The influence of hospital volume on long-term oncological outcome after rectal cancer surgery

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.

Rectal cancer surgery: does low volume imply worse outcome-a single surgeon experience

BACKGROUND

The centralisation of rectal cancer management to high-volume oncology centres has translated to improved oncological and survival outcomes. We hypothesise that individual surgeon caseload, specialisation, and experience may be as significant in determining oncologic and postoperative outcomes in rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained colorectal surgery database was reviewed for patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery between January 2004 and June 2020. Data studied included demographics, Dukes' and TNM staging, neoadjuvant treatment, preoperative risk assessment scores, postoperative complications, 30-day readmission rates, length of stay (LOS), and long-term survival. Primary outcome measures were 30-day mortality and long-term survival compared to national and international standards and best practice guidelines.

RESULTS

In total, 87 patients were included (mean age: 66 years [range: 36-88]). The mean length of stay (LOS) was 16.5 days (SD 6.0). The median ICU LOS was 3 days (range 2-17). Overall, 30-day readmission rate was 16.4%. Twenty-four patients (26.4%) experienced ≥ 1 postoperative complication. The 30-day operative mortality rate was 3.45%. Overall 5-year survival rate was 66.6%. A significant correlation was observed between P-POSSUM scores and postoperative complications (p = 0.041), and all four variants of POSSUM, CR-POSSUM, and P-POSSUM scores and 30-day mortality.

CONCLUSION

Despite improved outcomes seen with centralisation of rectal cancer services at an institutional level, surgeon caseload, experience, and specialisation is of similar importance in obtaining optimal outcomes within institutions.

Hospital surgical volume and colorectal cancer survival in Norway: A nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND

Studies of hospital surgical volume and colorectal cancer survival are inconclusive. We investigated whether surgical volume was associated with survival of patients operated for colorectal cancer in Norway.

METHODS

Using Cancer Registry of Norway data, we compared excess mortality from colorectal cancer by hospital surgical volume among 26,989 colon and 9779 rectal cancer patients diagnosed 2009-2020 and followed-up to 31.12.2021. Hospitals were divided into terciles according to their three-year average annual surgical volume; colon: low (< 22), middle (22-73), high (> 73); rectal: low (< 17), middle (17-38), high (> 38). We estimated excess hazard ratios (EHR) with flexible parametric models adjusted for age, year, stage, surgical urgency and surgery location (within/outside patient's residential health trust).

RESULTS

Low-volume hospitals had the highest proportion of late-stage or acutely operated colon cancer patients. Colon cancer patients operated at low- versus high-volume hospitals had significantly increased crude excess mortality (EHR = 1.30; 95 % CI = 1.14-1.48) but no difference after adjustment for age, year, and stage (EHR = 0.97; 0.85-1.11). High-volume hospitals had the highest proportion of late-stage rectal cancer patients and patients operated outside their residential area. Rectal cancer patients operated at low- versus high-volume hospitals did not have significantly different excess mortality before (EHR = 0.84; 0.64-1.10) or after (EHR = 1.03; 0.79-1.35) adjustment for age, year, stage, surgical urgency and surgery location. After accounting for case-mix, hospital surgical volume was not associated with excess mortality from colon (P = 0.40) or rectal cancer (P = 0.22).

CONCLUSION

Low hospital surgical volume was not associated with poorer colorectal cancer survival.

Variation in the volume-outcome relationship after rectal cancer surgery in the United States: Retrospective study with implications for regionalization

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have demonstrated improved outcomes for patients with rectal cancer treated at higher-volume hospitals. However, little is known whether heterogeneity in this effect exists. The objective was to test whether the effect of increased annual rectal cancer resection volume on outcomes is consistent across all hospitals treating rectal cancer.

METHODS

Adult stage I to III patients who underwent surgical resection for rectal adenocarcinoma from 2004 to 2016 were identified in the National Cancer Database.

