Rectal cancer surgery: volume-outcome analysis

Is centralization for rectal cancer surgery necessary?

Rectal cancer surgery is complex and more technically challenging than colonic surgery. Over the last 30 years internationally, there has been a growing impetus for centralizing care to improve outcomes for rectal cancer. Centralizing care may potentially reduce variations of care, increase standardization and compliance with clinical practice guidelines. However, there are barriers to implementation at a professional, political, governance and resource allocation level. Centralization may increase inequalities to accessing healthcare, particularly impacting socioeconomically disadvantaged and rural populations with difficulties to commuting longer distances to "centres of excellence". Furthermore, it is unclear if centralization actually improves outcomes. Recent studies demonstrate that individual surgeon volume rather than hospital volume may be more important in achieving optimal outcomes. In this review, we examine the literature to assess the value of centralization for rectal cancer surgery.

Diagnosing Provider, Referral Patterns, Facility Type, and Patient Satisfaction Among Iowa Rectal Cancer Patients

PURPOSE

Rectal cancer treatment at high-volume centers is associated with higher likelihood of guideline-concordant care and improved outcomes. Whether rectal cancer patients are referred for treatment at high-volume hospitals may depend on diagnosing provider specialty. We aimed to determine associations of diagnosing provider specialty with treating provider specialty and characteristics of the treating facility for rectal cancer patients in Iowa.

METHODS

Rectal cancer patients identified using the Iowa Cancer Registry completed a mailed survey on their treatment experience and decision-making process. Provider type was defined by provider specialty and whether the provider referred patients elsewhere for surgery. Multivariable-adjusted logistic regression models were used to examine predictors of being diagnosed by a general surgeon who also performed the subsequent surgery.

RESULTS

Of 417 patients contacted, 381 (76%) completed the survey; our final analytical sample size was 267. Half of respondents were diagnosed by a gastroenterologist who referred them elsewhere; 30% were diagnosed by a general surgeon who referred them elsewhere, and 20% were diagnosed by a general surgeon who performed the surgery. Respondents who were ≥ 65 years old, had less than a college education, and who made < $50,000 per year were more likely to be diagnosed by a general surgeon who performed surgery. In multivariable-adjusted models, respondents diagnosed and treated by the same general surgeon were more likely to have surgery at hospitals with low annual colorectal cancer surgery volume and less likely to be satisfied with their care.

CONCLUSIONS

Among rectal cancer patients in Iowa, respondents who were diagnosed and treated by the same provider were less likely to get treatment at a high-volume facility. This study informs the importance of provider referral in centralization of rectal cancer care.

Referrals and Decision-Making Considerations Involved in Selecting a Surgeon for Rectal Cancer Treatment in the Midwestern United States

BACKGROUND

Despite evidence of superior outcomes for rectal cancer at high-volume, multidisciplinary cancer centers, many patients undergo surgery in low-volume hospitals.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine considerations of former patients with rectal cancer when selecting their surgeon and to evaluate which considerations were associated with surgery at high-volume hospitals.

DESIGN

In this retrospective cohort study, patients were surveyed about what they considered when selecting a cancer surgeon.

SETTINGS

Study data were obtained via survey and the statewide Iowa Cancer Registry.

PATIENTS

All eligible individuals diagnosed with invasive stages II/III rectal cancer from 2013 to 2017 identified through the registry were invited to participate.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes were the characteristics of the hospital where they received surgery (ie, National Cancer Institute designation, Commission on Cancer accreditation, and rectal cancer surgery volume).

RESULTS

Among respondents, 318 of 417 (76%) completed surveys. Sixty-nine percent of patients selected their surgeon based on their physician's referral/recommendation, 20% based on surgeon/hospital reputation, and 11% based on personal connections to the surgeon. Participants who chose their surgeon based on reputation had significantly higher odds of surgery at National Cancer Institute-designated (OR 7.5; 95% CI, 3.8-15.0) or high-volume (OR 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2-5.7) hospitals than those who relied on referral.

LIMITATIONS

This study took place in a Midwestern state with a predominantly white population, which limited our ability to evaluate racial/ethnic associations.

