Dutch ColoRectal Audit Research Articles

Short-term morbidity and mortality after right hemicolectomy: an update of national performance in the Netherlands.

The purpose of this Dutch retrospective population-based study was to evaluate how short-term outcomes and inter-hospital variability after right hemicolectomy for colon cancer have evolved between 2012 and 2020. Patients who underwent right hemicolectomy for primary solitary colon cancer between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2020 and were registered in the Dutch Colorectal Audit were included. Surgical characteristics and outcomes were assessed during three time periods (2012-2014, 2015-2017, 2018-2020). Complications and mortality were the primary outcomes, and reintervention, readmission and length of stay secondary outcomes. In total, 29 274 patients were included. Significant increase in minimally invasive surgery (51.1% 2012-2014, 73.2% 2015-2017, 85.0% 2018-2020), increase in conversion (6.6%, 7.8%, 9.1%, P < 0.001) and decrease in acute/urgent resections (15.9%, 11.7%, 10.9%, P < 0.001) were found. The overall complication rate was slightly lower in the third period (30.9%, 30.6%, 28.8%, P = 0.004), primarily because of decreasing non-surgical complications (19.7%, 20.6%, 17.6%, P < 0.001), while surgical complications remained unchanged (17.5%, 18.3%, 18.2%, P = 0.277). Postoperative mortality was 3.4%, 2.3% and 3.5%, respectively. Reintervention rate slightly decreased (9.4%, 8.3%, 8.6%, P < 0.001). The proportion of patients admitted for more than 6 days decreased over time (54.3%, 42.4%, 34.3%, P < 0.001), with an increase in readmission rate (7.4%, 6.8%, 9.3%, P < 0.001). Inter-hospital variability decreased over time for complications, length of stay and conversion. This study shows a national decreasing inter-hospital variability in clinical outcomes after right hemicolectomy and a decrease in postoperative complications. Despite increasing use of laparoscopy, surgical complications and mortality remained stable over time.

Identifying a common data dictionary across colorectal cancer outcome registries: A mapping exercise to identify opportunities for data dictionary harmonisation

ImportanceThe development of colorectal cancer outcome registries internationally has been organic, with differing datasets, data definitions and infrastructure across registries which has limited data pooling and international comparison. Currently there is no comprehensive data dictionary identified as a standard. This study is part of an international collaboration that aims to identify areas of data capture and usage which may be optimised to improve understanding of colorectal cancer outcomes. ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare and identify commonalities and areas of difference across major colorectal cancer registries. We sought to establish datasets comprising of mutually collected common fields, and a combined comprehensive dataset of all collected fields across major registries to aid in establishing a future colorectal cancer registry database standard. Design and MethodsThis mixed qualitative and quantitative study compared data dictionaries from three major colorectal cancer outcome registries: Bowel Cancer Outcomes Registry (BCOR) (Australia and New Zealand), National Bowel Cancer Audit (NBOCA) (United Kingdom) and Dutch ColoRectal Audit (DCRA) (Netherlands). Registries were compared and analysed thematically, and a common dataset and combined comprehensive dataset were developed. These generated datasets were compared to data dictionaries from Sweden (SCRCR), Denmark (DCCG), Argentina (BNCCR-A) and the USA (NAACCR and ACS NSQIP). Fields were assessed against prominent quality indicator metrics from the literature and current case-use. ResultsWe developed a combined comprehensive dataset of 225 fields under seven domains: demographic, pre-operative, operative, post-operative, pathology, neoadjuvant therapy, adjuvant therapy, and follow up/recurrence. A common dataset was developed comprising 38 overlapping fields, showing a low degree of mutually collected data, especially in preoperative, post operative and adjuvant therapy domains. The BNCCR-A, SCRCR and DCCG databases all contained a high percentage of common dataset fields. Fields were poorly comparable when viewed form current quality indicator metrics. ConclusionThis study mapped data dictionaries of prominent colorectal cancer registries and highlighted areas of commonality and difference The developed common field dataset provides a foundation for registries to benchmark themselves and work towards harmonisation of data dictionaries. This has the potential to enable meaningful large-scale international outcomes research.

