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).

Treatment Outcomes of Patients With Colorectal Cancer Enrolled in a Comprehensive Benefits Program of the National Insurance System in the Philippines: Data From the Pilot Site

PURPOSE

Cancer treatment causes significant financial burden, especially in developing countries such as the Philippines. This led the Philippine Department of Health to create the Z-Package colorectal cancer benefit program, an insurance system specifically designed to treat Filipinos with colorectal cancers with early to locally advanced-stage disease. The main goal of this program is to optimize treatment outcomes for this curable disease without causing financial toxicity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three-year data on patients enrolled in the Z-Package colorectal cancer benefit program from 2016 to 2018 were reviewed by the University of the Philippines, Philippine General Hospital Colorectal Polyp and Cancer Study Group.

RESULTS

A total of 251 patients were enrolled in the Z-package colorectal cancer benefit program from 2016 to 2018. Mean age was 57 years old and a majority of patients (66%) were male. A majority of patients had rectal cancer (78%) and were diagnosed with stage III disease (82%). A majority (75%) were compliant to their treatment plans and clinic follow-up. Specifically, compliance to the prescribed surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiation treatment were 90%, 77%, and 96%, respectively. Recurrence, morbidity, and mortality rates of enrolled patients in the Z-Package program from 2016 to 2018 were 17%, 22%, and 19%, respectively. Morbidities were mostly chemotherapy related (8%). Finally, patients in this program had a 2- and 3-year survival probability of 74% and 70%, respectively, which are comparable with data from more developed nations.

CONCLUSION

Results of this study include real-world data that show that when the highest standards of patient care are provided through a multidisciplinary team, patients' overall survival is also maximized.

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.

Defunctioning ileostomy reduces leakage rate in rectal cancer surgery - systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

The role of a defunctioning ileostomy in every anterior rectal resection with total mesorectal excision (TME) is still controversial. In this study, we aimed to review the current literature to determine the impact of ileostomy creation on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing anterior rectal resection with TME.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies. We analyzed data up to October 2017. Eligible studies had to compare patients with vs. without a defunctioning ileostomy in rectal cancer surgery and comprise data on anastomotic leakage in both groups. The primary outcome was anastomotic leakage. Secondary outcomes included the complication rate, mortality, reoperation rate, length of hospital stay and 30-day readmission.

Results

Initial search yielded 1,966 articles. Thorough evaluation resulted in 13 eligible articles which were analyzed. Leakage rate (RR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.28-0.67) and the number of reoperations (RR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.40-0.94) were significantly lower in the defunctioning stoma group. Morbidity was significantly higher in the stoma group (RR = 1.32, 95% CI 1.05–1.65). Analysis of mortality, length of hospital stay and readmission rate did not show any significant differences.

Conclusion

A defunctioning ileostomy may decrease the anastomotic leakage rate, additionally significantly reducing the risk of reoperations but it may also increase the overall complication rate. The presence of the protective stoma has no effect on mortality, length of hospital stay and readmission rate.

Outcomes of Low Anterior Resection Anastomotic Leak after Preoperative Chemoradiation Therapy for Rectal Cancer

Anastomotic leak remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality after colorectal surgery, especially with low anastomoses. The aim of this study was to assess outcomes of patients who developed an anastomotic leak after low anterior resection of the rectum for rectal cancer. An Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective review of 89 consecutive patients undergoing open low anterior resection with primary anastomosis for cancer of the mid/lower rectum at a single institution between January 2001 and December 2008 was performed. All patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Proximal diversion was performed in all patients. Perioperative data were collected and analyzed with attention to management and outcomes after development of anastomotic leak. Nine patients (10.1%) developed anastomotic leak. Mean age was 62 years. Mean tumor level was 4.8 cm above the anal verge. Symptomatic anastomotic leak developed in seven (78%) patients. Percutaneous drainage was performed in five (55.6%) patients with an average of 4.4 procedures required for management of anastomotic leak. Five (55.6%) patients required reoperation. Only two procedures (25%) involved laparotomy. No operative procedures were performed emergently. There were no mortalities. Excluding one patient who received completion proctectomy for local recurrence, restoration of intestinal continuity was achieved in five (63%) of eight patients. Mean time to stoma closure was 289 days. The potentially lethal complication of anastomotic leak after low anterior resection for rectal cancer can be managed expectantly and electively in patients who are proximally diverted with the expectation of stoma reversal in the long term.

