Adherence to Clinical Practice Guidelines and Colorectal Cancer Survival: A Retrospective High-Resolution Population-Based Study in Spain

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.

The Outcomes, Barriers, and Facilitators of Implementing Clinical Practice Guidelines in Iran: A Comprehensive Review

Background

Clinical practice guideline (CPGs) are highly valuable in enhancing healthcare efficiency as they lead to the selection of the best medical methods and reduction of their costs. Nevertheless, implementing CPGs in practice can be quite challenging, as they require alterations at individual, organizational, and health system levels. Therefore, we aimed to identify the outcomes, barriers, and facilitators associated with CPG implementation.

Methods

We conducted an extensive search using Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and various non-English databases to gather quantitative, qualitative, and review studies on the implementation of CPGs from Jan 1, 1990, to Dec 26, 2022. Our analysis focused on the outcomes, barriers, and facilitators of CPG implementation, which categorized into four groups: policy-making, health system and hospitals, professional experts, and clinical guidelines.

Results

After conducting a thorough review of 37 studies, the most significant outcomes were found to be reduced costs and enhanced quality of care. However, certain challenges, such as inadequate support, insufficient education, high work pressure, tight schedules, and a lack of unified and clear guidelines, hindered these improvements. To overcome these barriers, it is essential to prioritize effective leadership, improve work conditions, allocate necessary resources, create a structured framework for the guidelines, and simplify their content to fit the clinical circumstances.

Conclusion

It is crucial to identify the outcomes and barriers associated with implementing CPGs to enhance professional performance, elevate the quality of care, and foster patient satisfaction. Developing effective strategies hinges on this awareness.

Understanding the burden of colorectal cancer in a three-county rural region of Michigan: an ecological analysis of incidence, mortality, and risk factors

PURPOSE

Our aim was to identify whether known colorectal cancer (CRC) risk factors contribute to the high CRC burden in Michigan's Thumb region, a 3-county agricultural rural area in eastern Michigan.

METHODS

We examined county-level invasive CRC incidence and mortality rates (2000-2017) from the Michigan Cancer Surveillance Program and county-level data on CRC risk factors from publicly available datasets. Prevalence of CRC risk factors in the Thumb region were compared to Michigan's other rural and urban regions using ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) tests. Multivariable linear regression models with stepwise selection were used to assess whether living in the Thumb region was associated with increased CRC incidence, mortality, and late-stage diagnoses after accounting for other risk factors.

RESULTS

Living in the Thumb region (β = 10.4, p = 0.0003), obesity (β = 36.9, p = 0.04), and an unhealthy food environment (β = - 2.7, p = 0.003) were associated with higher CRC incidence. Smoking (β = 67.3, p < 0.0001), being uninsured (β = - 29.9%, p = 0.03), living in the Thumb region (β = 2.47, p = 0.03), lower colonoscopy screening (β = - 0.14, p = 0.01), and older age (β = 0.11, p = 0.006) were associated with higher CRC mortality. The percent of late-staged CRC diagnoses was significantly lower in the Thumb region than other rural and urban areas of the state (52.9%, 58.3%, and 54.6%, respectively, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest that living in Michigan's Thumb region is associated with higher CRC incidence and mortality compared to Michigan's other rural and urban regions, even after controlling for known risk factors. More studies on individual-level demographic, environmental, tumor, and treatment characteristics (e.g., treatment differences, water quality, pesticide use) are needed to further characterize these findings.

Association of Rural Residence and Receipt of Guideline-Concordant Care for Locoregional Colon Cancer

BACKGROUND

Incidence and mortality rates of colon cancer (CC) are higher in rural populations. This study aimed to determine whether rural residence is associated with differences in guideline-concordant care for patients with locoregional CC.

METHODS

Patients with stages I-III CC from 2006 to 2016 were identified in the National Cancer Database. Guideline-concordant care (GCC) was defined as resection with negative margins, adequate nodal harvest, and receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with high-risk stage II or III disease. Multivariable logistic regression (MVR) was performed to evaluate the association between rural residence and the odds of receiving GCC. Effect modification was evaluated using a two-way interaction for rurality by insurance status.

