Association between surgeon characteristics and their preferences for guideline-concordant staging and treatment for rectal cancer

An assessment of cancer centre level designation and guideline adherent care in those with rectal cancer: A population based retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Institutions providing care to individuals with cancer are organized based on available resources and treatments offered. It is presumed that increasing levels of care will result in improved quality of care and outcomes. The objective is to determine whether Cancer Level Designation is associated with guideline adherent care and/or survival.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of individuals within the Ontario Rectal Cancer Cohort, a population-level database including all adults undergoing surgical resection for rectal cancer between 2010 - 2019 were included in Ontario, Canada. The primary exposure was Cancer Centre Level Designation as defined by Cancer Care Ontario (i.e., Level 1/2 = regional cancer center; Level 3 = affiliate cancer center; Level 4 = satellite cancer center). The primary outcomes were guideline adherent care and survival. Associations were determined using one-way analysis of variances and a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

12,399 patients were included with 54 % from a Level 1/2 centre, 33 % from a Level 3 centre and 13 % from a Level 4+ centre. All assessed aspects of guideline adherent care were associated with cancer centre level designation. Unadjusted 5-year overall survival was associated with cancer centre level designation (Level 1/2 79.5 % vs. Level 3 79.1 % vs. Level 4/non-designated 75.4 %, P = 0.003). Adjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Analysis for overall survival found the following: Level 4/5 HR 1.11 (95 %CI 0.99 - 1.25); Level 3 HR 1.01 (95 % CI 0.93 - 1.11); Level 1/2 1 [Referent group].

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing Cancer Centre Level Designation was associated with higher likelihood of receiving the appropriate investigations and treatments in those with rectal cancer and may also be associated with survival.

POLICY SUMMARY

Future work should consider the centralization of complex rectal cancer care as well as quality improvement initiatives aimed at enhancing guideline adherent care across all centres managing rectal cancer.

Stage at diagnosis of colorectal cancer in the Middle East and Northern Africa: A population-based cancer registry study

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the 2nd most common cancer and 3rd most common cause of death in the Middle East and Northern Africa (MENA) region. We aimed to explore CRC stage at diagnosis data from population-based cancer registries in MENA countries. In 2021, we launched a Global Initiative for Cancer Registry Development (GICR) survey on staging practices and breast and CRC stage distributions in MENA. According to the survey results, population-based data on TNM stage for CRC were available from six registries in five countries (Kuwait, Morocco, Oman, Türkiye, UAE). The proportion of cases with unknown TNM stage ranged from 14% in Oman to 47% in Casablanca, Morocco. The distribution of CRC cases with known stage showed TNM stage IV proportions of 26-45%, while the proportions of stage I cancers were lowest in Morocco (≤7%), and highest (19%) in Izmir, Türkiye. Summary extent of disease data was available from six additional registries and four additional countries (Algeria, Bahrain, Iraq, Qatar). In summary, the proportions of CRC diagnosed with distant metastases in Oman, Bahrain and UAE were lower than other MENA countries in our study, but higher than in European and the US populations. Harmonising the use of staging systems and focusing stage data collection efforts on major cancers, such as CRC, is needed to monitor and evaluate progress in CRC control in the region.

Hospital Volume Predicts Guideline-Concordant Care in Stage III Esophageal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Esophageal cancer is a deadly disease requiring multidisciplinary coordination of care and surgical proficiency for adequate treatment. We hypothesize that quality of care is varied nationally.

METHODS

From published guidelines, we developed quality measures for management of stage III esophageal cancer: utilization of neoadjuvant therapy, surgical sampling of at least 15 lymph nodes, resection within 60 days of chemotherapy or radiation, and completeness of resection. Measure adherence was examined across 1345 hospitals participating in the National Cancer Database from 2004 to 2016. We examined the association of volume, program accreditation, safety net status, geographic region, and patient travel distance on adequate adherence (≥85% of patients are adherent) using logistic regression modeling.

RESULTS

The rate of adequate adherence was worst in nodal staging (12.6%) and highest for utilization of neoadjuvant therapy (84.8%). Academic programs had the highest rate of adequate adherence for induction therapy (77.2%; P < .001), timing of surgery (56.6%; P < .001), and completeness of resection (78.5%; P < .001) but the lowest for nodal staging (4.4%; P = .018). For every additional esophagectomy performed per year, the odds of adequate adherence increased for induction therapy (odds ratio [OR]. 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.27) and completeness of resection (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.06-1.25) but decreased for nodal staging (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.65-0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

Care provided at higher volume and academic facilities was more likely to be guideline concordant in some areas but not in others. Understanding the processes that support the delivery of guideline concordant care may provide valuable opportunities for improvement.