CONCLUSION

Most patients with rectal cancer relied on referrals in selecting their surgeon, and those who did were less likely to receive surgery at a National Cancer Institute-designated or high-volume hospitals compared to those who considered reputation. Future research is needed to determine the impact of these decision factors on clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and quality of life. In addition, patients should be aware that relying on physician referral may not result in treatment from the most experienced or comprehensive care setting in their area. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B897.REMISIONES Y CONSIDERACIONES PARA LA TOMA DE DECISIONES RELACIONADAS CON LA SELECCIÓN DE UN CIRUJANO PARA EL TRATAMIENTO DEL CÁNCER DE RECTO EN EL MEDIO OESTE DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOSANTECEDENTES:A pesar de la evidencia de resultados superiores para el tratamiento del cáncer de recto en centros oncológicos de gran volumen y multidisciplinarios, muchos pacientes se someten a cirugía en hospitales de bajo volumen.OBJETIVOS:Examinar las consideraciones de los antiguos pacientes con cáncer de recto al momento de seleccionar a su cirujano y evaluar qué consideraciones se asociaron con la cirugía en hospitales de gran volumen.DISEÑO:Encuestamos a los pacientes sobre qué aspectos consideraron al elegir un cirujano oncológico para completar este estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.AJUSTE:Los datos del estudio se obtuvieron mediante una encuesta y el Registro de Cáncer del estado de Iowa.PACIENTES:Se invitó a participar a todas las personas elegibles diagnosticadas con cáncer de recto invasivo en estadios II/III entre 2013 y 2017 identificadas a través del registro.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los resultados principales fueron las características del hospital donde fue realizada la cirugía (es decir, designación del Instituto Nacional del Cáncer, acreditación de la Comisión de Cáncer y volumen de cirugía del cáncer de recto).RESULTADOS:Hubo 318 de 417 (76%) encuestas completadas. El sesenta y nueve por ciento seleccionó a su cirujano en función de la referencia / recomendación de su médico, el 20% por la reputación del cirujano/hospital, y el 11% por sus conexiones personales con el cirujano. Los participantes que eligieron a su cirujano en función a la reputación tuvieron probabilidades significativamente más altas de cirugía en el Instituto Nacional del Cáncer designado (OR = 7,5, IC del 95%: 3,8-15,0) o en hospitales de alto volumen (OR = 2,6, IC del 95%: 1,2-5,7) que aquellos que dependían de la derivación.LIMITACIONES:Este estudio se llevó a cabo en un estado del medio oeste con una población predominantemente blanca, lo que limitó nuestra capacidad para evaluar las asociaciones raciales/étnicas.CONCLUSIONES:La mayoría de los pacientes con cáncer de recto dependían de las derivaciones para seleccionar a su cirujano, y los que lo hacían tenían menos probabilidades de recibir cirugía en un hospital designado por el Instituto Nacional del Cáncer o en hospitales de gran volumen en comparación con los que consideraban la reputación. Se necesitan investigaciones a futuro para determinar el impacto de estos factores de decisión en los resultados clínicos, la satisfacción del paciente y la calidad de vida. Además, los pacientes deben ser conscientes de que depender de la remisión de un médico puede no resultar en el tratamiento más experimentado o integral en su área. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B897. (Traducción-Dr Osvaldo Gauto).

Trends in General Surgery Resident Experience with Colorectal Surgery: An Analysis of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Case Logs

OBJECTIVE

Colorectal surgery is a core component of general surgery. The volume of colorectal surgery performed by general surgery residents throughout training has not been studied. This study aims to analyze trends observed in colorectal-specific case numbers logged by general surgery residents over 16 years.

DESIGN

Case number data for general surgery residents was extracted from the publicly available, annually published Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) database from 2003 to 2019. Cases were categorized as open or laparoscopic colectomy/proctectomy, colectomy with ileoanal pull-thru, abdomino-perineal resection (APR), transanal rectal tumor excision (TRE), anorectal procedure, colonoscopy, and total colorectal cases. The average case numbers per category was calculated for each year. Linear regression analyzed trends in case categories for all residents and those logged as surgeon chief and junior residents.

SETTING

ACGME accredited general surgery residency programs.

PARTICIPANTS

Not applicable.

