Referral rate to oncologists and its variation by hospital for colorectal cancer patients

A Bibliometric Analysis and Visualization of Decision Support Systems for Healthcare Referral Strategies

BACKGROUND

The referral process is an important research focus because of the potential consequences of delays, especially for patients with serious medical conditions that need immediate care, such as those with metastatic cancer. Thus, a systematic literature review of recent and influential manuscripts is critical to understanding the current methods and future directions in order to improve the referral process.

METHODS

A hybrid bibliometric-structured review was conducted using both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Searches were conducted of three databases, Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed, in addition to the references from the eligible papers. The papers were considered to be eligible if they were relevant English articles or reviews that were published from January 2010 to June 2021. The searches were conducted using three groups of keywords, and bibliometric analysis was performed, followed by content analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 163 papers that were published in impactful journals between January 2010 and June 2021 were selected. These papers were then reviewed, analyzed, and categorized as follows: descriptive analysis (n = 77), cause and effect (n = 12), interventions (n = 50), and quality management (n = 24). Six future research directions were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimal attention was given to the study of the primary referral of blood cancer cases versus those with solid cancer types, which is a gap that future studies should address. More research is needed in order to optimize the referral process, specifically for suspected hematological cancer patients.

Prognostic factors and patterns of failure after surgery for T4 rectal cancer in the beyond total mesorectal excision era

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in the rates of total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer surgery, decreased local recurrence rates and increased 5-year survival, there still exists large variation in the quality of treatment received. Up to 30 per cent of rectal cancers are locally advanced at presentation and approximately 5-10 per cent still breach the mesorectal plane and invade adjacent structures despite neoadjuvant therapy. With the evolution of extended resections for rectal cancers beyond the TME plane, proponents advocate that these resections should be performed only in specialist centres. The aim was to assess the prognostic factors and patterns of failure after beyond TME surgery for T4 rectal cancers.

METHODS

Data were collected from prospective databases at three high-volume institutions specializing in beyond TME surgery for T4 rectal cancers between 1990 and 2013. The primary outcome measures were overall survival, local recurrence and patterns of first failure.

RESULTS

Three hundred and sixty patients were identified. The negative resection margin (R0) rate was 82·8 per cent (298 patients) and the local recurrence rate was 12·5 per cent (45 patients). The type of surgical procedure (Hartmann's: hazard ratio (HR) 4·49, 95 per cent c.i. 1·99 to 10·14; P = 0·002) and lymphovascular invasion (HR 2·02, 1·08 to 3·77; P = 0·032) were independent predictors of local recurrence. The 5-year overall survival rate for all patients was 61 (95 per cent c.i. 55 to 67) per cent. The 5-year cumulative incidence of first failure was 8 per cent for local recurrence, 6 per cent for local and distant disease, and 18 per cent for distant disease.

CONCLUSION

This study has demonstrated that a coordinated approach in specialist centres for beyond TME surgery can offer good oncological and long-term survival in patients with T4 rectal cancers.

Benchmarking rectal cancer care: institutional compliance with a longitudinal checklist

BACKGROUND

In 2012, the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons published the Rectal Cancer Surgery Checklist, a consensus document listing 25 essential elements of care for all patients undergoing radical surgery for rectal cancer. The authors herein examine checklist adherence in a mature, multisurgeon specialty academic practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective medical record review of patients undergoing elective radical resection for rectal adenocarcinoma over a 23-mo period was conducted. Checklists were completed post hoc for each patient, and these results were tabulated to determine levels of compliance. Subgroup analyses by compliance and experience levels of the treating surgeon were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 161 patients underwent resection, demonstrating a median completion rate of 84% per patient. Poor compliance was noted consistently in documenting baseline sexual function (0%), multidisciplinary discussion of treatment plans (16.8%), pelvic nerve identification (8.7%) and leak testing (52.9%), and radial margin status reporting (57.5%). Junior surgeons achieved higher rates of compliance and were more likely to restage after neoadjuvant therapy (67.9% versus 29.4%, P < 0.001), discuss patients at tumor board (31.3% versus 13.2%, P = 0.014), and document leak testing (86.7% versus 47.2%, P = 0.005) compared with senior surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

Checklist compliance within a high-volume, specialty academic practice remains varied. Only surgeon experience level was significantly associated with high checklist compliance. Junior surgeons achieved greater compliance with certain items, particularly those that reinforce decision-making. Further efforts to standardize rectal cancer care should focus on checklist implementation, targeted surgeon outreach, and assessment of checklist compliance correlation to clinical outcomes.

High Rate of Positive Circumferential Resection Margins Following Rectal Cancer Surgery: A Call to Action

OBJECTIVES

To identify predictors of positive circumferential resection margin following rectal cancer resection in the United States.

BACKGROUND

Positive circumferential resection margin is associated with a high rate of local recurrence and poor morbidity and mortality for rectal cancer patients. Prior study has shown poor compliance with national rectal cancer guidelines, but whether this finding is reflected in patient outcomes has yet to be shown.

METHODS

Patients who underwent resection for stage I-III rectal cancer were identified from the 2010-2011 National Cancer Database. The primary outcome was a positive circumferential resection margin. The relationship between patient, hospital, tumor, and treatment-related characteristics was analyzed using bivariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

A positive circumferential resection margin was noted in 2859 (17.2%) of the 16,619 patients included. Facility location, clinical T and N stage, histologic type, tumor size, tumor grade, lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, type of operation, and operative approach were significant predictors of positive circumferential resection margin on multivariable analysis. Total proctectomy had nearly a 30% increased risk of positive margin compared with partial proctectomy (OR 1.293, 95%CI 1.185-1.411) and a laparoscopic approach had nearly 22% less risk of a positive circumferential resection margin compared with an open approach (OR 0.882, 95%CI 0.790-0.985).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite advances in surgical technique and multimodality therapy, rates of positive circumferential resection margin remain high in the United States. Several tumor and treatment characteristics were identified as independent risk factors, and advances in rectal cancer care are necessary to approach the outcomes seen in other countries.

Multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer: the OSTRICH

BACKGROUND

Disparity exists in outcomes for rectal cancer patients in the US. Similar problems in several European countries have been addressed by the creation of national networks of rectal cancer centers of excellence (CoEs) that follow evidence-based care pathways and specified protocols of care and process and are certified by regular external validation.

AIM

This paper reviews the current status of rectal cancer care in the U.S. and examines the evidence for multidisciplinary rectal cancer management. A U.S. rectal cancer CoE system based on the existing U.K. model is proposed.

METHODS

A literature search was performed for publications related to US rectal cancer outcomes, multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer, and European rectal cancer programs.

RESULTS

U.S. rectal cancer outcomes are highly variable. The majority of US rectal cancer patients are treated by generalists in low-volume hospitals. Current evidence supports five main principles of rectal cancer care that have been incorporated into European rectal cancer CoE programs. These programs have dramatically improved rectal cancer outcomes in Scandanavian countries and the U.K.

CONCLUSIONS

A similar CoE program should be established in the U.S. to improve the outcomes of rectal cancer patients.