Neoadjuvant therapy and anastomotic leak after tumor-specific mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

PURPOSE

This study was designed to evaluate whether neoadjuvant therapy is a risk factor for anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 220 patients who underwent tumor-specific mesorectal excision for rectal cancer from 2000 to 2005 was performed. Risk factors for leak were identified by using a multivariable regression model.

RESULTS

A total of 54 patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy and surgery, whereas 166 received surgery alone. No difference in clinically significant leaks was observed between the two groups (5.6 vs. 6.6 percent, P = 1). A diverting ileostomy was performed in 26.4 percent of patients who received neoadjuvant therapy compared with 9.7 percent for surgery alone (P = 0.0021). Neoadjuvant patients were more likely to have ultralow anastomoses (17.6 vs. 2.5 percent, P < 0.0001). On multivariate analysis, smoking (odds ratio, 6.37 (1.8, 22.2), P = 0.004), difficult anastomosis (odds ratio, 7.66 (1.8, 31.5), P = 0.0048), and low level of anastomosis (<or=4 cm from the verge; odds ratio, 5.28 (1.05, 26.6), P = 0.044) were independently associated with anastomotic leakage.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant predictors of anastomotic leak include smoking, difficult anastomosis, and level of anastomosis (<or=4 cm). Neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy was not found to be significantly associated with leakage after tumor-specific mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

The Swedish rectal cancer registry

BACKGROUND

An audit of all patients with rectal cancer in Sweden was launched in 1995. This is the first report from the Swedish Rectal Cancer Registry (SRCR).

METHODS

Between 1995 and 2003, 13 434 patients treated for adenocarcinoma of the rectum were registered with the SRCR; there were approximately 1500 new patients annually.

RESULTS

Approximately half had an anterior resection, a quarter an abdominoperineal resection and 15 per cent a Hartmann's procedure. The median 30-day postoperative mortality rate was 2.4 per cent and the overall postoperative morbidity rate was 35.0 per cent. The 5-year cancer-specific survival rate was 62.3 per cent. The 5-year relative survival rate was 70.1 per cent after anterior resection, 59.8 per cent after abdominoperineal resection and 39.8 per cent after a Hartmann's procedure. The crude 5-year local recurrence rate was 9.5 per cent overall, 6.1 per cent after preoperative radiotherapy and 11.4 per cent after surgery alone. For 3868 patients who had a locally curative procedure the local recurrence rate was 7.4 per cent overall, 5.9 per cent for those who had radiotherapy and 10.2 per cent for those who did not. The local recurrence rate was 2.9 per cent (28 of 968) for stage I disease, 7.9 per cent (112 of 1418) for stage II, 13.9 per cent (188 of 1357) for stage III and 8.5 per cent (45 of 532) for stage IV.

CONCLUSION

These good population-based results are due, in part, to the nationwide prospective quality assurance registration.

Defunctioning stoma reduces symptomatic anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection of the rectum for cancer: a randomized multicenter trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this randomized multicenter trial was to assess the rate of symptomatic anastomotic leakage in patients operated on with low anterior resection for rectal cancer and who were intraoperatively randomized to a defunctioning stoma or not.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

The introduction of total mesorectal excision surgery as the surgical technique of choice for carcinoma in the lower and mid rectum has led to decreased local recurrence and improved oncological results. Despite these advances, perioperative morbidity remains a major issue, and the most feared complication is symptomatic anastomotic leakage. The role of the defunctioning stoma in regard to anastomotic leakage is controversial and has not been assessed in any randomized trial of sufficient size.

METHODS

From December 1999 to June 2005, a total of 234 patients were randomized to a defunctioning loop stoma or no loop stoma. Loop ileostomy or loop transverse colostomy was at the choice of the surgeon. Inclusion criteria for randomization were expected survival >6 months, informed consent, anastomosis < or =7 cm above the anal verge, negative air leakage test, intact anastomotic rings, and absence of major intraoperative adverse events.

RESULTS

The overall rate of symptomatic leakage was 19.2% (45 of 234). Patients randomized to a defunctioning stoma (n = 116) had leakage in 10.3% (12 of 116) and those without stoma (n = 118) in 28.0% (33 of 118) (odds ratio = 3.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-6.9; P < 0.001). The need for urgent abdominal reoperation was 8.6% (10 of 116) in those randomized to stoma and 25.4% (30 of 118) in those without (P < 0.001). After a follow-up of median 42 months (range, 6-72 months), 13.8% (16 of 116) of the initially defunctioned patients still had a stoma of any kind, compared with 16.9% (20 of 118) those not defunctioned (not significant). The 30-day mortality after anterior resection was 0.4% (1 of 234) and after elective reversal a defunctioning stoma 0.9% (1 of 111). Median age was 68 years (range, 32-86 years), 45.3% (106 of 234) were females, 79.1% (185 of 234) had preoperative radiotherapy, the level of anastomosis was median 5 cm, and intraoperative blood loss 550 mL, without differences between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Defunctioning loop stoma decreased the rate of symptomatic anastomotic leakage and is therefore recommended in low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