RESULTS

General surgery residents reported increased numbers of all, chief, and junior resident colorectal cases over the study period (124.5-173.7 cases/yr; 38.4-53.0 cases/yr; 86.4-120.6 cases/yr, all p = 0.00). Average cases for all, chief, and junior residents have increased for laparoscopic colectomy/proctectomy (4.6-26.4 cases/year; 2.7-12.9 cases/year; 2.0-13.5 cases/year, all p = 0.00), anorectal surgeries (26.7-37.7 cases/year; 5.4-9.9 cases/year; 21.3-27.8 cases/year, all p = 0.00), and colonoscopies (35.9-70.6 cases/year, p = 0.00; 6.6-14.1 cases/year, p = 0.01; 29.4-56.5 cases/year, p = 0.00). Average cases for all, chief, and junior residents have decreased for open colectomy/proctectomy (52.0-34.9 cases/year; 21.2-14.3 cases/year; 30.9-20.6 cases/year, all p = 0.00), APR (3.3-2.7 cases/year, p = 0.00; 1.8-1.3 cases/year, p = 0.00; 1.5-1.4 cases/year, p = 0.02), TRE (1.9-1.1 cases/year; 0.7-0.4 cases/year; 1.2-0.6 cases/year, all p = 0.00). Ileoanal pull-thru did not demonstrate a linear trend.

CONCLUSIONS

The increase in exposure to colectomies/proctectomies, anorectal procedures and colonoscopies is encouraging, as these common colorectal operations will be encountered in general surgery practice. The observed low case numbers for TRE, APR, and ileoanal pull-thru suggest a need for specialized training.

On the correlation between outcome indicators and the structure and process indicators used to proxy them in public health care reporting

Hospital quality indicators provide valuable insights for quality improvement, empower patients to choose providers, and have become a cornerstone of value-based payment. As outcome indicators are cumbersome and expensive to measure, many health systems have relied on proxy indicators, such as structure and process indicators. In this paper, we assess the extent to which publicly reported structure and process indicators are correlated with outcome indicators, to determine if these provide useful signals to inform the public about the outcomes. Quality indicators for three conditions (breast and colorectal cancer, and hip replacement surgery) for Dutch hospitals (2011-2018) were collected. Structure and process indicators were compared to condition-specific outcome indicators and in-hospital mortality ratios in a between-hospital comparison (cross-sectional and between-effects models) and in within-hospital comparison (fixed-effects models). Systematic association could not be observed for any of the models. Both positive and negative signs were observed where negative associations were to be expected. Despite sufficient statistical power, the share of significant correlations was small [mean share: 13.2% (cross-sectional); 26.3% (between-effects); 13.2% (fixed-effects)]. These findings persisted in stratified analyses by type of hospital and in models using a multivariate approach. We conclude that, in the context of compulsory public reporting, structure and process indicators are not correlated with outcome indicators, neither in between-hospital comparisons nor in within-hospital comparisons. While structure and process indicators remain valuable for internal quality improvement, they are unsuitable as signals for informing the public about hospital differences in health outcomes.

Comparing outcomes for non-metastatic rectal cancer in academic vs. community centers: A propensity-matched analysis of the National Cancer Database

BACKGROUND

Little is known regarding the impact of hospital academic status on outcomes following rectal cancer surgery. We compare these outcomes for nonmetastatic rectal adenocarcinoma at academic versus community institutions.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database (2010-2016) was queried for patients with nonmetastatic rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent resection. Propensity score matching was performed across facility cohorts to balance confounding covariates. Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox-proportional hazards regression were used to analyze survival, other short and long-term outcomes were analyzed by way of logistic regression.

RESULTS

After matching, 15,096 patients were included per cohort. Academic centers were associated with significantly decreased odds of conversion and positive margins with significantly increased odds of ≥12 regional nodes examined. Academic programs also had decreased odds of 30 and 90-day mortality and decreased 5-year mortality hazard. After matching for facility volume, no significant differences in outcomes between centers was seen.

CONCLUSIONS

No difference between academic and community centers in outcomes following surgery for non-metastatic rectal cancer was seen after matching for facility procedural volume.