Inspecting the quality of care: a comparison of CUSUM methods for inter hospital performance

During the past 14 years, a clinical audit has been used in the Netherlands to provide hospitals with data on their performance in colorectal cancer care. Continuous feedback on the quality of care provided at each hospital is essential to improve patient outcomes. It is unclear which methods should be used to generate most informative output for the identification of potential quality issues. Our aim is to compare the commonly employed funnel plot with existing cumulative sum (CUSUM) methodology for the evaluation of postoperative survival and hospital stay outcomes of patients who underwent colorectal surgery in the Netherlands. Data from the Dutch ColoRectal Audit on 25367 patients in the Netherlands who underwent surgical resection for colorectal cancer in 71 hospitals between 2019 and 2021 is used to compare four methods for the detection of deviations in the quality of care. Two methods based on binary outcomes (funnel plot, binary CUSUM) and two CUSUM charts based on survival outcomes (BK-CUSUM and CGR-CUSUM) are considered. A novel approach for determining hospital specific control limits for CUSUM charts is proposed. The ability to detect deviations as well as the time until detection are compared for the four methods. Charts were constructed for the inspection of both postoperative survival and hospital stay. Methods using survival outcomes always yielded faster detection times compared to approaches employing binary outcomes. Detections between methods mostly coincided for postoperative survival. For hospital stay detections varied strongly, with methods based on survival outcomes signalling over half the hospitals. Further pros and cons as well as pitfalls of all methods under consideration are discussed. Methodology for the continuous inspection of the quality of care should be tailored to the specific outcome. Properly understanding how the mechanism of a control chart functions is crucial for the correct interpretation of results. This is particularly true for CUSUM charts, which require the choice of a parameter that greatly influences the results. When applying CUSUM charts, consideration of these issues is strongly recommended.

Uptake of robot-assisted colon cancer surgery in the Netherlands

BackgroundThe robot-assisted approach is now often used for rectal cancer surgery, but its use in colon cancer surgery is less well defined. This study aims to compare the outcomes of robotic-assisted colon cancer surgery to conventional laparoscopy in the Netherlands.MethodsData on all patients who underwent surgery for colon cancer from 2018 to 2020 were collected from the Dutch Colorectal Audit. All complications, readmissions, and deaths within 90 days after surgery were recorded along with conversion rate, margin and harvested nodes. Groups were stratified according to the robot-assisted and laparoscopic approach.ResultsIn total, 18,886 patients were included in the analyses. The operative approach was open in 15.2%, laparoscopic in 78.9% and robot-assisted in 5.9%. The proportion of robot-assisted surgery increased from 4.7% in 2018 to 6.9% in 2020. There were no notable differences in outcomes between the robot-assisted and laparoscopic approach for Elective cT1-3M0 right, left, and sigmoid colectomy. Only conversion rate was consistently lower in the robotic group. (4.6% versus 8.8%, 4.6% versus 11.6%, and 1.6 versus 5.9%, respectively).ConclusionsThis nationwide study on surgery for colon cancer shows there is a gradual but slow adoption of robotic surgery for colon cancer up to 6.9% in 2020. When comparing the outcomes of right, left, and sigmoid colectomy, clinical outcomes were similar between the robotic and laparoscopic approach. However, conversion rate is consistently lower in the robotic procedures.

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

BackgroundTrends 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 methodsAll 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. ResultsOverall, 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. ConclusionThe 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.

Implementation of robotic rectal cancer surgery: a cross-sectional nationwide study

AimAn increasing number of centers have implemented a robotic surgical program for rectal cancer. Several randomized controls trials have shown similar oncological and postoperative outcomes compared to standard laparoscopic resections. While introducing a robot rectal resection program seems safe, there are no data regarding implementation on a nationwide scale. Since 2018 robot resections are separately registered in the mandatory Dutch Colorectal Audit. The present study aims to evaluate the trend in the implementation of robotic resections (RR) for rectal cancer relative to laparoscopic rectal resections (LRR) in the Netherlands between 2018 and 2020 and to compare the differences in outcomes between the operative approaches.MethodsPatients with rectal cancer who underwent surgical resection between 2018 and 2020 were selected from the Dutch Colorectal Audit. The data included patient characteristics, disease characteristics, surgical procedure details, postoperative outcomes. The outcomes included any complication within 90 days after surgery; data were categorized according to surgical approach.ResultsBetween 2018 and 2020, 6330 patients were included in the analyses. 1146 patients underwent a RR (18%), 3312 patients a LRR (51%), 526 (8%) an open rectal resection, 641 a TaTME (10%), and 705 had a local resection (11%). The proportion of males and distal tumors was higher in the RR compared to the LRR. Over time, the proportion of robotic procedures increased from 15% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 13–16%) in 2018 to 22% (95% CI 20–24%) in 2020. Conversion rate was lower in the robotic group [4% (95% CI 3–5%) versus 7% (95% CI 6–8%)]. Anastomotic leakage rate was similar with 16%. Defunctioning ileostomies were more common in the RR group [42% (95% CI 38–46%) versus 29% (95% CI 26–31%)].ConclusionRectal resections are increasingly being performed through a robot-assisted approach in the Netherlands. The proportion of males and low rectal cancers was higher in RR compared to LRR. Overall outcomes were comparable, while conversion rate was lower in RR, the proportion of defunctioning ileostomies was higher compared to LRR.