Impact of surgeon volume and specialization on short-term outcomes in colorectal cancer surgery

Background

Several studies have shown a relationship between surgeon volume and outcomes in colorectal cancer surgery. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of surgeon volume and specialization on primary tumour resection rate, restoration of bowel continuity following rectal cancer resection, anastomotic leakage and perioperative mortality.

Methods

The Northern Region Colorectal Cancer Audit Group conducts a population-based audit of patients with colorectal cancer managed by surgeons. This study examined 8219 patients treated between 1998 and 2002. Outcomes were modelled using multivariate logistic regression analysis.

Results

Tumour resection was performed in 6949 (93·8 per cent) of 7411 patients. High-volume surgeons with an annual caseload of at least 18·5 (odds ratio (OR) 1·53 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 1·10 to 2·12); P = 0·012) and colorectal specialists (OR 1·42 (95 per cent c.i. 1·06 to 1·90); P = 0·018) were more likely to perform elective sphincter-saving rectal surgery. In elective surgery, the risk of perioperative death was lower for high-volume surgeons (OR 0·58 (95 per cent c.i. 0·44 to 0·76); P &lt; 0·001), but this was not the case in emergency surgery.

Conclusion

High-volume surgeons had lower perioperative mortality rates for elective surgery, and were more likely to use restorative rectal procedures.

Impact of radiotherapy on local recurrence of rectal cancer in Norway

Background

The purpose of this study was to analyse the impact of radiotherapy on local recurrence of rectal cancer in Norway after the national implementation of total mesorectal excision (TME).

Methods

This was a prospective national cohort study of 4113 patients undergoing major resection of rectal carcinoma between November 1993 and December 2001.

Results

The proportion of patients who had radiotherapy before or after operation increased from 4·6 per cent in 1994 to 23·0 per cent in 2001. The cumulative 5-year local recurrence rate decreased from 16·2 to 10·7 per cent. Multivariable analysis showed that preoperative radiotherapy significantly reduced local recurrence (hazard ratio 0·59 (95 per cent confidence interval 0·39 to 0·87)). The use of preoperative radiotherapy in patients from a local hospital offering radiotherapy was 50 per cent higher than that for patients from a hospital without such services (P = 0·003); cumulative 5-year local recurrence rates for these patients were 10·6 and 15·8 per cent respectively (P &lt; 0·001).

Conclusion

Following national implementation of TME for rectal cancer, increased use of preoperative radiotherapy appeared to reduce recurrence rates further.

Population-based study of risk factors for postoperative death after anterior resection of the rectum

BACKGROUND

The aim of this population-based study was to analyse risk factors for death within 30 days after anterior resection of the rectum.

METHODS

Between 1987 and 1995 a total of 6833 patients underwent elective anterior resection of the rectum in Sweden. One hundred and forty of these patients died within 30 days or during the initial hospital stay. These patients were compared with a randomly chosen cohort of 423 patients who underwent the same operation during the same interval, and were alive after 30 days and discharged from hospital. The association between death and 12 putative risk factors was studied.

RESULTS

The mortality rate after elective anterior resection was 2.1 per cent (140 of 6833). The incidence of clinical anastomotic leakage was 42.1 per cent (59 of 140) among those who died and 10.9 per cent (46 of 423) in the cohort group. Multivariate regression analysis identified clinical leakage, increased age, male sex, Dukes' 'D' stage and intraoperative adverse events as independent risk factors for death within 30 days.

CONCLUSION

Clinical anastomotic leakage was a major cause of postoperative death after anterior resection.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for extraperitoneal rectal cancer: a prospective comparative study

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopic resection (LR) in the management of extraperitoneal rectal cancer still is unclear. This study aimed to compare perioperative and long-term results of laparoscopic and open resection (OR) for low and midrectal cancer.

METHODS

A prospective nonrandomized trial comparing patients submitted to OR or LR for low and midrectal cancer at a single institution was conducted.