Impact of Surgeon Volume on Outcomes and Expenditure Among Medicare Beneficiaries Undergoing Liver Resection: the Effect of Minimally Invasive Surgery

BACKGROUND

Although the role of annual surgeon volume on perioperative outcomes after liver resection (LR) has been investigated, there is a paucity of data regarding the impact of surgeon volume on outcomes of minimally invasive LR (MILR) versus open LR (OLR).

METHODS

Patients undergoing LR between 2013 and 2015 were identified in the Medicare inpatient Standard Analytic Files. Patients were classified into three groups based on surgeons' annual caseload: low (≤ 2 cases), medium (3-5 cases), or high (≥ 6 cases). Short-term outcomes and expenditures of LR, stratified by surgeon volume and minimally invasive surgery (MIS), were examined.

RESULTS

Among 3403 surgeons performing LR on 7169 patients, approximately 90% of surgeons performed less than 5 liver resections per year for Medicare patients. Only 7.1% of patients underwent MILR (n = 506). After adjustment, the likelihood of experiencing a complication and death within 90 days decreased with increasing surgeon volume. Outcomes of open and MILR among low- or high-volume surgeon groups, including rates of complications, 30- and 90-day readmission and mortality were similar. However, the difference of average total episode payment between open and MIS was higher in the high-volume surgeon group (low volume: $2929 vs. medium volume: $2333 vs. high volume: $7055).

CONCLUSION

Annual surgeon volume was an important predictor of outcomes following LR. MILR had comparable results to open LR among both the low- and high-volume surgeons.

Systematic Review on the Influence of Tissue Oxygenation on Gut Microbiota and Anastomotic Healing

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leak rates have not improved over several decades despite improvements in surgical techniques and patient care. The gut microbiome has been implicated in the development of leaks. The exact mechanisms by which tissue oxygenation affects gut microbial composition and anastomotic healing physiology are unclear. Also, commonly used carbon dioxide (CO₂) is a known vasodilator that improves tissue oxygen tension. We performed a systematic review to determine the influence of hyperoxia, hypoxia, and hypercapnia on the gut microbiome and anastomotic healing.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and COCHRANE to identify studies investigating the effects of hyperoxia, hypoxia, and hypercapnia on anastomotic healing and gut microbiota published between 1998 and 2018. Two reviewers screened the articles for eligibility and quality. Fifty-three articles underwent full text review, and a narrative synthesis was undertaken.

RESULTS

Hyperoxia is associated with better anastomotic healing, increased gastrointestinal oxygen tension, and may reduce gut anaerobes. Hypoxia is associated with poor healing and increased gut anaerobes. However, it is unclear if hypoxia is the most important predictor of anastomotic leaks. Low pressure CO₂ pneumoperitoneum and mild systemic hypercapnia are both associated with increased gastrointestinal oxygen tension and may improve anastomotic healing. We found no studies which investigated the effect of hypercapnia on gut microbiota in the context of anastomotic healing.

CONCLUSIONS

Tissue oxygenation influences gut anastomotic healing, but little evidence exists to demonstrate the influence on the gut microbiome in the context of healing. Further studies are needed to determine if anastomotic microbiome changes with altered tissue oxygenation and if this affects healing and leak rates. If confirmed, altering tissue oxygenation through hyperoxia or hypercapnia could be feasible means of altering the microbiome such that anastomotic leak rates reduce.

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.

Determinants of Rectal Cancer Patients' Decisions on Where to Receive Surgery: a Qualitative Analysis

BACKGROUND

Current literature suggests surgeons who perform large volumes of rectal cancer resections achieve superior outcomes, but only about half of rectal cancer resections are performed by high-volume surgeons in comprehensive hospitals. Little is known about the considerations of patients with rectal cancer when deciding where to receive surgery.

METHODS

A purposive sample of stage II/III rectal adenocarcinoma survivors diagnosed 2013-2015 were identified through the Iowa Cancer Registry and interviewed by telephone about factors influencing decisions on where to receive rectal cancer surgery.

RESULTS

Fifteen survivors with an average age of 63 were interviewed: 60% were male, 53% resided in non-metropolitan areas, and 60% received surgery at low-volume facilities. Most patients considered surgeon volume and experience to be important determinants of outcomes, but few assessed it. Recommendation from a trusted source, usually a physician, appeared to be a main determinant of where patients received surgery. Patients who chose low-volume centers noted comfort and familiarity as important decision factors.