Prospective multicentre observational cohort to assess quality of life, functional outcomes and cost-effectiveness following minimally invasive surgical techniques for rectal cancer in ‘dedicated centres’ in the Netherlands (VANTAGE trial): a protocol

IntroductionTotal mesorectal excision is the standard of care for rectal cancer, which can be performed using open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal technique. Large prospective (randomised controlled) trials comparing these techniques...

A preoperative prediction model for anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer resection based on 13.175 patients

IntroductionThis study aims to develop a robust preoperative prediction model for anastomotic leakage (AL) after surgical resection for rectal cancer, based on established risk factors and with the power of a large prospective nation-wide population-based study cohort. Materials and methodsA development cohort was formed by using the DCRA (Dutch ColoRectal Audit), a mandatory population-based repository of all patients who undergo colorectal cancer resection in the Netherlands. Patients aged 18 years or older were included who underwent surgical resection for rectal cancer with primary anastomosis (with or without deviating ileostomy) between 2011 and 2019. Anastomotic leakage was defined as clinically relevant leakage requiring reintervention. Multivariable logistic regression was used to build a prediction model and cross-validation was used to validate the model. ResultsA total of 13.175 patients were included for analysis. AL was diagnosed in 1319 patients (10%). A deviating stoma was constructed in 6853 patients (52%). The following variables were identified as significant risk factors and included in the prediction model: gender, age, BMI, ASA classification, neo-adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy, cT stage, distance of the tumor from anal verge, and deviating ileostomy. The model had a concordance-index of 0.664, which remained 0.658 after cross-validation. In addition, a nomogram was developed. ConclusionThe present study generated a discriminative prediction model based on preoperatively available variables. The proposed score can be used for patient counselling and risk-stratification before undergoing rectal resection for cancer.

Postoperative mortality risk assessment in colorectal cancer: development and validation of a clinical prediction model using data from the Dutch ColoRectal Audit.

BackgroundAs the outcome of modern colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery has significantly improved over the years, however, renewed and adequate risk stratification for mortality is important to identify high-risk patients. This population-based study was conducted to analyse postoperative outcomes in patients with CRC and to create a risk model for 30-day mortality.MethodsData from the Dutch Colorectal Audit were used to assess differences in postoperative outcomes (30-day mortality, hospital stay, blood transfusion, postoperative complications) in patients with CRC treated from 2009 to 2017. Time trends were analysed. Clinical variables were retrieved (including stage, age, sex, BMI, ASA grade, tumour location, timing, surgical approach) and a prediction model with multivariable regression was computed for 30-day mortality using data from 2009 to 2014. The predictive performance of the model was tested among a validation cohort of patients treated between 2015 and 2017.ResultsThe prediction model was obtained using data from 51 484 patients and the validation cohort consisted of 32 926 patients. Trends of decreased length of postoperative hospital stay and blood transfusions were found over the years. In stage I–III, postoperative complications declined from 34.3 per cent to 29.0 per cent (P < 0.001) over time, whereas in stage IV complications increased from 35.6 per cent to 39.5 per cent (P = 0.010). Mortality decreased in stage I–III from 3.0 per cent to 1.4 per cent (P < 0.001) and in stage IV from 7.6 per cent to 2.9 per cent (P < 0.001). Eight factors, including stage, age, sex, BMI, ASA grade, tumour location, timing, and surgical approach were included in a 30-day mortality prediction model. The results on the validation cohort documented a concordance C statistic of 0.82 (95 per cent c.i. 0.80 to 0.83) for the prediction model, indicating good discriminative ability.ConclusionPostoperative outcome improved in all stages of CRC surgery in the Netherlands. The developed model accurately predicts postoperative mortality risk and is clinically valuable for decision-making.

