Surgeon perceived most important factors to achieve the best hospital performance on colorectal cancer surgery: a Dutch modified Delphi method

Association of county-level provider density and social vulnerability with colorectal cancer-related mortality

BACKGROUND

Health care providers play a crucial role in increasing overall awareness, screening, and treatment of cancer, leading to reduced cancer mortality. We sought to characterize the impact of provider density on colorectal cancer population-level mortality.

METHODS

County-level provider data, obtained from the Area Health Resource File between 2016 and 2018, were used to calculate provider density per county. These data were merged with county-level colorectal cancer mortality 2016-2020 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Multivariable regression was performed to define the association between provider density and colorectal cancer mortality.

RESULTS

Among 2,863 counties included in the analytic cohort, 1,132 (39.5%) and 1,731 (60.5%) counties were categorized as urban and rural, respectively. The colorectal cancer-related crude mortality rate was higher in counties with low provider density versus counties with moderate or high provider density (low = 22.9, moderate = 21.6, high = 19.3 per 100,000 individuals; P < .001). On multivariable analysis, the odds of colorectal cancer mortality were lower in counties with moderate and high provider density versus counties with low provider density (moderate odds ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.94-0.99; high odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.86-0.91). High provider density remained associated with a lower likelihood of colorectal cancer mortality independent of social vulnerability index (low social vulnerability index and high provider density: odds ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.81-0.89; high social vulnerability index and high provider density: odds ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.89-0.98).

CONCLUSION

Regardless of social vulnerability index, high county-level provider density was associated with lower colorectal cancer-related mortality. Efforts to increase access to health care providers may improve health care equity, as well as long-term cancer outcomes.

International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons survey of surgeons' preference on rectal cancer treatment

PURPOSE

Rectal cancer treatment has a wide range of possible approaches from radical extirpative surgery to nonoperative watchful waiting following chemoradiotherapy, with or without, additional chemotherapy. Our goal was to assess the personal opinion of active practicing surgeons on rectal cancer treatment if he/she was the patient.

METHODS

A panel of the International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ISUCRS) selected 10 questions that were included in a questionnaire that included other items including demographics. The questionnaire was distributed electronically to ISUCRS fellows and other surgeons included in our database and remained open from April 16 to 28, 2020.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-three specialists completed the survey. The majority of surgeons (n=65, 39.9%) chose the minimally invasive (laparoscopic) surgery for their personal treatment of rectal cancer. For low-lying rectal cancer T1 and T2, the treatment choice was standard chemoradiation+local excision (n=60, 36.8%) followed by local excision±chemoradiotherapy if needed (n=55, 33.7%). In regards to locally advanced low rectal cancer T3 or greater, the preference of the responders was for laparoscopic surgery (n=65, 39.9%). We found a statistically significant relationship between surgeons' age and their preference for minimally invasive techniques demonstrating an age-based bias on senior surgeons' inclination toward open approach.

CONCLUSION

Our survey reveals an age-based preference by surgeons for minimally invasive surgical techniques as well as organ-preserving techniques for personal treatment of treating rectal cancer. Only 1/4 of specialists do adhere to the international guidelines for treating early rectal cancer.

Determinación de los factores predictivos para complicaciones en cirugía electiva de pacientes con cáncer colorrectal. Experiencia del Instituto de Cancerología Las Américas Auna (Colombia, 2016-2019)

Introducción. El pilar fundamental del tratamiento del cáncer colorrectal es la cirugía, situación que expone a los pacientes a la posible presentación de complicaciones, morbimortalidad, pobre calidad de vida, recurrencia tumoral o la muerte. El objetivo de este estudio fue determinar las variables clínicas y quirúrgicas que inciden en el riesgo de la aparición de complicaciones en los pacientes con cáncer colorrectal llevados a cirugía electiva entre los años 2016 y 2019. Métodos. Estudio observacional, descriptivo, transversal y retrospectivo. Se incluyeron pacientes mayores de 18 años con cáncer colorrectal sometidos a cirugía electiva. Se realizó un análisis multivariado para determinar los factores que se relacionan con las complicaciones postquirúrgicas. Resultados. Se incluyeron 298 pacientes, 68 % mayores de 60 años, 52,3 % mujeres, 74,2 % presentaban comorbilidades y 48,3 % fueron diagnosticados en estadio III. El 48,3 % presentó complicaciones postoperatorias. De ellos, el 68,1 % no tenía tamización nutricional y el 61,8 % no tenía preparación del colon; un 55 % fueron cirugías del recto, 69,1 % de las cirugías fueron por vía laparoscópica y 71,8 % presentaron sangrado inferior a 500 ml. La mayoría de las complicaciones fueron clasificadas como Clavien-Dindo I-III. Discusión. Las características de los pacientes fueron similares a los presentados en otros estudios, aunque hubo mayor incidencia de íleo postoperatorio. El análisis multivariado mostró una mayor probabilidad de presentar una complicación en pacientes con diabetes mellitus, hipertensión arterial, falta de tamización nutricional o preparación de colon, cirugía de recto y el sangrado mayor a 500 ml.

Funnel plots of patient-reported outcomes to evaluate health-care quality: Basic principles, pitfalls and considerations

A funnel plot is a graphical method to evaluate health-care quality by comparing hospital performances on certain outcomes. So far, in nephrology, this method has been applied to clinical outcomes like mortality and complications. However, patient-reported outcomes (PROs; eg, health-related quality of life [HRQOL]) are becoming increasingly important and should be incorporated into this quality assessment. Using funnel plots has several advantages, including clearly visualized precision, detection of volume-effects, discouragement of ranking hospitals and easy interpretation of results. However, without sufficient knowledge of underlying methods, it is easy to stumble into pitfalls, such as overinterpretation of standardized scores, incorrect direct comparisons of hospitals and assuming a hospital to be in-control (ie, to perform as expected) based on underpowered comparisons. Furthermore, application of funnel plots to PROs is accompanied by additional challenges related to the multidimensional nature of PROs and difficulties with measuring PROs. Before using funnel plots for PROs, high and consistent response rates, adequate case mix correction and high-quality PRO measures are required. In this article, we aim to provide insight into the use and interpretation of funnel plots by presenting an overview of the basic principles, pitfalls and considerations when applied to PROs, using examples from Dutch routine dialysis care.