RESULTS

We included 120,522 patients treated at 763 hospitals in this retrospective cohort study. Higher volume was linearly and incrementally related to outcomes in unadjusted analyses. In adjusted models, for an average patient at the average hospital, the effect of increasing the annual caseload of rectal cancer resections by 20 resections per year was associated with 8%, (hazard ratio = 0.92, 95% confidence interval = 0.87, 0.97), 18% (odds ratio = 0.82, 95% confidence interval = 0.70, 0.98), and 16% (odds ratio = 0.84, 95% confidence interval = 0.73, 0.95) relative reductions in 5-year overall survival, 30-, and 90-day mortality, respectively, and with a 19% (odds ratio = 1.19, 95% confidence interval = 1.04, 1.36) relative increase in the rate of neoadjuvant chemoradiation. These effects varied by individual hospitals such that 39% of hospitals do not see any benefit in 5-year overall survival associated with higher volumes. Increased volume was associated with lower positive circumferential resection margin rates at 19% of the hospitals.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms that higher-volume hospitals have improved outcomes after rectal cancer surgery. However, there exists significant variation in these effects induced by individual within-hospital effects. Regionalization policies may need to be flexible in identifying the hospitals that would achieve enhanced benefits from treating a larger volume of patients.

European Society of Gynaecological Oncology quality indicators for the surgical treatment of endometrial carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Quality of surgical care as a crucial component of a comprehensive multi-disciplinary management improves outcomes in patients with endometrial carcinoma, notably helping to avoid suboptimal surgical treatment. Quality indicators (QIs) enable healthcare professionals to measure their clinical management with regard to ideal standards of care.

OBJECTIVE

In order to complete its set of QIs for the surgical management of gynecological cancers, the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) initiated the development of QIs for the surgical treatment of endometrial carcinoma.

METHODS

QIs were based on scientific evidence and/or expert consensus. The development process included a systematic literature search for the identification of potential QIs and documentation of the scientific evidence, two consensus meetings of a group of international experts, an internal validation process, and external review by a large international panel of clinicians and patient representatives. QIs were defined using a structured format comprising metrics specifications, and targets. A scoring system was then developed to ensure applicability and feasibility of a future ESGO accreditation process based on these QIs for endometrial carcinoma surgery and support any institutional or governmental quality assurance programs.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine structural, process and outcome indicators were defined. QIs 1-5 are general indicators related to center case load, training, experience of the surgeon, structured multi-disciplinarity of the team and active participation in clinical research. QIs 6 and 7 are related to the adequate pre-operative investigations. QIs 8-22 are related to peri-operative standards of care. QI 23 is related to molecular markers for endometrial carcinoma diagnosis and as determinants for treatment decisions. QI 24 addresses the compliance of management of patients after primary surgical treatment with the standards of care. QIs 25-29 highlight the need for a systematic assessment of surgical morbidity and oncologic outcome as well as standardized and comprehensive documentation of surgical and pathological elements. Each QI was associated with a score. An assessment form including a scoring system was built as basis for ESGO accreditation of centers for endometrial cancer surgery.

Hospital variation in sphincter-preservation rates in rectal cancer treatment: results of a population-based study in the Netherlands

Background

This study aimed to examine the sphincter-preservation rate variations in rectal cancer surgery. The influence of hospital volume on sphincter-preservation rates and short-term outcomes (anastomotic leakage (AL), positive circumferential resection margin (CRM), 30- and 90-day mortality rates) were also analysed.

Methods

Non-metastasized rectal cancer patients treated between 2009 and 2016 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Surgical procedures were divided into sphincter-preserving surgery and an end colostomy group. Multivariable logistic regression models were generated to estimate the probability of undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery according to the hospital of surgery and tumour height (low, 5 cm or less, mid, more than 5 cm to 10 cm, and high, more than 10 cm). The influence of annual hospital volume (less than 20, 20–39, more than 40 resections) on sphincter-preservation rate and short-term outcomes was also examined.

Results

A total of 20 959 patients were included (11 611 sphincter preservation and 8079 end colostomy) and the observed median sphincter-preservation rate in low, mid and high rectal cancer was 29.3, 75.6 and 87.9 per cent respectively. After case-mix adjustment, hospital of surgery was a significant factor for patients’ likelihood for sphincter preservation in all three subgroups (P < 0.001). In mid rectal cancer, borderline higher rates of sphincter preservation were associated with low-volume hospitals (odds ratio 1.20, 95 per cent c.i. 1.01 to 1.43). No significant association between annual hospital volume and sphincter-preservation rate in low and high rectal cancer nor short-term outcomes (AL, positive CRM rate and 30- and 90-day mortality rates) was identified.

Conclusion

This population-based study showed a significant hospital variation in sphincter-preservation rates in rectal surgery. The annual hospital volume, however, was not associated with sphincter-preservation rates in low, and high rectal cancer nor with other short-term outcomes.

Outcomes following major resection for colorectal cancer in patients aged 65+ years: a population-based study in Queensland, Australia

BACKGROUND

The risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC) increases with increasing age. As surgery is the primary treatment for CRC, our aim was to examine outcomes following major resection for CRC in a cohort of individuals aged ≥65 years.