RESULTS

Of 320,719 identified patients, 6191 (2%) were rural. The rural patients had lower income and lower educational status than the urban patients and were more often Medicare-insured (p < 0.001). The rural patients traveled farther (44.5 vs. 7.5 miles; p < 0.001), although time to surgery was similar (8 vs. 9 days). The two cohorts had similar resection rates (98.8% vs. 98.0%), margin positivity (5.4% vs. 4.8%), adequate lymphadenectomy (80.9% vs. 83.0%), adjuvant chemotherapy (stage III: 69.2% vs. 68.7%), and receipt of GCC (66.5% vs. 68.3%). In the MVR, the odds of receiving GCC did not differ between the rural and urban patients (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.05%). Insurance status did not differentially influence the receipt of GCC by the rural versus the urban patients (interaction: p = 0.83).

CONCLUSIONS

Rural and urban patients with locoregional CC are equally likely to receive GCC, suggesting that differences in cancer care delivery may not explain rural-urban disparities.

Colonoscopy, imaging, and carcinoembryonic antigen: Comparison of guideline adherence to surveillance strategies in patients who underwent resection of colorectal cancer - A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Almost one-third of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) experience recurrence after resection. Adherence to surveillance guidelines largely dictates efficacy in early detection of recurrence. We sought to assess and compare adherence to postoperative surveillance guidelines for colonoscopy, imaging, and Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA).

METHODS

PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and CINAHL were systematically searched. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed and pooled adherence to each surveillance strategy was assessed for CEA, imaging, and colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Overall 14 studies (55,895 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Adherence to colonoscopy guidelines was the highest (70%, 95%CI 67-73), followed by imaging (63%, 95%CI 47-80), and CEA (54%; 95%CI 42-66). Among 7 (50%) studies that examined adherence to the American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines, compliance with colonoscopy was the highest (73%; 95% CI 70-76), followed by imaging (58%; 95% CI 37-78), and CEA (45%; 95%CI 37-52). Of note, guideline adherence to CEA testing was much lower than colonoscopy among patients with colon (OR 0.21; 95%CI 0.20-0.22) and rectal cancer (OR 0.25; 95%CI 0.23-0.28) (both p < 0.05). This was also noted when compared with imaging recommendations among older patients (OR = 0.62; 95%CI 0.42-0.93) and patients with stage II, (OR = 0.80; 95%CI 0.76-0.84) and stage III disease (OR = 0.88; 95%CI 0.82-0.94) (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

While guideline adherence to postoperative surveillance with colonoscopy was high, adherence to CEA testing and imaging surveillance strategies was markedly lower following CRC resection. Future studies should investigate avenues to improve compliance with surveillance guidelines among health care providers and patients to optimize postoperative follow-up for CRC.

Nonadherence to Multimodality Cancer Treatment Guidelines in the United States

Purpose

Our purpose was to identify patients with cancer who do not receive guideline-concordant multimodality treatment and to identify factors that are associated with nonreceipt of guideline-concordant multimodality treatment.

Methods and Materials

Five cancers for which the multimodal guideline-concordant treatment (with surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy) is clearly defined in national guidelines were selected from the National Cancer Database: (1) nonmetastatic anal cancer, (2) locally advanced cervical cancer, (3) nonmetastatic nasopharynx cancer, (4) locally advanced rectal cancer, and (5) locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the odds ratios (with 95% confidence intervals) of receiving the guideline-concordant treatment versus not, adjusting for common confounding variables.

Results

178,005 patients with cancer were included: 32,214 anal, 54,485 rectal, 13,179 cervical, 5061 nasopharyngeal, and 73,066 lung. Overall, 162,514 (91%) received guideline-concordant treatment and 15,491 (9%) did not. Twenty-one percent of patients with cervical cancer, 10% of patients with rectal cancer, 7% of patients with lung cancer, 5% of patients with anal cancer, and 3% of patients with nasopharynx cancer did not receive guideline-concordant treatment. In general, patients who were older, with comorbid conditions, and who were evaluated at low-volume facilities (odds ratios > 1 with P < .05) were less likely to receive guideline-concordant treatment.

Conclusions

Nearly 1 in 10 patients in this cohort are not receiving appropriate multimodal cancer therapy. There appear to be significant disparities in receipt of guideline-concordant treatment based on primary tumor site, age, comorbidities, and reporting facility.

Prognostic Significance of Preoperative Serum Carcinoembryonic Antigen Varies with Lymph Node Metastasis Status in Colorectal Cancer

Background

Preoperative serum level of carcinoembryonic antigen (pCEA) is generally recognized as a prognostic factor for colorectal cancer (CRC), but the stage-specific role of pCEA in colorectal cancer remains unclear.