National differences in implementation of minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer and the influence on short-term outcomes

BackgroundThe timing and degree of implementation of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for colorectal cancer vary among countries. Insights in national differences regarding implementation of new surgical techniques and the effect on postoperative outcomes are important for quality assurance, can show potential areas for country-specific improvement, and might be illustrative and supportive for similar implementation programs in other countries. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate differences in patient selection, applied techniques, and results of minimal invasive surgery for colorectal cancer between the Netherlands and Sweden.MethodsPatients who underwent elective minimally invasive surgery for T1-3 colon or rectal cancer (2012–2018) registered in the Dutch ColoRectal Audit or Swedish ColoRectal Cancer Registry were included. Time trends in the application of MIS were determined. Outcomes were compared for time periods with a similar level of MIS implementation (Netherlands 2012–2013 versus Sweden 2017–2018). Multilevel analyses were performed to identify factors associated with adverse short-term outcomes.ResultsA total of 46,095 Dutch and 8,819 Swedish patients undergoing MIS for colorectal cancer were included. In Sweden, MIS implementation was approximately 5 years later than in the Netherlands, with more robotic surgery and lower volumes per hospital. Although conversion rates were higher in Sweden, oncological and surgical outcomes were comparable. MIS in the Netherlands for the years 2012–2013 resulted in a higher reoperation rate for colon cancer and a higher readmission rate but lower non-surgical complication rates for rectal cancer if compared with MIS in Sweden during 2017–2018.ConclusionThis study showed that the implementation of MIS for colorectal cancer occurred later in Sweden than the Netherlands, with comparable outcomes despite lower volumes. Our study demonstrates that new surgical techniques can be implemented at a national level in a controlled and safe way, with thorough quality assurance.

Postoperative complications after colorectal cancer surgery and the association with long-term survival

BackgroundComplications after colorectal cancer surgery can worsen long-term survival. The aim of this nationwide study was to determine the impact of different types of complications on overall survival (OS) and conditional survival if still alive one year postoperatively (CS-1) after colorectal cancer surgery. Materials and methodsAll patients registered in the Dutch ColoRectal Audit after resection of primary colorectal cancer between 2011 and 2017 and with known survival status were included. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to assess the association of complications with OS and CS-1, thereby calculating the Hazard Ratio (HR) with 95% Confidence Interval. Results43,908 colon and 16,955 rectal cancer patients were included. Median follow-up time was 66.1 and 66.5 months, respectively. Five-year OS after colon cancer resection was 73.2% without complications, and 65.4% with surgical, 52.9% with non-surgical and 51.8% with combined type of complications (p < 0.001). Corresponding 5-year OS for rectal cancer patients was 76.9%, 72.7%, 64.9%, and 63.2% (p < 0.001). In colon cancer, multivariable analyses revealed HR 1.198 (1.136–1.264) for surgical, HR 1.489 (1.423–1.558) for non-surgical and HR 1.590 (1.505–1.681) for combined type of complications. For rectal cancer, these HRs were 1.193 (1.097–1.2297), 1.456 (1.346–1.329), and 1.489 (1.357–1.633). Surgical complications were associated with worse CS-1 in rectal cancer (HR 1.140 (1.050–1.260), but not in colon cancer (HR 1.007 (0.943–1.075)). ConclusionNon-surgical complications have higher impact on survival than surgical complications. The impact of surgical complications on survival was still measurable after surviving the first year in rectal cancer but not in colon cancer patients.

Trends in risk factors of anastomotic leakage after colorectal cancer surgery (2011-2019): A Dutch population-based study.

AimAnastomotic leakage (AL) after colon cancer (CC) and rectal cancer (RC) surgery often requires reintervention. Prevalence and morbidity may change over time with evolutions in treatment strategies and changes in patient characteristics. This nationwide study aimed to evaluate changes in the incidence, risk factors and mortality from AL during the past nine years.MethodsData of CC and RC resections with primary anastomosis were extracted from the Dutch Colorectal Audit (2011–2019). AL was registered if requiring reintervention. Three consecutive cohorts were compared using logistic regression analysis.ResultsIncidence of AL after CC surgery decreased from 6.6% in 2011–2013 to 4.8% in 2017–2019 and increased from 8.6% to 11.9% after RC surgery. In 2011–2013, male sex, ASA ≥3, (y)pT3‐4, neoadjuvant therapy, emergency surgery and multivisceral resection were identified as risk factors for AL after CC surgery. In 2017–2019, only male sex and ASA ≥3 were risk factors for AL. For RC patients, male sex and neoadjuvant therapy were a risk factor for AL in 2011–2013. In 2017–2019, transanal approach was also a risk factor for AL. Postoperative mortality rate after AL was 12% (CC) and 2% (RC) in 2017–2019, without significant changes over time.ConclusionContradictory trends in incidence and mortality for AL were observed among CC and RC surgery with changing risk factors over the past 9 years. High mortality after AL is only observed after CC surgery and remains unchanged. Continued efforts should be made to improve early detection and treatment of AL for these patients.