METHODS

This population-based retrospective study included 18 339 patients aged ≥65 years diagnosed with CRC from 2007 to 2016. Multivariate logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with the likelihood of having major resection, 30-day mortality and laparoscopic surgical procedure. Cox proportional hazards was used to examine factors associated with risk of death at 2 years post-surgery.

RESULTS

Overall, 77.8% (n = 14 274) of patients had a major resection. Males and patients ≥75 years were significantly less likely to have a major resection (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). Thirty-day mortality was 3.1% and 2-year overall survival was 78.7%. After adjustment, factors such as increasing age (≥75 years), ≥2 comorbidities, emergency admission, open surgical procedure and treatment in a public hospital were all independently and significantly associated with poorer outcomes. The likelihood a patient had a laparoscopic procedure was significantly lower for those from a disadvantaged area (P < 0.001), emergency admission (P < 0.001) as well as for those treated in a public versus private hospital (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Post-operative mortality increased, and 2-year survival decreased after age 75 years. The finding of significantly lower rates of laparoscopic surgery for patients from disadvantaged areas and those treated in a public hospital requires further investigation.

Hospital Surgical Volume and 3-Year Mortality in Severe Prognosis Cancers: A Population-Based Study Using Cancer Registry Data

BACKGROUND

The impact of hospital surgical volume on long-term mortality has not been well assessed in Japan, especially for esophageal, biliary tract, and pancreatic cancer, although these three cancers need a high level of medical-technical skill. The purpose of this study was to examine associations between hospital surgical volume and 3-year mortality for these severe-prognosis cancer patients.

METHODS

Patients who received curative surgery for esophageal, biliary tract, and pancreatic cancers were analyzed using the Osaka Cancer Registry data from 2006-2013. Hospital surgical volume was categorized into tertiles (high/middle/low) according to the average annual number of curative surgeries per hospital for each cancer. Three-year survivals were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Hazard ratios (HRs) of 3-year mortality were calculated using Cox proportional hazard models, adjusting for patient characteristics.

RESULTS

Three-year survival was higher with increased hospital surgical volume for all three cancers, but the relative importance of volume varied across sites. After adjustment for all confounding factors, HRs in middle- and low-volume hospitals were 1.34 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-1.58) and 1.57 (95% CI, 1.33-1.86) for esophageal cancer; 1.39 (95% CI, 1.15-1.67) and 1.57 (95% CI, 1.30-1.89) for biliary tract cancer; 1.38 (95% CI, 1.16-1.63) and 1.90 (95% CI, 1.60-2.25) for pancreatic cancer, respectively. In particular for localized pancreatic cancer, the impact of hospital surgical volume on 3-year mortality was strong (HR 2.66; 95% CI, 1.61-4.38).

CONCLUSION

We suggest that patients who require curative surgery for esophageal, biliary tract, and pancreatic cancer may benefit from referral to high-volume hospitals.

The long-term influence of hospital and surgeon volume on local control and survival in the randomized German Rectal Cancer Trial CAO/ARO/AIO-94

BACKGROUND

The association of treatment volume and oncological outcome of rectal cancer patients undergoing multidisciplinary treatment is subject of an ongoing debate. Prospective data on long-term local control and overall survival (OS) are not available so far. This study investigated the long-term influence of hospital and surgeon volume on local recurrence (LR) and OS in patients with locally advanced rectal cancers.

METHODS

In a post-hoc analysis of the randomized phase III CAO/ARO/AIO-94 trial after a follow-up of more than 10 years, 799 patients with stage II/III rectal cancers were evaluated. LR-rates and OS were stratified by hospital recruitment volume (≤20 vs. 21-90 vs. >90 patients) and by surgeon volume (≤10 vs. 11-50 vs. >50 procedures).

RESULTS

Patients treated in high-volume hospitals had a longer OS than those treated in hospitals with medium or low treatment volume (p = 0.03). The surgeon volume was adversely associated with LR (p = 0.01) but had no influence on overall survival. The positive effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) on local control was the strongest in patients being operated by medium-volume surgeons, less in patients being operated by high-volume surgeons and missing in those being operated by low-volume surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with locally advanced rectal cancers might benefit from treatment in specialized high-volume hospitals. In particular, the surgeon volume had significant influence on long-term local tumour control. The effect of neoadjuvant CRT on local tumour control may likewise depend on the surgeon volume.

