Centralisation of rectal cancer care has improved patient survival in the republic of Ireland

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.

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.

Treatment options for patients with pilonidal sinus disease: PITSTOP, a mixed-methods evaluation

Background

There is no consensus on optimal management of pilonidal disease. Surgical practice is varied, and existing literature is mainly single-centre cohort studies of varied disease severity, interventions and outcome assessments.

Objectives

A prospective cohort study to determine: • disease severity and intervention relationship • most valued outcomes and treatment preference by patients • recommendations for policy and future research.

Design

Observational cohort study with nested mixed-methods case study. Discrete choice experiment. Clinician survey. Three-stage Delphi survey for patients and clinicians. Inter-rater reliability of classification system.

Setting

Thirty-one National Health Service trusts.

Participants

Patients aged > 16 years referred for elective surgical treatment of pilonidal disease.

Interventions

Surgery.

Main outcome measures

Pain postoperative days 1 and 7, time to healing and return to normal activities, complications, recurrence. Outcomes compared between major and minor procedures using regression modelling, propensity score-based approaches and augmented inverse probability weighting to account for measured potential confounding features.

Results

Clinician survey: There was significant heterogeneity in surgeon practice preference. Limited training opportunities may impede efforts to improve practice. Cohort study: Over half of patients (60%; N = 667) had a major procedure. For these procedures, pain was greater on day 1 and day 7 (mean difference day 1 pain 1.58 points, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 2.01 points, n = 536; mean difference day 7 pain 1.53 points, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.95 points, n = 512). There were higher complication rates (adjusted risk difference 17.5%, 95% confidence interval 9.1 to 25.9%, n = 579), lower recurrence (adjusted risk difference -10.1%, 95% confidence interval -18.1 to -2.1%, n = 575), and longer time to healing (>34 days estimated difference) and time to return to normal activities (difference 25.9 days, 95% confidence interval 18.4 to 33.4 days). Mixed-methods analysis: Patient decision-making was influenced by prior experience of disease and anticipated recovery time. The burden involved in wound care and the gap between expected and actual time for recovery were the principal reasons given for decision regret. Discrete choice experiment: The strongest predictors of patient treatment choice were risk of infection/persistence (attribute importance 70%), and shorter recovery time (attribute importance 30%). Patients were willing to trade off these attributes. Those aged over 30 years had a higher risk tolerance (22.35-34.67%) for treatment failure if they could experience rapid recovery. There was no strong evidence that younger patients were willing to accept higher risk of treatment failure in exchange for a faster recovery. Patients were uniform in rejecting excision-and-leave-open because of the protracted nursing care it entailed. Wysocki classification analysis: There was acceptable inter-rater agreement (κ = 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.61). Consensus exercise: Five research and practice priorities were identified. The top research priority was that a comparative trial should broadly group interventions. The top practice priority was that any interventions should be less disruptive than the disease itself.

Limitations

Incomplete recruitment and follow-up data were an issue, particularly given the multiple interventions. Assumptions were made regarding risk adjustment.

Conclusions and future work

Results suggest the burden of pilonidal surgery is greater than reported previously. This can be mitigated with better selection of intervention according to disease type and patient desired goals. Results indicate a framework for future higher-quality trials that stratify disease and utilise broad groupings of common interventions with development of a patient-centred core outcome set.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN95551898.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/17/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 33. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Parastomal hernia repairs: A nationwide cohort study in the Republic of Ireland

BACKGROUND

In the context of improving colorectal cancer outcomes, post-survivorship quality of life has become an important outcome measure. Parastomal hernias and their associated morbidity remain largely under-reported and under-appreciated. Despite their burden, conservative management is common. This study aims to provide a national overview on the current trends in parastomal hernia repairs (PHRs).

METHODS

All PHRs performed in public hospitals across the country between 1/2017 to 7/2022 were identified retrospectively from the National Quality Assurance and Improvement System (NQAIS) database. Anonymised patient characteristics and quality indices were extracted for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 565 PHRs, 64.1 % elective and the remainder emergent, were identified across 27 hospitals. The 8 national colorectal units performed 67.3 % of all repairs. While 42.3 % of PHRs were standalone procedures, reversal of Hartmann's procedure was the commonest simultaneous procedure in the remainder. The median age, ASA and Charlson Co-Morbidity Index were 64 years (19), 3(1) and 3(10) respectively. Mean length of stay (LOS) was 16.25 days (SD = 29.84). Linear regression analysis associated ASA (95 % CI 0.58-16.08, p < 0.035) and emergency admissions (95 % CI 5.86-25.55, P < 0.002) with a significantly longer LOS, with the latter also associated with more frequent emergency re-admissions (95 % CI 0.18-0.82, p < 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing emergency PHR were older and significantly more comorbid. Consequently, these patients were subjected to longer hospital stays, more frequent readmissions and overall higher hospital costs. Multidisciplinary perioperative optimisation and standardised referral pathways should underpin the shift towards elective PHRs.

Application Value of High-Quality Nursing in Operating Room in Rectal Cancer Operation and its Influence on Postoperative Rehabilitation

OBJECTIVE

To study the value of high-quality care in operating room during operation of patients with rectal cancer and the effect of this nursing model on postoperative rehabilitation.

METHODS

This study recruited 72 patients with rectal cancer, including 36 in the control group and 36 in the observation group. Patients in the control group received routine care, and those in the observation group received high-quality care in operating room.