An evaluation of short-term outcomes after reoperations for anastomotic leakage in colon cancer patients

PurposeScarce data are available on differences among index colectomies for colon cancer regarding reoperation for anastomotic leakage (AL) and clinical consequences. Therefore, this nationwide observational study aimed to evaluate reoperations for AL after colon cancer surgery and short-term postoperative outcomes for the different index colectomies.MethodsPatients who underwent resection with anastomosis for a first primary colon carcinoma between 2013 and 2019 and were registered in the Dutch ColoRectal Audit were included. Primary outcomes were mortality, ICU admission, and stoma creation.ResultsAmong 39,565 patients, the overall AL rate was 4.8% and ranged between 4.0% (right hemicolectomy) and 15.4% (subtotal colectomy). AL was predominantly managed with reoperation, ranging from 81.2% after transversectomy to 92.4% after sigmoid resection (p < 0.001). Median time to reoperation differed significantly between index colectomies (range 4–8 days, p < 0.001), with longer and comparable intervals for non-surgical reinterventions (range 13–18 days, p = 0.747). After reoperation, the highest mortality rates were observed for index transversectomy (15.4%) and right hemicolectomy (14.4%) and lowest for index sigmoid resection (5.6%) and subtotal colectomy (5.9%) (p < 0.001). Reoperation with stoma construction was associated with a higher mortality risk than without stoma construction after index right hemicolectomy (17.7% vs. 8.5%, p = 0.001). ICU admission rate was 62.6% overall (range 56.7–69.2%), and stoma construction rate ranged between 65.5% (right hemicolectomy) and 93.0% (sigmoid resection).ConclusionSignificant differences in AL rate, reoperation rate, time to reoperation, postoperative mortality after reoperation, and stoma construction for AL were found among the different index colectomies for colon cancer, with relevance for patient counseling and perioperative management.

Time interval between rectal cancer resection and reintervention for anastomotic leakage and the impact of a defunctioning stoma: A Dutch population‐based study

In the Netherlands, a selective policy of faecal diversion after rectal cancer surgery is generally applied. This study aimed to evaluate the timing, type, and short-term outcomes of reoperation for anastomotic leakage after primary rectal cancer resection stratified for a defunctioning stoma. Data of all patients who underwent primary rectal cancer surgery with primary anastomosis from 2013-2019 were extracted from the Dutch ColoRectal Audit. Primary outcomes were new stoma construction, mortality, ICU admission, prolonged hospital stay, and readmission. In total, 10,772 rectal cancer patients who underwent surgery with primary anastomosis were included, of whom 46.6% received a primary defunctioning stoma. The reintervention rate for anastomotic leakage was 8.2% and 11.6% for patients with and without a defunctioning stoma (p<0.001). Reintervention consisted of reoperation in 44.0% and 85.3% (p<0.001), with a median time interval from primary resection to reoperation of sevendays (IQR 4-14) vs. fivedays (IQR 3-13), respectively. In the presence of a defunctioning stoma, early reoperation (<5days; n=47) was associated with significantly more end-colostomy construction (51% vs. 33%) and ICU admission (66% vs. 38%) than late reoperation (≥5days; n=127). Without defunctioning stoma, early reoperation (n=252) was associated with significantly higher mortality (4% vs. 1%), and more ICU admissions (52% vs.34%) than late reoperation (n=302). Early reoperations after rectal cancer resection are associated with worse outcomes reflected by a more frequent ICU admission in general, more colostomy construction, and higher mortality in patients with primary defunctioned and nondefunctioned anastomosis.

Increased long-term mortality after open colorectal cancer surgery: A multicentre population-based study.