Gastric Bypass Versus Sleeve Gastrectomy: Patient Selection and Short-term Outcome of 47,101 Primary Operations From the Swedish, Norwegian, and Dutch National Quality Registries

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the use and short-term outcome of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) in Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND

Although bariatric surgery is performed in high volumes worldwide, no consensus exists regarding the choice of bariatric procedure for specific groups of patients.

METHODS

Data from 3 national registries for bariatric surgery were used. Patient selection, perioperative data (severe complications, mortality, and rate of readmissions within 30 days), and 1-year results (follow-up rate and weight loss) were studied.

RESULTS

A total of 47,101 primary operations were registered, 33,029 (70.1%) RYGB and 14,072 (29.9%) SG. Patients receiving RYGB met international guidelines for having bariatric surgery more often than those receiving SG (91.9% vs 83,0%, P < 0.001). The 2 procedures did not differ in the rate of severe complications (2.6% vs 2.4%, P = 0.382), nor 30-day mortality (0.04% vs 0.03%, P = 0.821). Readmission rates were higher after RYGB (4.3% vs 3.4%, P < 0.001).One-year post surgery, less RYGB-patients were lost-to follow-up (12.1% vs 16.5%, P < 0.001) and RYGB resulted in a higher rate of patients with total weight loss of more than 20% (95.8% vs 84.6%, P < 0.001). While the weight-loss after RYGB was similar between hospitals, there was a great variation in weight loss after SG.

CONCLUSION

This study reflects the pragmatic use and short-term outcome of RYGB and SG in 3 countries in North-Western Europe. Both procedures were safe, with RYGB having higher weight loss and follow-up rates at the cost of a slightly higher 30-day readmission rate.

Are academic hospitals better at treating metastatic colorectal cancer?

BACKGROUND

There is a strong association between hospital volume and surgical outcomes in resectable colorectal cancer. The purpose of our study was to investigate the association between hospital facility type and survival of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Adults from the National Cancer Database (2010-2015) with a primary diagnosis of colorectal metastases were included and stratified by facility type: community cancer program, comprehensive community cancer program, and academic/research program. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival, analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves, log-rank test, and the Cox proportional hazards regression model.

RESULTS

Among the 52,958 included patients, 13.72% were treated at a community cancer program, 49.89% at a comprehensive community cancer program, and 36.29% at an academic/research program. A significant increase in the proportion of patients being treated in an academic/research program has been observed from 2010 to 2015. An academic/research program tended to use more chemotherapy with colorectal radical resection and liver or lung resection and immunotherapy with chemotherapy. In adjusted analysis, the academic/research program had decreased risk of mortality in comparison to the community cancer program and the comprehensive community cancer program (hazard ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.86-0.94; 0.87, 0.85-0.90; each P < .001; respectively). Similar results were seen after stratifying by metastatic site and treatment type.

CONCLUSION

The prognosis and overall survival of patients with metastatic disease is better in an academic/research program compared with a community cancer program or a comprehensive community cancer program, with this difference persisting across sites of metastatic disease and treatment types. Further studies are required to validate these results and investigate disparities in the management of metastatic colorectal cancer.

State-wide outcomes in elective rectal cancer resection: is there a case for centralization in Victoria?

BACKGROUND

The role of service centralization in rectal cancer surgery is controversial. Recent studies suggest centralization to high-volume centres may improve postoperative mortality. We used a state-wide administrative data set to determine the inpatient mortality for patients undergoing elective rectal cancer surgery and to compare individual hospital volumes.

METHODS

The Victorian Admitted Episodes Dataset was explored using the Dr Foster Quality Investigator tool. The inpatient mortality rate, 30-day readmission rate and the proportion of patients with increased length of stay were measured for all elective admissions for rectal cancer resections between 2012 and 2016. A peer group of 14 hospitals were studied using funnel plots to determine inter-hospital variation in mortality. Procedure types were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

There were 2241 elective resections performed for rectal cancer in Victoria over 4 years. The crude inpatient mortality rate was 1.1%. There were no significant differences in mortality among 14 hospitals within the peer group. The number of elective resections over 4 years ranged from 14 to 136 (median 65) within these institutions. Ultralow anterior resection was the commonest procedure performed.

CONCLUSION

Inpatient mortality after elective rectal cancer surgery in Victoria is rare and compares favourably internationally. Based on inpatient mortality alone, there is no compelling evidence to further centralize elective rectal cancer surgery in Victoria. More work is needed to develop data sets with oncological information capable of providing accurate complete state-wide data which will be essential for future service planning, training and innovation.