RESULTS

The anxiety score (5.50 ± .77 vs 10. 08 ± 1.13), stress score (6.97 ± .60 vs 8.61 ± .99), and depression score (4.02 ± .65 vs 5.50 ± .91) in the observation group were less than the control group after treatment (P < .05). The measured values of diastolic blood pressure (73.19 ± 1.96 vs 86.13 ± 2.0), systolic blood pressure (121.08 ± 1.62 vs 130.63 ± 2.84), heart rate (73.05 ± 1.63 vs 87.11 ± 2.91) and adrenaline E(E) (58.40 ± 3.02 vs 61.42 ± 3.86) in the observation group were less than the control group after treatment (P < .05). The cooperation degree (94.44 vs 75.00) in the observation group was greater than the control group, but the operation time (308.47 ± 9.92 vs 339.47 ± 12.70), postoperative intestinal function recovery time (16.30 ± 1.14 vs 30.94 ± 2.10) and length of stay (10.47 ± 1.85 vs 13.33 ± 1.95) were all shorter than the control group (P < .05). The nasopharyngeal temperature in the observation group was greater than the control group at 30 minutes during operation (36.16 ± .50 vs 35.19 ± .40) and after operation, and fear score (2.22 ± .42 vs 3.63 ± .72) was less than the control group (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

The application of high-quality care in the operating room during rectal cancer surgery has a significantly good clinical outcome.

Composite quality measures of abdominal surgery at a population level: systematic review

BACKGROUND

Measurement of surgical quality at a population level is challenging. Composite quality measures derived from administrative and clinical information systems could support system-wide surgical quality improvement by providing a simple metric that can be evaluated over time. The aim of this systematic review was to identify published studies of composite measures used to assess the overall quality of abdominal surgical services at a hospital or population level.

METHODS

A search was conducted in PubMed and MEDLINE for references describing measurement instruments evaluating the overall quality of abdominal surgery. Instruments combining multiple process and quality indicators into a single composite quality score were included. The identified instruments were described in terms of transparency, justification, handling of missing data, case-mix adjustment, scale branding and choice of weight and uncertainty to assess their relative strengths and weaknesses (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022345074).

RESULTS

Of 5234 manuscripts screened, 13 were included. Ten unique composite quality measures were identified, mostly developed within the past decade. Outcome measures such as mortality rate (40 per cent), length of stay (40 per cent), complication rate (60 per cent) and morbidity rate (70 per cent) were consistently included. A major challenge for all instruments is the reliance of valid administrative data and the challenges of assigning appropriate weights to the underlying instrument components. A conceptual framework for composite measures of surgical quality was developed.

CONCLUSION

None of the composite quality measures identified demonstrated marked superiority over others. The degree to which administrative and clinical data influences each composite measure differs in important ways. There is a need for further testing and development of these measures.

What is the impact of hospital and surgeon volumes on outcomes in rectal cancer surgery?

AIM

Evidence for a positive volume-outcome relationship for rectal cancer surgery is unclear. This study aims to evaluate the volume-outcome relationship for rectal cancer surgery at hospital and surgeon level in the English National Health Service (NHS).

METHOD

All patients undergoing a rectal cancer resection in the English NHS between 2015 and 2019 were included. Multilevel multivariable logistic regression was used to model relationships between outcomes and mean annual hospital and surgeon volumes (using a linear plus a quadratic term for volume) with adjustment for patient characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 13 858 patients treated in 166 hospitals were included. Six hospitals (3.6%) performed fewer than 10 rectal cancer resections per year, and 381 surgeons (45.0%) performed fewer than five such resections per year. Patients treated by high-volume surgeons had a reduced length of stay (p = 0.016). No statistically significant volume-outcome relationships were demonstrated for 90-day mortality, 30-day unplanned readmission, unplanned return to theatre, stoma at 18 months following anterior resection, positive circumferential resection margin and 2-year all-cause mortality at either hospital or surgeon level (p values > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Almost half of colorectal surgeons in England do not meet national guidelines for rectal cancer surgeons to perform a minimum of five major resections annually. However, our results suggest that centralizing rectal cancer surgery with the main focus of increasing operative volume may have limited impact on NHS surgical outcomes. Therefore, quality improvement initiatives should address a wider range of evidence-based process measures, across the multidisciplinary care pathway, to enhance outcomes for patients with rectal cancer.

The impact of hospital volume on survival in patients with locally advanced colonic cancer

BACKGROUND

High hospital volume has been shown associated with improved survival in patients with several cancers. The aim of this nationwide cohort study was to investigate whether hospital volume affects survival in patients with locally advanced colonic cancer.

METHODS

All patients with non-metastatic locally advanced colonic cancer diagnosed between 2007 and 2017 in Sweden were included. Tertiles of annual hospital volume of locally advanced colonic cancer were analysed and 5-year overall and colonic cancer-specific survival were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method. HRs comparing all-cause and colonic cancer-specific mortality rates were estimated using Cox models adjusted for potential confounders (age, sex, year of diagnosis, co-morbidity, elective/emergency resection, and university hospital) and mediators (preoperative multidisciplinary team assessment, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, radical resection, and surgical experience).

RESULTS

A total of 5241 patients were included with a mean follow-up of 2.7-2.8 years for low- and high-volume hospitals. The number of patients older than 79 years were 569 (32.3 per cent), 495 (29.9 per cent), and 482 (26.4 per cent) for low-, medium- and high-volume hospitals respectively. The 3-year overall survival was 68 per cent, 60 per cent and 58 per cent for high-, medium- and low-volume hospitals, respectively (P < 0.001 from log rank test). High volume hospitals were associated with reduced all-cause and colon cancer-specific mortality after adjustments for potential confounders (HR 0.76, 95 per cent CI 0.62 to 0.93 and HR 0.73, 95 per cent CI 0.59 to 0.91, respectively). The effect remained after inclusion of potential mediators.

CONCLUSIONS

High hospital volume is associated with reduced mortality in patients with locally advanced colonic cancer.