CONCLUSION

Most rectal cancer patients in our sample relied on physician referrals to decide where to receive surgery. Interventions facilitating more informed decision-making by patients and referring providers may be warranted.

Relationship between hospital volume and short-term outcomes: a nationwide population-based study including 75,280 rectal cancer surgical procedures

There is growing interest on the potential relationship between hospital volume (HV) and outcomes as it might justify the centralization of care for rectal cancer surgery. From the National Italian Hospital Discharge Dataset, data on 75,280 rectal cancer patients who underwent elective major surgery between 2002 and 2014 were retrieved and analyzed. HV was grouped into tertiles: low-volume performed 1-12, while high-volume hospitals performed 33+ procedures/year. The impact of HV on in-hospital mortality, abdominoperineal resection (APR), 30-day readmission, and length of stay (LOS) was assessed. Risk factors were calculated using multivariate logistic regression. The proportion of procedures performed in low-volume hospitals decreased by 6.7 percent (p<0.001). The rate of in-hospital mortality, APR and 30-day readmission was 1.3%, 16.3%, and 7.2%, respectively, and the median LOS was 13 days. The adjusted risk of in-hospital mortality (OR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.25-1.78), APR (OR 1.10, 95%CI 1.02-1.19), 30-day readmission (OR 1.49, 95%CI 1.38-1.61), and prolonged LOS (OR 2.29, 95%CI 2.05-2.55) were greater for low-volume hospitals than for high-volume hospitals. This study shows an independent impact of HV procedures on all short-term outcome measures, justifying a policy of centralization for rectal cancer surgery, a process which is underway.

Is it safe to perform rectal anastomosis in gynaecological debulking surgery without a diverting stoma?

AIM

Colorectal resection is frequently performed during cytoreductive surgery for gynaecological malignancy. The aim of this study was to assess the safety of colorectal anastomosis, and especially low rectal anastomosis, in the absence of a protective stoma in patients with gynaecological cancer and peritoneal metastasis.

METHOD

Patient data were retrospectively collected from a database for gynaecological cancer procedures carried out between January 2013 and July 2015. All patients who underwent a colorectal resection during cytoreduction were included in the study. The primary outcome was anastomotic leakage in the presence or absence of a diverting stoma. Secondary outcome parameters were complications and reoperations.

RESULTS

In the period of study, 43 major colorectal procedures were performed on 37 women. The most common colorectal procedure was low rectal resection (n = 22; 59%) followed by anterior rectal resection (n = 7; 19%) and sigmoid resection (n = 4; 11%). Five (14%) patients underwent Hartmann's procedure. In three (8%) patients, a diverting loop ileostomy was created.

CONCLUSION

Low rectal resection during debulking procedures for gynaecological cancers with peritoneal carcinomatosis can safely be performed by an experienced surgeon without a diverting stoma.

Hospital Characteristics Associated with Stage II/III Rectal Cancer Guideline Concordant Care: Analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare Data

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests that high-volume facilities achieve better rectal cancer outcomes.

METHODS

Logistic regression was used to evaluate association of facility type with treatment after adjusting for patient demographics, stage, and comorbidities. SEER-Medicare beneficiaries who were diagnosed with stage II/III rectal adenocarcinoma at age ≥66 years from 2005 to 2009 and had Parts A/B Medicare coverage for ≥1 year prediagnosis and postdiagnosis plus a claim for cancer-directed surgery were included. Institutions were classified according to National Cancer Institute (NCI) designation, presence of residency program, or medical school affiliation.

RESULTS

Two thousand three hundred subjects (average age = 75) met the criteria. Greater proportions of those treated at NCI-designated facilities received transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-pelvis (62.1 vs. 29.9 %), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (63.9 vs. 41.8 %), and neoadjuvant radiation (70.8 vs. 46.3 %), all p < 0.0001. On multivariate analysis, odds ratios (95 % confidence intervals) for receiving TRUS or MRI, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, or neoadjuvant radiation among beneficiaries treated at NCI-designated facilities were 3.51 (2.60-4.73), 2.32 (1.71-3.16), and 2.66 (1.93-3.67), respectively. Results by residency and medical school affiliation were similar in direction to NCI designation.

