Surgery for rectal cancer: Differences in resection rates among hospitals in the Netherlands

Rectal Cancer Surgery in a District Hospital: Our Experience

Introduction Rectal cancer forms a significant proportion of newly diagnosed colorectal cancer. Treatment of rectal cancer is multi-modal, but surgery remains the cornerstone of treatment of rectal cancer and has undergone significant changes in the last three decades. The advent of minimally invasive techniques has revolutionised the landscape of surgery of the rectum. There is now a growing push to centralise rectal cancer surgery to tertiary centres only. We present the results of rectal cancer surgery from our district hospital. Methods This is a single-centre retrospective review of patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery from January 2018 to December 2019 at Northern Lincolnshire and Goole Trust. Results A total of 104 patients were included, with a mean age of 69.13 years (median 70, range 45-98 years). Of the patients, 65 (62.5%) patients were male and 39 (37.5%) patients were female. Neoadjuvant therapy was given to 34% of patients, while 66% of patients underwent surgery first. Anterior resection was performed in 64% of patients, abdomino-perineal resection was performed in 24% of patients, and Hartmann's type operations were performed in 9% of patients. Median length of stay was 9 days (range 2-78 days). Morbidity was 24%, and five patients had anastomotic leaks, of whom three had radiological drain insertion and two required re-operation. Mortality was 2.,8% and re-operations were performed in 2% of patients. Conclusion Rectal cancer surgery can be safely undertaken in district hospitals with adequately trained surgeons using a multi-disciplinary approach.

Patient management after primary rectal cancer diagnosis. Special focus on surgical treatment for non-metastatic disease

Background: Rectal cancer is a public health priority. Primary objectives of this study were to evaluate the quality of care for non-metastatic rectal cancer using process and outcome indicators. Delay of management, length of stay and readmission rate, sphincter preservation, morbidity, number of examined lymph nodes, mortality, overall and disease-free survivals were evaluated. Secondary objectives were to estimate the relationship between possible predictive parameters for (1) anastomotic leakage (logistic regression), (2) overall or disease-free survivals (cox regression).Methods: We performed a retrospective study on 312 consecutive patients diagnosed with primary rectal cancer between 2016 and 2019. We focused on the 163 patients treated by surgery for non-metastatic cancer.Results: The treatment began within 33 days (range 0-264) after incidence, resection rate was 67%. Digestive continuity rate in lower, middle and upper rectum was 30%, 87% and 96%. Median of 14 lymph nodes (range 1-46) was analyzed. Length of stay and readmission rate were 11 days (range 3-56) and 4%, respectively. Within 90 postoperative days, clinical anastomotic leakage occurred in 9.2% of cases, major morbidity rate was 17%, mortality 1.2%. Multivariate analysis revealed that stoma decreased the risk of anastomotic leakage [hazard ratio: 0.16; 95% confidence intervals: 0.04-0.63; p = 0.008]. The 5-year overall survival after surgery was 85 ± 4%, disease-free survival 83 ± 4%. Patients with major complications, male gender and R1/R2 resection margin had a poorer prognosis.Conclusion: This work showed encouraging results in rectal cancer treatment in our institution, our results were in line with recommendations at the time.

Quality indicators in surgical oncology: systematic review of measures used to compare quality across hospitals

BACKGROUND

Measurement and reporting of quality indicators at the hospital level has been shown to improve outcomes and support patient choice. Although there are many studies validating individual quality indicators, there has been no systematic approach to understanding what quality indicators exist for surgical oncology and no standardization for their use. The aim of this study was to review quality indicators used to assess variation in quality in surgical oncology care across hospitals or regions. It also sought to describe the aims of these studies and what, if any, feedback was offered to the analysed groups.

METHODS

A literature search was performed to identify studies published between 1 January 2000 and 23 October 2023 that applied surgical quality indicators to detect variation in cancer care at the hospital or regional level.

RESULTS

A total of 89 studies assessed 91 unique quality indicators that fell into the following Donabedian domains: process indicators (58; 64%); outcome indicators (26; 29%); structure indicators (6; 7%); and structure and outcome indicators (1; 1%). Purposes of evaluating variation included: identifying outliers (43; 48%); comparing centres with a benchmark (14; 16%); and supplying evidence of practice variation (29; 33%). Only 23 studies (26%) reported providing the results of their analyses back to those supplying data.

CONCLUSION

Comparisons of quality in surgical oncology within and among hospitals and regions have been undertaken in high-income countries. Quality indicators tended to be process measures and reporting focused on identifying outlying hospitals. Few studies offered feedback to data suppliers.

Surgical and non-surgical complications after colorectal cancer surgery in older patients; time-trends and age-specific differences

BACKGROUND

Trends of surgical and non-surgical complications among the old, older and oldest patients after colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery could help to identify the best target outcome to further improve postoperative outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All consecutive patients ≥70 years receiving curative elective CRC resection between 2011 and 2019 in The Netherlands were included. Baseline variables and postoperative complications were prospectively collected by the Dutch ColoRectal audit (DCRA). We assessed surgical and non-surgical complications over time and within age categories (70-74, 75-79 and ≥ 80 years) and determined the impact of age on the risk of both types of complications by using multivariate logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

Overall, 38648 patients with a median age of 76 years were included. Between 2011 and 2019 the proportion of ASA score ≥3 and laparoscopic surgery increased. Non-surgical complications significantly improved between 2011 (21.8%) and 2019 (17.1%) and surgical complications remained constant (from 17.6% to 16.8%). Surgical complications were stable over time for each age group. Non-surgical complications improved in the oldest two age groups. Increasing age was only associated with non-surgical complications (75-79 years; OR 1.17 (95% CI 1.10-1.25), ≥80 years; OR 1.46 (95% CI 1.37-1.55) compared to 70-74 years), not with surgical complications.

CONCLUSION

The reduction of postoperative complications in the older CRC population was predominantly driven by a decrease in non-surgical complications. Moreover, increasing age was only associated with non-surgical complications and not with surgical complications. Future care developments should focus on non-surgical complications, especially in patients ≥75 years.

Not all Rectal Cancer Patients Could Benefit From the Surgery on the Primary Site

AIM

Previous studies have provided evidence that primary site surgery can improve the prognosis of rectal cancer patients, even in those with advanced age and distant metastasis, though results have been inconsistent. The current study aims to determine if all rectal cancer patients are likely to benefit from surgery in terms of overall survival.

METHODS

This study examined the impact of primary site surgery on the prognosis of rectal cancer patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2019 using multivariable Cox regression analysis. The study also stratified patients by age group, M stage, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and number of distant metastatic organs. The propensity score matching method was used to balance observed covariates between patients who received and did not receive surgery. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze the data, and the log-rank test was used to determine differences between patients who did and did not undergo surgery.

RESULTS

The study included 76,941 rectal cancer patients, with a median survival of 81.0 months (95% CI: 79.2-82.8 months). Of these patients, 52,360 (68.1%) received primary site surgery, and they tended to be younger, have higher differentiated grade, earlier T, N, M stage, and lower rates of bone, brain, lung, and liver metastasis, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy than those without surgery. Multivariable Cox regression analysis revealed that surgery had a protective effect on the prognosis of rectal cancer patients, including those with advanced age, distant metastasis, and multiple organ metastasis, but not in patients with four organ metastases. The results were also confirmed using propensity score matching.

CONCLUSION

Not all rectal cancer patients could benefit from the surgery on the primary site, especially the patients with more than four distant metastases. The results could help the clinicians to tailor targeted treatment regimens and provide a guideline for making surgical decisions.