Perioperative Outcomes of Primary Bariatric Surgery in North-Western Europe: a Pooled Multinational Registry Analysis

Introduction

The global prevalence of obesity has increased in recent decades, and bariatric surgery has become a part of the treatment algorithm of obesity. National high-quality registries enable large-scale evaluations of the use and outcome of bariatric surgery and may allow for improved knowledge. The main objective was to evaluate the rate and type of complications after primary bariatric surgery in three North-Western European countries using nationwide registries.

Materials and Methods

Data from three registries for bariatric surgery were used (January 2015–December 2016). All registries have nationwide coverage with data on patient characteristics, obesity-related diseases, surgical technique, complications, grading of complications, reinterventions, readmissions, and mortality. Eligibility criteria for bariatric surgery were similar and included body mass index of ≥ 40.0 or ≥ 35.0 kg/m², with one or more obesity-associated diseases.

Results

A total of 35,858 procedures (32,177 primary) were registered. The most common procedure was gastric bypass in the Netherlands (78.9%) and Sweden (67.0%), and sleeve gastrectomy in Norway (58.2%). A total of 904 (2.8%) patients developed major complications after primary surgery and 12 patients (0.04%) died within 30 days. Total number of complications between the registries were comparable (p = 0.939). However, significant differences were seen for Clavien-Dindo Classification grades IIIb and IV (p < 0.001). Pooled readmission rates were 4.3% (n = 1386).

Discussion

Bariatric surgery is safely performed in the three evaluated countries. Standardization of registries and consensus of variables are essential for international comparison and may contribute to improved quality of treatment across nations.

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

OBJECTIVES

Hospital variation in risk-adjusted outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery has been shown. However, explanatory factors are not sufficiently clear. The objective of this study was to identify factors perceived by gastrointestinal surgeons as important to achieve excellent casemix-adjusted outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery.

DESIGN

Based on literature and experts' opinion, 86 factors associated with serious complications, failure to rescue and mortality were listed. These were presented to gastrointestinal surgeons through two web-based surveys and an expert meeting. Participants were asked to choose their top 10 of most important factors.

PARTICIPANTS

Dutch gastrointestinal surgeons (n=52) of different hospitals and different hospital types (general/teaching/academic).

RESULTS

Of 31 invited experts for the first survey and meeting, 71% responded. Of 130 invited surgeons, 34 responded to the second survey. Factors deemed important were: procedural hospital volume (46% in top 10), specialised surgeons performing surgery, (elective 87%, emergency 60% and reoperations 62% in top 10), accessibility of, and daily ward rounds by specialised surgeons (41% and 38% in top 10), preoperative screening for malnutrition (57% in top 10), a protocol for recognition of anastomotic leakage and rapid reintervention (54% and 49% in top 10).

CONCLUSION

Procedural hospital volume, specialisation of surgeons, screening for malnutrition, early recognition of complications followed by rapid action were perceived as most important factors to achieve good outcomes by gastrointestinal surgeons.

Outcomes After Rectal Cancer Surgery: A Population-Based Study Using Quality Indicators

Quality indicators are increasingly being used to measure the safety of cancer treatments. We examined factors associated with poorer outcomes after major resection for rectal cancer over time. We linked population-based cancer registry and cancer-related procedure data for rectal cancer cases over a 15-year period. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine factors associated with 30- and 90-day postoperative mortality, and overall survival (OS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier survival function. The study included 9,222 patients who had major resection for invasive rectal cancer. Thirty-day and 90-day mortality were 2.1% and 3.8%, respectively. Risk of 30-day mortality was elevated in older patients (p < .001); patients with ≥2 comorbidities (p < .001); and those admitted as an emergency (p < .001). An approximate 45% reduction in 30-day mortality (p = .01) was observed over time. Two-year OS was 81.5%, again with significant improvements observed over time (p < .001). No significant association was observed between hospital volume and mortality or 2-year survival. A reduction in rates of postoperative mortality and improved 2-year OS were observed over time. Quality indicators are a valuable tool to monitor clinical outcomes over time and as a means of improving clinical care for all patients.

Annual hospital volume of surgery for gastrointestinal cancer in relation to prognosis

BACKGROUND

Studies examining hospital volume for surgery for various gastrointestinal (GI) cancer types have shown conflicting results regarding the influence on long-term prognosis. The aim of this study was to examine annual hospital volume in relation to long-term survival after elective surgery for all GI cancers (esophagus, stomach, liver, pancreas, bile ducts, small bowel, colon, and rectum).