Objective

We investigated the prognostic significance of pCEA levels in different tumor stages of nonmetastatic CRC patients.

Methods

Six hundred and fifteen CRC patients at stage I–III were retrospectively analyzed. All of them received curative tumor resection. The X-tile program was used to generate stage-specific cutoff values of pCEA for all patients and two subpopulations (lymph node-positive or -negative). The prognostic significance of pCEA was assessed using Kaplan–Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. A nomogram model that combined pCEA score and clinical feature indexes was established and evaluated.

Results

Two cutoff values were identified in the study population. At a cutoff value of 4.9 ng/mL, a significantly higher 5-year overall survival (OS) rate (82.16%) was observed in the pCEA-low group (<4.9 ng/mL) compared with 65.52% in the pCEA-high group (≥4.9 ng/mL). Furthermore, at the second cutoff value of 27.2 ng/mL, 5-year OS was found to be only 40.9%. Stratification analysis revealed that preoperative serum level of pCEA was an independent prognostic factor (OR = 1.991, P < 0.01) in the subpopulation of lymph node metastasis (stage III) patients, and the relative survival rates in the pCEA-low (≤4.9 ng/mL), pCEA-medium (4.9–27.2 ng/mL), and pCEA-high (≥27.2 ng/mL) groups were 73.4%, 60.5%, and 24.8%, respectively (P < 0.05). However, no such effect was observed in the lymph node nonmetastasis (stage I and II) subgroup. The established nomogram showed acceptable predictive power of the 5-year OS rate (C-index: 0.612) in lymph node-positive CRC patients, with an area under the curve value of 0.772, as assessed by ROC curve analysis.

Conclusions

Pretreatment serum CEA levels had different prognostic significance based on the lymph node metastasis status. Among stage III CRC patients, pCEA was an independent prognostic factor. Five-year OS rates could be predicted according to the individual pCEA level at the different cutoff values.

Barriers to Clinical Practice Guideline Implementation Among Physicians: A Physician Survey

Introduction

Clinical practice guidelines can help physicians provide evidence-based, standardized clinical decisions. We aimed to assess physician attitudes toward and barriers to guideline adherence.

Methods

We conducted a single center, cross-sectional, survey-based study. Physicians from many specialties participated in the study. All outcomes were measured using a validated survey tool. The primary outcome of interest was barriers to guideline adherence. Secondary outcomes included general attitudes toward guidelines and factors that could improve adherence to guidelines. Outcomes were measured by the survey tool. All outcomes were reported on a 5-point Likert scale.

Results

The email survey was received by 1819 physicians with 400 responders (22% response rate). About 50% (n=200) were in practice for >5 years, while 27% (n=107) were still in training. Trainees were less likely to understand the process of guideline development (RR= 0.76 [0.65–0.88], p=0.0017), to have input in guideline development (RR= 0.52 [0.41–0.65], p<0.0001), and to report up-to-date knowledge in practice guidelines (RR=0.53 [0.30–0.73], p=0.0002). Three factors were identified as major barriers to guideline adherence: complexity of guideline documents (61%, n=240), high number of weak or conditional recommendations (62%, n=245), and time constraints due to clinical responsibilities (65%, n=255). Factors that would improve guideline adherence included access to relevant guidelines at the point of care (87%), improved focus on guidelines during training (82%), and transparency on physician commercial affiliation (62%).

Conclusion

Improved focus on guidelines during training and access to relevant guidelines at the point of care may be important to improve adherence to guidelines.

Population Health and Health Services: Old Challenges and New Realities in the COVID-19 Era

(1) Background: Health services that were already under pressure before the COVID-19 pandemic to maximize its impact on population health, have not only the imperative to remain resilient and sustainable and be prepared for future waves of the virus, but to take advantage of the learnings from the pandemic to re-configure and support the greatest possible improvements. (2) Methods: A review of articles published by the Special Issue on Population Health and Health Services to identify main drivers for improving the contribution of health services on population health is conducted. (3) Health services have to focus not just on providing the best care to health problems but to improve its focus on health promotion and disease prevention. (4) Conclusions: Implementing innovative but complex solutions to address the problems can hardly be achieved without a multilevel and multisectoral deliberative debate. The CHRODIS PLUS policy dialog method can help standardize policy-making procedures and improve network governance, offering a proven method to strengthen the impact of health services on population health, which in the post-COVID era is more necessary than ever.