RESULTS

The study included 191 consecutive patients: 98 patients who underwent LR and 93 who underwent OR. The mean follow-up period was 46.3 months for LR and 49.7 months for OR. The conversion rate for LR was 18.4%. With the use of LR, the mean time for complete patient mobilization was shorter (1.7 vs 3.3 days; p < 0.001) and patients were earlier in passing flatus (2.6 vs 3.9 days; p < 0.001) and stools (3.8 vs 4.7 days; p < 0.01), and in resuming oral intake (3.4 vs 4.8 days; p < 0.001). The mean hospital stay was shorter for LR, but the difference did not reach significance (11.4 vs 13 days). Morbidity and mortality rates were similar: LR (24.4% and 1%) and OR (23.6% and 2.2%). Laparoscopic patients presented a higher rate of anastomotic fistulas (13.5% vs 5.1%) and reoperations (6.1% vs 3.2%) but the difference was statistically nonsignificant. Laparoscopic resection presented a significantly lower local recurrence rate (3.2% vs 12.6%; p < 0.05). The cumulative survival and disease-free rates at 5 years were, respectively, 80% and 65.4% after LR and 68.9% and 58.9% after OR (nonsignificant difference). Stage-by-stage comparison showed prolonged cumulative survival for stages III and IV cancer in LR (82.5% vs 40.5%; p = 0.006 and 15.8% vs 0%; p = 0.013, respectively) and a reduced rate of cancer-related death for stage III in LR (11.4% vs 51.9%; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

As compared with conventional open surgery, LR for low and midrectal cancer is characterized by a faster recovery and similar overall morbidity (but a higher rate of anastomotic leakages), and does not present any adverse oncologic effect.

Effect of hospital caseload on long-term outcome after standardization of rectal cancer surgery at a national level

Background

The purpose of this prospective study was to examine the influence of hospital caseload on long-term outcome following standardization of rectal cancer surgery at a national level.

Methods

Data relating to all 3388 Norwegian patients with rectal cancer treated for cure between November 1993 and December 1999 were recorded in a national database. Treating hospitals were divided into four groups according to their annual caseload: hospitals in group 1 (n = 4) carried out 30 or more procedures, those in group 2 (n = 6) performed 20–29 procedures, group 3 (n = 16) 10–19 procedures and group 4 (n = 28) fewer than ten procedures.

Results

The 5-year local recurrence rates were 9·2, 14·7, 12·5 and 17·5 per cent (P = 0·003) and 5-year overall survival rates were 64·4, 64·0, 60·8 and 57·8 per cent (P = 0·105) respectively in the four hospital caseload groups. An annual hospital caseload of less than ten procedures increased the risk of local recurrence compared with that in hospitals where 30 or more procedures were performed each year (hazard ratio 1·9 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 1·3 to 2·7); P &lt; 0·001). Overall survival was lower for patients treated at hospitals with an annual caseload of less than ten versus hospitals with 30 or more (hazard ratio 1·2 (95 per cent c.i. 1·0 to 1·5); P = 0·023).

Conclusion

The rate of local recurrence was higher for hospitals with a low annual caseload of less than ten procedures than for hospitals with a high treatment volume of 30 or more. Patients treated in small hospitals also had a shorter long-term survival than those treated in large hospitals.

Recurrence and survival after mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Mesorectal excision for rectal cancer has resulted in local recurrence rates of 3-11 per cent compared with up to 38 per cent after conventional methods. The results of a prospective Danish study with a historical control group are presented.

METHODS

Three hundred and eleven patients with a mobile rectal cancer had mesorectal excision with curative intent performed by certified surgeons and were followed for 3 years. Demographic, perioperative and follow-up data were recorded prospectively. A series of patients who had conventional operations for rectal cancer served as a control group.

RESULTS

The cumulative 3-year local recurrence rate was 11 per cent after mesorectal excision compared with 30 per cent after conventional surgery (hazard ratio (HR) 0.33 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.21 to 0.52); P < 0.001). Multivariate regression analysis showed that only advanced age (HR 0.97 (95 per cent c.i. 0.94 to 1.00); P = 0.048) and tumour in the lower third of the rectum (HR 0.21 (95 per cent c.i. 0.04 to 1.97); P = 0.075) were marginal independent predictors of local recurrence after mesorectal excision. The cumulative crude 3-year survival rate was 77 per cent after mesorectal excision and 62 per cent after conventional surgery (HR 0.58 (95 per cent c.i. 0.43 to 0.77); P < 0.001). Age was the only independent predictor of death after mesorectal excision (HR 1.04 (95 per cent c.i. 1.02 to 1.07); P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Mesorectal excision is associated with a considerably lower risk of local recurrence and a better survival rate than conventional surgery, and is the optimum method for rectal cancer resection.