Adherence to neoadjuvant therapy guidelines for locally advanced rectal cancers in a region with sociodemographic disparities

BACKGROUND

Practice guidelines recommend neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NCR) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). We examined guideline adherence in a healthcare system serving a region with socioeconomic disparities and poor cancer outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of factors associated with guideline adherence.

RESULTS

63.1% of stage II/III LARC patients received NCR. Factors associated with adherence included white race (OR = 2.15, p = 0.024), private insurance (OR = 2.70, p = 0.005), employed status (OR = 2.30, p = 0.031), age at diagnosis (OR = 0.74, p = 0.032), appropriate local staging (OR = 9.17, p < 0.0001), and diagnosis later in the study period (OR per 1 year = 1.20, p = 0.006). By multivariate analysis, private insurance (OR = 2.51, p = 0.023), younger age (OR per 10 years = 0.72, p = 0.048) and appropriate local staging (OR = 6.67, p < 0.0001) were associated with adherence.

CONCLUSION

Guideline adherence for LARC in our system is low and is impacted by employment, race and insurance status. Standard of care compliance remains an important target for improvement efforts in this underserved region of the nation's Mid-South.

Adherence to quality measures improves survival in esophageal cancer in a retrospective cohort study of the national cancer database from 2004 to 2016

Background

We assessed adherence to four novel quality measures in patients with stage III esophageal cancer, a leading cause of death among GI malignancies.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of 22,871 stage III esophageal cancer patients identified from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) between 2004 and 2016. Four quality measures were defined from published guidelines: administration of induction therapy, >15 lymph nodes sampled, surgery within 60 days of neoadjuvant treatment, and R0 resection. The association of patient demographic and treatment variables with measure adherence was assessed using multiple logistic regression. Risk of all-cause mortality was assessed comparing adherent and non-adherent cases using Cox modeling. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates of groups that adhered to zero to four out of four quality measures were performed.

Results

Adherence was high for neoadjuvant treatment (93.7%), timing of surgery (85.7%) and completeness of resection (92.0%), but low for nodal evaluation (45.9%). Medicaid insurance status was associated with decreased odds of adherence for neoadjuvant treatment [odds ratio (OR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.54–0.99], nodal evaluation (OR 0.81, 95% CI: 0.68–0.96), and completeness of resection (OR 0.71, 95% CI: 0.54–0.92). From 2010 to 2016, when compared to cases from 2004 to 2005, there was a progressive increase in the odds of adequate induction therapy, nodal staging, and completeness of resection, but a progressive decrease in odds of well-timed surgery. Adherence was associated with decreased all-cause mortality for induction therapy, nodal staging, and R0 resection, but not for timing of surgery. Survival improved as the number of quality measures an individual patient adhered to increased.

Conclusions

Adherence to quality measures is associated with improved survival in patients with stage III esophageal cancer. Understanding variability in measure adherence may identify targets for quality improvement initiatives.

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.

Surgeon-Level Variation in Utilization of Local Staging and Neoadjuvant Therapy for Stage II-III Rectal Adenocarcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Neoadjuvant therapy (NT) is the standard of care for clinical stage II-III rectal adenocarcinoma, but utilization remains suboptimal. We aimed to determine the underlying reasons for omission of local staging and NT.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of patients with clinical stage II-III or undocumented clinical stage/pathologic stage II-III rectal adenocarcinoma who were treated in 2010-2016 in one of nine Intermountain Healthcare hospitals. The outcomes of omission of local staging and NT were examined with multivariable models. Risk- and reliability-adjusted rates of local staging and NT were calculated for surgeons who treated ≥ 3 patients. Pathologic and long-term outcomes were examined after excluding patients who were not resected or who underwent local excision (N = 11).

RESULTS

Local staging was omitted in 43/240 (17.9%) patients and NT was omitted in 41/240 (17.1%). The strongest risk factors for local staging and NT omission were upper rectal tumors and surgeons who treated ≤ 3 cases/year. Thirty-six of 41 (87.8%) cases of omitted NT had local staging omitted. Adjusted surgeon-specific local staging rates varied 1.6-fold (56.3-92.4%) and NT rates varied 2.8-fold (34.1-97.1%). Surgeon local staging and NT rates were strongly correlated (r = 0.92). NT was associated with lower rates of positive circumferential radial margins (7.9 vs. 20.0%; P = 0.02), node positivity (33.3 vs. 55.0%; P = 0.01), and local recurrences (7.6 vs. 14.9% at 5 years; P = 0.0176).

CONCLUSIONS

NT omission should be understood as a consequence of surgeon failure to perform local staging in most cases. Quality improvement efforts should focus on improving utilization of local staging.

