result in cure. Yet, controversy exists regarding the optimal surveillance strategy (high-intensity vs. traditional), ideal testing regimen, and overall effectiveness. While benefits may involve earlier detection of recurrence, psychological welfare improvement, and greater overall survival, this must be weighed against the potential disadvantages including more invasive tests, higher rates of reoperation, and increased costs. In this review, we will examine the current options available and challenges surrounding colorectal cancer surveillance and early detection of recurrence.

Surgery for rectal cancer-what is on the horizon?

The management of rectal cancer has improved considerably in recent decades. Surgery remains the cornerstone of the treatment. However, the role of preoperative imaging has made it possible to optimize the treatment plan in rectal patients. Neoadjuvant treatment may be indicated in efforts to sterilize possible tumor deposits outside the surgical field, or may be used to downsize and downstage the tumor itself. The optimal sequence of treatment modalities can be determined by a multidisciplinary team, who not only use pretreatment imaging, but also review pathologic results after surgery. The pathologist plays a pivotal role in providing feedback about the success of surgery, i.e., the distance between the tumor and the circumferential resection margin, the quality of surgery, and the effect of neoadjuvant treatment. Registry and auditing of all treatment variables can further improve outcomes. In this century, rectal cancer treatment has become a team effort.