METHODS

Population-based cohort study including all 45,908 patients who underwent elective surgery for GI cancers in Sweden in 2005-2013. Follow-up was until 2016 for disease-specific 5-year mortality (main outcome) and 2018 for all-cause 5-year mortality (secondary outcome). Hospitals were divided into quartiles for each GI cancer according to a 4-year average annual volume of the year of surgery and three years earlier. Multivariable Cox regression provided hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusted for relevant confounders.

RESULTS

Higher hospital volume was associated with a survival benefit in the large group of patients (n = 26,688) who underwent colon cancer resection, with HR 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.96) for disease-specific 5-year mortality comparing the highest with the lowest quartile. Higher hospital volume improved 5-year mortality in sub-groups of patients who underwent surgery for cancer of the esophagus, pancreas, and rectum. No such improvements were found for cancer of the stomach, liver, bile ducts, or small bowel.

CONCLUSION

Long-term survival was improved at higher volume hospitals for some GI cancers (colon, esophagus, pancreas, rectum), but not for others (stomach, liver, bile ducts, small bowel).

Influence of Conversion and Anastomotic Leakage on Survival in Rectal Cancer Surgery; Retrospective Cross-sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Conversion and anastomotic leakage in colorectal cancer surgery have been suggested to have a negative impact on long-term oncologic outcomes. The aim of this study in a large Dutch national cohort was to analyze the influence of conversion and anastomotic leakage on long-term oncologic outcome in rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

Patients were selected from a retrospective cross-sectional snapshot study. Patients with a benign lesion, distant metastasis, or unknown tumor or metastasis status were excluded. Overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared between laparoscopic, converted, and open surgery as well as between patients with and without anastomotic leakage.

RESULTS

Out of a database of 2095 patients, 638 patients were eligible for inclusion in the laparoscopic, 752 in the open, and 107 in the conversion group. A total of 746 patients met the inclusion criteria and underwent low anterior resection with primary anastomosis, including 106 (14.2%) with anastomotic leakage. OS and DFS were significantly shorter in the conversion compared to the laparoscopic group (p = 0.025 and p = 0.001, respectively) as well as in anastomotic leakage compared to patients without anastomotic leakage (p = 0.002 and p = 0.024, respectively). In multivariable analysis, anastomotic leakage was an independent predictor of OS (hazard ratio 2.167, 95% confidence interval 1.322-3.551) and DFS (1.592, 1077-2.353). Conversion was an independent predictor of DFS (1.525, 1.071-2.172), but not of OS.

CONCLUSION

Technical difficulties during laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery, as reflected by conversion, as well as anastomotic leakage have a negative prognostic impact, underlining the need to improve both aspects in rectal cancer surgery.

Obesity as a determinant of perioperative and postoperative outcome in patients following colorectal cancer surgery: A population-based study (2009-2016)

BACKGROUND

Obesity is an increasing problem worldwide that can influence perioperative and postoperative outcomes. However, the relationship between obesity and treatment-related perioperative and short-term postoperative morbidity after colorectal resections is still subject to debate.

STUDY

Patients were selected from the DCRA, a population-based audit including 83 hospitals performing colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery. Data regarding primary resections between 2009 and 2016 were eligible for analyses. Patients were subdivided into six categories: underweight, normal weight, overweight and obesity class I, II and III.

RESULTS

Of 71,084 patients, 17.7% with colon and 16.4% with rectal cancer were categorized as obese. Significant differences were found for the 30-day overall postoperative complication rate (p < 0.001), prolonged hospitalization (p < 0.001) and readmission rate (colon cancer p < 0.005; rectal cancer p < 0.002) in obese CRC patients. Multivariate analysis identified BMI ≥30 kg/m² as independent predictor of a complicated postoperative course in CRC patients. Furthermore, obesity-related comorbidities were associated with higher postoperative morbidity, prolonged hospitalization and a higher readmission rate. No significant differences in performance were observed in postoperative outcomes of morbidly obese CRC patients between hospitals performing bariatric surgery and hospitals that did not.

CONCLUSION

The real-life data analysed in this study reflect daily practice in the Netherlands and identify obesity as a significant risk factor in CRC patients. Obesity-related comorbidities were associated with higher postoperative morbidity, prolonged hospitalization and a higher readmission rate in obese CRC patients. No differences were observed between hospitals performing bariatric surgery and hospitals that did not.