Registration and validity of surgical complications in colorectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Population-based quality registers have become an important tool in quality assessment during the past decade. For registers to be reliable, however, data must be checked carefully for validity.

METHODS

The present study describes the validity of surgical complications registered in a national register run by the National Board of Health and Welfare (NBH), a register run by Regional Oncological Centres (ROC) and, for comparison, a local quality assurance system at Uppsala University Hospital (UUH). A specialized, independent surgeon checked 10 per cent of patient records against datasheets from the registers.

RESULTS

The local quality assurance system at UUH showed the best validity for surgical complications. Data for complications of colonic cancer surgery were more valid than those for rectal cancer surgery. Registration of serious complications was more valid than that of wound infections. The calculated proportion of missed surgical complications was 0.69, 0.64, 0.40, 0.22 and 0.07 for rectal and colonic cancer in the NBH register, rectal and colonic cancer in the ROC register, and the UUH register respectively. Corresponding figures for reoperation were 0.45, 0.48, 0.04, 0.09 and 0.21.

CONCLUSION

Local interest and routine use of data for quality assurance are crucial factors for valid registers. Careful monitoring of validity is necessary for use of registry data in structured systems for improvement of surgical results.

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a consecutive series of 100 patients

OBJECTIVE

To analyze total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer by the laparoscopic approach during a prospective nonrandomized trial.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Improved local control and survival rates in the treatment of rectal cancer have been reported after TME.

METHODS

The authors conducted a prospective consecutive series of 100 laparoscopic TMEs for low and mid-rectal tumors. All patients had a sphincter-saving procedure. Case selection, surgical technique, and clinical and oncologic results were reviewed.

RESULTS

The distal limit of rectal neoplasm was on average 6.1 (range 3-12) cm from the anal verge. The mean operative time was 250 (range 110-540) minutes. The conversion rate was 12%. Excluding the patient who stayed 104 days after a severe fistula and reoperation, the mean postoperative stay was 12.05 (range 5-53) days. The 30-day mortality was 2% and the overall postoperative morbidity was 36%, including 17 anastomotic leaks. Of 87 malignant cases, 70 (80.4%) had a minimum follow-up of 12 months, with a median follow-up of 45.7 (range 12-72) months. During this period 18.5% (13/70) died of cancer and 8.5% (6/70) are alive with metastatic disease. The port-site metastasis rate was 1.4% (1/70): a rectal cancer stage IV presented with a parietal recurrence at 17 months after surgery. The locoregional pelvic recurrence rate was 4.2% (3/70): three rectal cancers stage III at 19, 13, and 7 postoperative months.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic TME is a feasible but technically demanding procedure (12% conversion rate). This series confirms the safety of the procedure, while oncologic results are at present comparable to the open published series with the limitation of a short follow-up period. Further studies and possibly randomized series will be necessary to evaluate long-term clinical outcome in cancer patients.

Elective resection and anastomosis for colorectal cancer: a prospective audit of mortality and morbidity 1976-1998

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this paper is to audit the morbidity and mortality for colorectal cancer after open elective resection and anastomosis by a single colorectal surgeon (MK), with reference to any differences between intraperitoneal (IPA) and extra-peritoneal anastomoses (EPA).

METHODS

The prospective documentation of postoperative complications was compiled by the surgeon, charge nurses and a research assistant (PB). The operations were performed in three hospitals between 1976 and 1998.

RESULTS

Some 1392 consecutive patients were treated electively by 1418 resections with anastomosis. There were 23 postoperative deaths (1.6%). Significant adverse events, which were potentially avoidable, occurred in 10 (43.5%) of the patients who died. The morbidity rate was 41.6%. Clinical anastomotic leaks occurred more frequently in EPA (27/581, 4.7%) than in IPA (2/827, 0.2%; P < 0.0001). Anastomotic leak caused the death of two patients (0.14%).Routine prophylactic anticoagulation did not decrease the incidence of pulmonary embolism. Significant thrombophlebitis at the intravenous cannula site occurred in 54 patients (3.8%), wound infection in 29 (2.1%), and postural peripheral nerve injury in the upper limbs occurred in 11 patients (0.8%). Thirty-eight patients (2.7%) were returned to the operating theatre for 42 unscheduled operations.

CONCLUSION

Mortality associated with elective resection of colorectal cancer with anastomosis is principally related to age, cardio-vascular disease and avoidable adverse events. A wide range of complications may follow this type of surgery, especially after extra peritoneal operations. A classification of anastomotic leaks is suggested to assist in comparisons of this complication which remains a significant concern following extra peritoneal anastomoses.