Variation in colorectal cancer treatment and survival: a cohort study covering the East Anglia region

Grey areas and evidence gaps in the management of rectal cancer as revealed by comparing recommendations from clinical guidelines

BACKGROUND

While the management of nonmetastatic and oligometastatic rectal cancer has rapidly evolved over the last few decades, many grey areas and highly debated topics remain that foster significant variation in clinical practice. We aimed to identify controversial points and evidence gaps in this disease setting by systematically comparing recommendations from national and international clinical guidelines.

METHODS

Twenty-six clinical questions reflecting practical challenges in the routine management of nonmetastatic and oligometastatic rectal cancer patients were selected. Recommendations from the ESMO, NCCN, JSCCR, Australian and Ontario guidelines were extrapolated and compared using a 4-tier classification system (i.e., identical/very similar, similar, slightly different, different). Overall agreement between guidelines (i.e., substantial/complete disagreement, partial disagreement, partial agreement, substantial/complete agreement) was assessed for each clinical question and compared against the highest level of available evidence by using the χ² statistic test.

RESULTS

Guidelines were in substantial/complete agreement, partial agreement, partial disagreement, and substantial/complete disagreement for 8 (30.8%), 2 (7.7%), 7 (26.9%), and 9 (34.6%) clinical questions, respectively. High level of evidence supported clinical recommendations in 3/10 cases (30%) where guidelines were in agreement and in 10/16 cases (62.5%) where guidelines were in disagreement (χ² = 2.6, p = 0.106). Agreement was frequently reached for questions regarding diagnosis, staging, and radiology/pathology pro-forma reporting, while disagreement characterised most of the treatment-related topics.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial variation exists across clinical guidelines in the recommendations for the management of nonmetastatic and oligometastatic rectal cancer. This variation is only partly explained by the lack of supporting, high-level evidence.

Alignment with Indices of A Care Pathway Is Associated with Improved Survival: An Observational Population-based Study in Colon Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Causes of variations in outcomes from cancer care in developed countries are often unclear. Australia has developed health system pathways describing consensus standards of optimal cancer care across the phases of prevention through to follow-up or end-of-life. These Optimal Care Pathways (OCP) were introduced from 2013 to 14. We investigated whether care consistent with the OCP improved outcomes for colon cancer patients.

METHODS

Colon patients diagnosed from 2008 to 2014 were identified from the Australian State of Victoria Cancer Registry (VCR) and cases linked with State and Federal health datasets. Surrogate variables describe OCP alignment in our cohort, across three phases of the pathway; prevention, diagnosis and initial treatment and end-of-life. We assessed the impact of alignment on (1) stage of disease at diagnosis and (2) overall survival.

FINDINGS

Alignment with the prevention phase of the OCP occurred for 88% of 13,539 individuals and was associated with lower disease stage at diagnosis (OR = 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.24 to 0.42), improved crude three-year survival (69.2% versus 62.2%; p < 0.001) and reduced likelihood of emergency surgery (17.7% versus 25.6%, p < 0.001). For patients treated first with surgery (n = 10,807), care aligned with the diagnostic and treatment phase indicators (44% of patients) was associated with a survival benefit (risk-adjusted HR_{non-aligned vs aligned} = 1.23, 95% confidence interval 1.13 to 1.35), better perioperative outcomes and higher alignment with follow-up and end-of-life care. The survival benefit persists adjusting for potential confounding factors, including age, sex, disease stage and comorbidity.Interpretation.This population-based study shows that care aligned to a pathway based on best principles of cancer care is associated with improved outcomes for patients with colon cancer.

FUNDING

None.

Systematic review of the influence of socioeconomic deprivation on mortality after colorectal surgery

Background

Socioeconomic deprivation is a potentially important factor influencing surgical outcomes. This systematic review aimed to summarize the evidence for any association between socioeconomic group and mortality after colorectal surgery, and to report the definitions of deprivation used and the approaches taken to adjust for co-morbidity in this patient population.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched for studies up to November 2016 on adult patients undergoing major colorectal surgery, which reported on mortality according to socioeconomic group. Risk of bias and study quality were assessed by extracting data relating to study size, and variations in inclusion and exclusion criteria. Quality was assessed using a modification of a previously described assessment tool.

Results

The literature search identified 59 studies published between 1993 and 2016, reporting on 2 698 403 patients from eight countries. Overall findings showed evidence for higher mortality in more deprived socioeconomic groups, both in the perioperative period and in the longer term. Studies differed in how they defined socioeconomic groups, but the most common approach was to use one of a selection of multifactorial indices based on small geographical areas. There was no consistent approach to adjusting for co-morbidity but, where this was considered, the Charlson Co-morbidity Index was most frequently used.

Conclusion

This systematic review suggests that socioeconomic deprivation influences mortality after colorectal surgery.

What might explain deprivation-specific differences in the excess hazard of breast cancer death amongst screen-detected women? Analysis of patients diagnosed in the West Midlands region of England from 1989 to 2011

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer survival is higher in less deprived women, even amongst women whose tumor was screen-detected, but reasons behind this have not been comprehensively investigated.

METHODS

The excess hazard of breast cancer death in 20,265 women diagnosed with breast cancer, followed up to 2012, was estimated for screen-detected and non-screen-detected women, comparing more deprived to less deprived women using flexible parametric models. Models were adjusted for individual and tumor factors, treatment received and comorbidity. For screen-detected women, estimates were also corrected for lead-time and overdiagnosis.

RESULTS

The excess hazard ratio (EHR) of breast cancer death in the most deprived group, adjusted only for age and year of diagnosis, was twice that of the least deprived among screen-detected women (EHR=2.12, 95%CI 1.48-2.76) and 64% higher among non-screen-detected women (EHR=1.64, 95%CI 1.41-1.87). Adjustment for stage at diagnosis lowered these estimates by 25%. Further adjustment had little extra impact. In the final models, the excess hazard for the most deprived women was 54% higher (EHR=1.54, 95%CI 1.10-1.98) among screen-detected women and 39% higher (EHR=1.39, 95%CI 1.20-1.59) among non-screen-detected women.

CONCLUSION

A persistent socio-economic gradient in breast cancer-related death exists in this cohort, even for screen-detected women. The impact of differential lifestyles, management and treatment warrant further investigation.