Association between neoadjuvant chemoradiation and survival for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer

AIM

To examine the overall survival differences for the following neoadjuvant therapy modalities - no therapy, chemotherapy alone, radiation alone and chemoradiation - in a large cohort of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

METHOD

Adults with clinical Stage II and III rectal adenocarcinoma were selected from the National Cancer Database and grouped by type of neoadjuvant therapy received: no therapy, chemotherapy only, radiotherapy only or chemoradiation. Multivariable regression methods were used to compare adjusted differences in perioperative outcomes and overall survival.

RESULTS

Among 32 978 patients included, 9714 (29.5%) received no neoadjuvant therapy, 890 (2.7%) chemotherapy only, 1170 (3.5%) radiotherapy only and 21 204 (64.3%) chemoradiation. Compared with no therapy, chemotherapy or radiotherapy alone were not associated with any adjusted differences in surgical margin positivity, permanent colostomy rate or overall survival (all P > 0.05). With adjustment, neoadjuvant chemoradiation vs no therapy was associated with a lower likelihood of surgical margin positivity (OR 0.74, P < 0.001), decreased rate of permanent colostomy (OR 0.77, P < 0.001) and overall survival [hazard ratio (HR) 0.79, P < 0.001]. When compared with chemotherapy or radiotherapy alone, chemoradiation remained associated with improved overall survival (vs chemotherapy alone HR 0.83, P = 0.04; vs radiotherapy alone HR 0.83, P < 0.019).

CONCLUSION

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation, not chemotherapy or radiotherapy alone, is important for sphincter preservation, R0 resection and survival for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Despite this finding, one-third of patients in the United States with locally advanced rectal cancer fail to receive stage-appropriate chemoradiation.

Trends with neoadjuvant radiotherapy and clinical staging for those with rectal malignancies

AIM

To see how patterns of care changed over time, and how institution type effected these decisions.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed using the National Cancer Database, looking at all patients that were diagnosed with rectal cancer from 1998 to 2011. We tested differences in rates of treatment and stage migration using χ² tests and logistic regression models.

RESULTS

A review of ninety thousand five hundred and ninety four subjects underwent multimodality therapy for cancer of the rectum. Staging and response to treatment varied greatly between centers. Forty-six percent of the time staging was missing in academic practices, vs fifty-four percent of the time in community centers (P < 0.001). As a result, twenty-percent were down-staged and eight percent up-staged in academia, whereas only fifteen percent were down-staged and 8% up-staged in community practices (P < 0.001). Forty-two percent of individuals underwent radiation before surgery in 1998. Within two years this increased to fifty-three percent. This increased to eighty-six percent by 2011 (P < 0.001). Institution specific treatment varied greatly. Fifty-one percent received therapy before surgery in academic centers in 1998. Thirty-nine percent followed this pattern in the same year in the community (P < 0.001). By 2011, ninety-one percent received radiation before their procedure in academic centers, vs eighty-four percent in the community (P < 0.001). Rates of adoption were better in academia, although an increase was seen in both center types.

CONCLUSION

From the study dates of 1998 to 2011, preoperative treatment with radiation has been on the rise. There is certainly an increased rate of use of radiation in academia, however, this trend is also seen in the community. Practice patterns have evolved over time, although rates of assigning clinical stage are grossly underreported prior to initiation of preoperative therapy.

Surgeon specialization impacts the management but not outcomes of acute complicated diverticulitis

BACKGROUND

The management and outcomes of patients receiving nonelective surgical treatment of acute complicated diverticulitis by surgeon specialization have received little attention.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of consecutive patients with acute complicated diverticulitis who underwent surgery from 2006 to 2013. Patients were analyzed based on surgeon specialty: general surgery (GS) or colorectal surgery (CRS).

RESULTS

One hundred fifteen patients met criteria for study; 62 patients in the CRS and 53 in the GS group. GS were more likely to perform Hartmann's procedures or primary anastomosis and less likely to perform primary anastomosis with diverting ileostomy than CRS. There were no differences between groups for any outcome measures on univariate analysis. CRS patients had shorter operative time (P = .001) and length of stay (P ≤ .001) for stoma reversal procedures. Surgeon specialization was not associated with morbidity, readmission, or length of stay on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Although surgical management differed significantly between CRS and GS, comparable outcomes were observed at the index hospital admission.

MRI Local Staging and Restaging in Rectal Cancer

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with rectal protocol modification is a reliable staging modality which is rapidly replacing transrectal ultrasound for staging. The added information delivered by MRI includes wide circumferential radial margin compromise, distant lymph node metastasis in the pelvis, and level of sphincter compromise in the low rectum. As more information becomes available through ongoing studies, MRI may be able to contribute the decision to treat rectal cancer nonoperatively.