Unlike meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, population-based studies in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients have shown a significant association between open surgery and increased 30- and 90-day mortality compared with laparoscopic surgery. Long-term mortality, however, is scarcely reported. This retrospective population-based study aimed to compare long-term mortality after open and laparoscopic surgery for CRC. The Dutch Colorectal Audit and the Dutch Cancer Centre registry were used to identify patients from three large nonacademic teaching hospitals who underwent curative resection for CRC between 2009 and 2018. Patients with relative contraindications for laparoscopic surgery (cT4 or pT4 tumours, distant metastasis requiring additional resection and emergency surgery) were excluded. Multivariable regression was used to assess the effect of laparoscopic surgery on long-term mortality with adjustment for gender, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, TNM stage, chemoradiation therapy and other confounders. We included 4531 patients, of whom 1298 (29%) underwent open surgery. The median follow-up was 43months (interquartile range 23-71months). Open surgery was associated with an increased risk of long-term mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.26, 95% confidence interval 1.10-1.45, p=0.001). Mixed-effects Cox regression with year of surgery as a random effect also showed an increased risk after open surgery (adjusted hazard ratio 1.33, 95% confidence interval 1.11-1.52, p=0.004). Open surgery seems to be associated with increased long-term mortality in the elective setting for CRC patients. A minimally invasive approach might improve long-term outcomes.

Textbook outcome after rectal cancer surgery as a composite measure for quality of care: A population-based study

BackgroundTextbook outcome is a composite measure of combined outcome indicators, which has been suggested to be of additional value over single outcome parameters in clinical auditing of surgical treatment. This study aimed to assess textbook outcome after rectal cancer surgery as short-term marker for quality of care. Materials and methodsPatients who underwent elective rectal cancer surgery between 2012 and 2019 and registered in the Dutch ColoRectal Audit were included. Textbook outcome was achieved when the following criteria were met: 30-day and primary hospital admission survival, no reintervention, tumour-free margins, no postoperative complications, a hospital stay of less than 14 days and no readmission. Hospital variation was evaluated in case-mix corrected funnel-plots. A multilevel logistic regression analysis was performed to identify associated factors with textbook outcome. ResultsThe study population consisted of 20,521 patients who underwent primary rectal cancer surgery, of whom 56.3% achieved textbook outcome. Postoperative complications were the main contributor to not achieving textbook outcome. Case-mix corrected funnel plots demonstrated that underperforming hospitals in 2012–2015 were no underperformers in 2016–2019 anymore. Female sex, laparoscopic surgery, and rectal resection without defunctioning stoma creation were positively associated with textbook outcome. ConclusionTextbook outcome after rectal cancer resection is mainly driven by postoperative complications. Although textbook outcome showed some discriminating value for identifying underperforming hospitals, it does not fit the plan-do-check-act cycle of clinical auditing. In our opinion, textbook outcome has little added value to the current outcome indicators for rectal cancer surgery.

A 10-Year Evaluation of Short-Term Outcomes After Synchronous Colorectal Cancer Surgery: a Dutch Population-Based Study

BackgroundSynchronous colorectal cancer (CRC) has been associated with higher postoperative morbidity and mortality rates compared to solitary CRC. The influence of improved CRC care and introduction of screening on these outcomes remains unknown. This study aimed to evaluate time trends in incidence, population characteristics, and short-term outcomes of synchronous CRC patients at the population level over a 10-year time period. MethodsData of all patients that underwent resection for primary CRC were extracted from the Dutch ColoRectal Audit (2010–2019). Analyses were stratified for solitary and synchronous colon and rectal cancer. Multilevel logistic regression analyses were used to determine factors associated with pathological and surgical outcomes. ResultsAmong 100,474 patients, 3.1% underwent surgery for synchronous CRC. A screening-related decrease for surgically treated left-sided solitary and synchronous colon cancer and a temporary increase for exclusively right-sided colon cancer were observed. Synchronous CRC patients had higher rates of complicated postoperative course, failure to rescue, and mortality. Bilateral synchronous colon cancer was more often treated with subtotal colectomy (25.4%) and demonstrated higher rates of surgical complications, reinterventions, prolonged hospital stay, and mortality than other synchronous tumor locations. DiscussionNational bowel screening resulted in contradictory effects on surgical resections for synchronous CRCs depending on sidedness. Bilateral synchronous colon cancer required more often extended resection resulting in significantly worse outcomes than other synchronous tumor locations. Identification of low volume, high complex CRC subpopulations is relevant for individualized care and has implications for case-mix correction and benchmarking in clinical auditing.