CONCLUSIONS

Those treated at hospitals with an NCI designation, residency program, or medical school affiliation received more guideline-concordant care. Initiatives involving provider education and virtual tumor boards may improve care.

Clinical competence in the surgery of rectal cancer: the Italian Consensus Conference

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The literature continues to emphasize the advantages of treating patients in "high volume" units by "expert" surgeons, but there is no agreed definition of what is meant by either term. In September 2012, a Consensus Conference on Clinical Competence was organized in Rome as part of the meeting of the National Congress of Italian Surgery (I Congresso Nazionale della Chirurgia Italiana: Unità e valore della chirurgia italiana). The aims were to provide a definition of "expert surgeon" and "high-volume facility" in rectal cancer surgery and to assess their influence on patient outcome.

METHOD

An Organizing Committee (OC), a Scientific Committee (SC), a Group of Experts (E) and a Panel/Jury (P) were set up for the conduct of the Consensus Conference. Review of the literature focused on three main questions including training, "measuring" of quality and to what extent hospital and surgeon volume affects sphincter-preserving procedures, local recurrence, 30-day morbidity and mortality, survival, function, choice of laparoscopic approach and the choice of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The difficulties encountered in defining competence in rectal surgery arise from the great heterogeneity of the parameters described in the literature to quantify it. Acquisition of data is difficult as many articles were published many years ago. Even with a focus on surgeon and hospital volume, it is difficult to define their role owing to the variability and the quality of the relevant studies.

Hospital variation in sphincter preservation for elderly rectal cancer patients

BACKGROUND

The primary goal of an operation for rectal cancer is to cure cancer and, where possible, preserve continence. A wide range of sphincter preservation rates have been reported. This study evaluated hospital variation in the use of low anterior resection (LAR), local excision (LE), and abdominoperineal resection (APR) in the treatment of elderly rectal cancer patients.

METHODS

Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked data, we identified 4959 patients older than 65 y with stage I-III rectal cancer diagnosed from 2000-2005 who underwent operative intervention at one of 370 hospitals. We evaluated the distribution of hospital-specific procedure rates and used generalized mixed models with random hospital effects to examine the influence of patient characteristics and hospital on operation type, using APR as a reference.

RESULTS

The median hospital performed APR on 33% of elderly patients with rectal cancer. Hospital was a stronger predictor of LAR receipt than any patient characteristic, explaining 32% of procedure choice, but not a strong predictor of LE, explaining only 3.8%. Receipt of LE was primarily related to tumor size and tumor stage, which combined explained 31% of procedure variation.

CONCLUSIONS

Receipt of LE is primarily determined by patient characteristics. In contrast, the hospital where surgery is performed significantly influences whether a patient undergoes an LAR or APR. Understanding the factors that cause this institutional variation is crucial to ensuring equitable availability of sphincter preservation.

Routine defunctioning stoma after chemoradiation and total mesorectal excision: A single-surgeon experience

AIM: To investigate the 10-year results of treating low rectal cancer by a single surgeon in one institution.

METHODS: From Oct 1998 to Feb 2009, we prospectively followed a total of 62 patients with cT2-4 low rectal cancer with lower tumor margins measuring at 3 to 6 cm above the anal verge. All patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) for 6 wk. Among them, 85% of the patients received 225 mg/m²/d 5-fluorouracil using a portable infusion pump. The whole pelvis received a total dose of 45 Gy of irradiation in 25 fractions over 5 wk. The interval from CRT completion to surgical intervention was planned to be approximately 6-8 wk. Total mesorectal excision (TME) and routine defunctioning stoma construction were performed by one surgeon. The distal resection margin, circumferential resection margin, tumor regression grade (TRG) and other parameters were recorded. We used TRG to evaluate the tumor response after neoadjuvant CRT. We evaluated anal function outcomes using the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center anal function scores after closure of the defunctioning stoma.

