How do we manage early rectal cancer? A national questionnaire survey among members of the ACPGBI after the preliminary results of the MRC CR07/NCIC CO16 randomized trial

Major differences in follow-up practice of patients with colorectal cancer; results of a national survey in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

The precise content and frequency of follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) is variable and guideline adherence is low. The aim of this study was to assess the view of colorectal surgeons on their local follow-up schedule and to clarify their opinions about risk-stratification and organ preserving therapies. Equally important, adherence to the Dutch national guidelines was determined.

METHODS

Colorectal surgeons were invited to complete a web-based survey about the importance and interval of clinical follow-up, CEA monitoring and the use of imaging modalities. Furthermore, the opinions regarding physical examination, risk-stratification, organ preserving strategies, and follow-up setting were assessed. Data were analyzed using quantitative and qualitative analysis methods.

RESULTS

A total of 106 colorectal surgeons from 52 general and 5 university hospitals filled in the survey, yielding a hospital response rate of 74% and a surgeon response rate of 42%. The follow-up of patients with CRC was mainly done by surgeons (71%). The majority of the respondents (68%) did not routinely perform physical examination during follow-up of rectal patients. Abdominal ultrasound was the predominant modality used for detection of liver metastases (77%). Chest X-ray was the main modality for detecting lung metastases (69%). During the first year of follow-up, adherence to the minimal guideline recommendations was high (99-100%). The results demonstrate that, within the framework of the guidelines, some respondents applied a more intensive follow-up and others a less intensive schedule. The majority of the respondents (77%) applied one single follow-up imaging schedule for all patients that underwent treatment with curative intent.

CONCLUSIONS

Dutch colorectal surgeons' adherence to minimal guideline recommendations was high, but within the guideline framework, opinions differed about the required intensity and content of clinical visits, the interval of CEA monitoring, and the importance and frequency of imaging techniques. This national survey demonstrates current follow-up practice throughout the Netherlands and highlights the follow-up differences of curatively treated patients with CRC.

Obesity and lifestyle advice in colorectal cancer survivors - how well are clinicians prepared?

AIM

This study aimed to assess colorectal clinicians' knowledge and understanding about the risks and benefits of weight management, to document current practice and to identify perceived barriers to providing lifestyle advice to colorectal cancer survivors.

METHOD

Questionnaires were sent to 768 clinicians (doctors and nurses) working in colorectal cancer, identified from professional databases. These data were complemented by in-depth interviews exploring opportunities for and barriers to giving lifestyle advice.

RESULTS

A total of 323 replies were received (42% response rate) and 20 respondents completed in-depth interviews. Half (52%) reported that they were familiar with guidance for lifestyle advice for cancer survivors. Most (77%) thought reducing weight was important for improving the health of those who were overweight and 75% thought it appropriate to offer lifestyle advice to people with body mass index over 30 kg/m(2) . Half (50%) reported that weight reduction was an important service priority for normal clinical practice. Half (50%) of respondents said that they would value additional training in this area. Interview data revealed that current practice is influenced by the lack of evidence for the impact of weight management and a belief that 'weight gain is good and weight loss bad' in the cancer setting. Patient sensitivity, time available, role constraints and lack of skills in weight management were also factors.

CONCLUSION

There is an awareness of the importance of weight management amongst colorectal cancer clinicians and some indication of advice being provided. However, current perceptions, knowledge and skills suggest scope for further training.

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.

What is the Best Way to Produce Consensus and Buy in to Guidelines for Rectal Cancer?

Evidence-based guidelines are important tools and common pathways for translating evidence into clinical practice. It is most urgently needed when significant heterogeneity in practice exist. Actively engaging opinion leaders in the process of evidence-based guidelines development is important for several reasons. These include allowing the collective views of the practice communities to be represented, resolving heterogeneity in practice through discussion, and allowing credible recommendations to be formulated. Most importantly, the process itself is a tool for facilitating dissemination and implementation. Recognizing the gap between practice pattern and guideline recommendations, and devising strategies to address it represent an important step toward maximizing concordance between guideline and practice. Evidence-based recommendations serve as important reference points, against which we can measure, debate, and innovate from.

Low abdominoperineal excision rates are associated with high-workload surgeons and lower tumour height. Is further specialization needed?

AIM

Wide variation, independent of disease extent and case mix, has been observed in the rate of use of abdominoperineal excision (APE) for rectal cancer. Previous analyses have, however, been confounded by failure to adjust for the location of the tumour within the rectum. This population-based study sought to examine whether variations in tumour height explained differences in APE use.

METHOD

Information was obtained on all individuals who underwent a major resection for a rectal tumour diagnosed between 1998 and 2005 across the Northern and Yorkshire regions of the UK. Median distances from the dentate line were calculated for all tumours excised by APE and compared with rates of use of APE between specialists and nonspecialist surgeons and across hospital trusts.

RESULTS

The completeness of pathological reporting of height of tumour within the rectum was variable. A low rate of APE use was associated with a lower median distance of tumours from the dentate line. Specialist colorectal cancer surgeons performed fewer APEs on patients with a tumour located lower in the rectum than nonspecialist surgeons.

CONCLUSION

Variations in the height of tumour did not explain the variation in APE use. Specialist high-volume surgeons undertook fewer APEs and those they performed were closer to the dentate line than low-volume nonspecialist surgeons.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in rectal cancer: a comprehensive review

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has established itself as the primary method for local staging in patients with rectal cancer. This is due to several factors, most importantly because of the ability to assess the status of circumferential resection margin. There are several newer developments being introduced continuously, such as diffusion-weighted imaging and imaging with 3 T. Assessment of loco-regional lymph nodes has also been investigated extensively using different approaches, but more work needs to be done. Finally, evaluation of tumours during or after preoperative treatment is becoming an everyday reality. All these new aspects prompt a review of the most recent advances and opinions. In this review, a comprehensive overview of the current status of MRI in the loco-regional assessment and management of rectal cancer is presented. The findings on MRI and their accuracy are reviewed based on the most up-to-date evidence. Optimisation of MRI acquisition and relevant regional anatomy are also presented, based on published literature and our own experience.

Male sexual and urinary function after laparoscopic total mesorectal excision

BACKGROUND

Urinary and sexual dysfunction are potential complications of rectal surgery for cancer. This study retrospectively evaluated the frequency of such complications after laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) with autonomic nerve preservation.

METHODS

For this study, 50 men younger than 75 years who underwent radical LTME for mid and low rectal cancer were followed up for at least 12 months, interviewed, and administered a standardized questionnaire about postoperative functional outcomes and quality of life.

RESULTS

Sexual desire was maintained by 55.6%, ability to engage in intercourse by 57.8%, and ability to achieve orgasm and ejaculation by 37.8% of the patients. Distance of the tumor from the anal verge and adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatments were the significant predictors of poor postoperative sexual function. Seven patients (14%) presented transitory postoperative urinary dysfunction, all of whom were medically treated. Tumor stage and distance from the anal verge were independently associated with the postoperative global International Prostatic Symptom Score (IPSS). No differences were observed in urinary quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

In this series, LTME did not reproduce or improve on sexual and urinary dysfunction outcomes obtained in the best open TME series. Further trials are needed to evaluate functional outcome in rectal cancer patients.