RESULTS: The median distance from the lower margin of rectal cancer to the anal verge was 5 cm: 6 cm in 9 patients, 5 cm in 32 patients, 4 cm in 10 patients, and 3 cm in 11 patients. Before receiving neoadjuvant CRT, 45 patients (72.6%) had a cT3-4 tumor, and 21 (33.9%) patients had a cN1-2 lymph node status. After CRT, 30 patients (48.4%) had a greater than 50% clinical reduction in tumor size. The final pathology reports revealed that 33 patients (53.2%) had a ypT3-4 tumor and 12 (19.4%) patients had ypN1-2 lymph node involvement. All patients completed the entire course of neoadjuvant CRT. Most patients developed only Grade 1-2 toxicities during CRT. Thirteen patients (21%) achieved a pathologic complete response. Few post-operative complications occurred. Nearly 90% of the defunctioning stomas were closed within 6 mo. The local recurrence rate was 3.2%. Pathologic lymph node involvement was the only prognostic factor predicting disease recurrence (36.5% vs 76.5%, P = 0.006). Nearly 90% of patients recovered sphincter function within 2 year after closure of the defunctioning stoma.

CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant CRT followed by TME, combined with routine defunctioning stoma construction and high-volume surgeon experience, can provide excellent surgical quality and good local disease control.

Management of distal rectal cancer: results from a national survey

Owing to the complexity of distal rectal cancer its management requires a multidisciplinary approach. The diagnosis and the response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy are not easy to assess and therefore the surgical approach is heterogeneous. The purpose of this survey is to evaluate the experiences of members of the Italian Society of Surgery in diagnosis and treatment strategies for rectal cancer and compare it with international practice. A questionnaire was devised comprising 18 questions with 11 sub-items making a total of 29 questions and submitted online to all the 2,500 members of the SIC starting from July 2010. The survey was completed in June 2011. The overall response rate was 17.8 % (444). The majority of the Italian surgeons' responses were in line with the international consensus reflecting the complex management of distal rectal cancer. Other opinions, especially those on staging, diverge from the common view of MRI being the gold standard in the assessment of loco-regional diffusion of the disease and on the superiority of FDG PET-CT versus CT for systemic staging. The timing for the re-staging and for surgery following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy does not reflect the international opinion. Italian surgeons are also exposed to the common difficulties encountered internationally in the management of distal rectal cancer. Probably, the implementation of an Italian rectal cancer registry and of many national and international multicentre studies may improve the management of rectal cancer in Italy.

Outcomes of the patients in the respiratory care center are not associated with the seniority of the caring resident

Although many studies show that the experience level of physicians is significantly associated with the outcomes of their patients, little evidence exists to show whether junior residents provide worse care than senior residents. This study was conducted to analyze whether the experience level of residents may affect the outcomes of patients cared for in a well-organized setting. We conducted a 7-year retrospective study utilizing statistical data from a respiratory care center (RCC) in a medical center between October 2004 and September 2011. In addition to the two medical residents who had been trained in the intensive care unit (ICU), the RCC team also included attending physicians in charge, a nurse practitioner, a case manager, a dietitian, a pharmacist, a social worker, registered respiratory therapists, and nursing staff. Weaning from mechanical ventilation was done according to an established weaning protocol. The 84 months analyzed were classified into five groups according to the levels of the two residents working in the RCC: R2 + R1, R2 + R2, R3 + R1, R3 + R2, and R3 + R3. The monthly weaning rate and mortality rate were the major outcomes, while the mean ventilator days, rate of return to the ICU, and nosocomial infection incidence rate were the minor outcomes. The groups did not differ significantly in the monthly weaning rate, mortality rate, mean ventilator days, rate of return to the ICU, or nosocomial infection incidence rate (p > 0.1). Further analysis showed no significant difference in the monthly weaning rate and mortality rate between months with a first-year resident (R1) and those with two senior residents (p > 0.2). Although the weaning rate in the RCC gradually improved over time (p < 0.001), there was no significant difference in the monthly weaning rate between the groups after adjusting for time and disease severity (p > 0.7). Thus, we concluded that in a well-organized setting, the levels (experiences) of residents did not significantly affect patient outcomes. This result may be attributed to the well-developed weaning protocol and teamwork processes in place, which avoid a large effect from any single factor and provide stable and high-quality care to the patients.

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.