Predictors of 30-Day Mortality Among Dutch Patients Undergoing Colorectal Cancer Surgery, 2011-2016

Quality improvement programs for colorectal cancer surgery have been introduced with benchmarking based on quality indicators, such as mortality. Detailed (pre)operative characteristics may offer relevant information for proper case-mix correction. To investigate the added value of machine learning to predict quality indicators for colorectal cancer surgery and identify previously unrecognized predictors of 30-day mortality based on a large, nationwide colorectal cancer registry that collected extensive data on comorbidities. All patients who underwent resection for primary colorectal cancer registered in the Dutch ColoRectal Audit between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2016, were included. Multiple machine learning models (multivariable logistic regression, elastic net regression, support vector machine, random forest, and gradient boosting) were made to predict quality indicators. Model performance was compared with conventionally used scores. Risk factors were identified by logistic regression analyses and Shapley additive explanations (ie, SHAP values). Statistical analysis was performed between March 1 and September 30, 2020. The primary outcome of this cohort study was 30-day mortality. Prediction models were trained on a training set by performing 5-fold cross-validation, and outcomes were measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve on the test set. Machine learning was further used to identify risk factors, measured by odds ratios and SHAP values. This cohort study included 62 501 records, most patients were male (35 116 [56.2%]), were aged 61 to 80 years (41 560 [66.5%]), and had an American Society of Anesthesiology score of II (35 679 [57.1%]). A 30-day mortality rate of 2.7% (n = 1693) was found. The area under the curve of the best machine learning model for 30-day mortality (0.82; 95% CI, 0.79-0.85) was significantly higher than the American Society of Anesthesiology score (0.74; 95% CI, 0.71-0.77; P < .001), Charlson Comorbidity Index (0.66; 95% CI, 0.63-0.70; P < .001), and preoperative score to predict postoperative mortality (0.73; 95% CI, 0.70-0.77; P < .001). Hypertension, myocardial infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and asthma were comorbidities with a high risk for increased mortality. Machine learning identified specific risk factors for a complicated course, intensive care unit admission, prolonged hospital stay, and readmission. Laparoscopic surgery was associated with a decreased risk for all adverse outcomes. This study found that machine learning methods outperformed conventional scores to predict 30-day mortality after colorectal cancer surgery, identified specific patient groups at risk for adverse outcomes, and provided directions to optimize benchmarking in clinical audits.

Interhospital referral of colorectal cancer patients: a Dutch population-based study

PurposeInterhospital referral is a consequence of centralization of complex oncological care but might negatively impact waiting time, a quality indicator in the Netherlands. This study aims to evaluate characteristics and waiting times of patients with primary colorectal cancer who are referred between hospitals.MethodsData were extracted from the Dutch ColoRectal Audit (2015-2019). Waiting time between first tumor-positive biopsy until first treatment was compared between subgroups stratified for referral status, disease stage, and type of hospital.ResultsIn total, 46,561 patients were included. Patients treated for colon or rectal cancer in secondary care hospitals were referred in 12.2% and 14.7%, respectively. In tertiary care hospitals, corresponding referral rates were 43.8% and 66.4%. Referred patients in tertiary care hospitals were younger, but had a more advanced disease stage, and underwent more often multivisceral resection and simultaneous metastasectomy than non-referred patients in secondary care hospitals (p<0.001). Referred patients were more often treated within national quality standards for waiting time compared to non-referred patients (p<0.001). For referred patients, longer waiting times prior to MDT were observed compared to non-referred patients within each hospital type, although most time was spent post-MDT.ConclusionA large proportion of colorectal cancer patients that are treated in tertiary care hospitals are referred from another hospital but mostly treated within standards for waiting time. These patients are younger but often have a more advanced disease. This suggests that these patients are willing to travel more but also reflects successful centralization of complex oncological patients in the Netherlands.

Differences in organization of care are associated with mortality, severe complication and failure to rescue in emergency colon cancer surgery.

BackgroundEmergency colon cancer surgery is associated with increased mortality and complication risk, which can be due to differences in the organization of hospital care. This study aimed.ObjectiveTo explore which structural factors in the preoperative, perioperative and postoperative periods influence outcomes after emergency colon cancer surgery.MethodsAn observational study was performed in 30 Dutch hospitals. Medical records from 1738 patients operated in the period 2012 till 2015 were reviewed on the type of referral, intensive care unit (ICU) level, surgeon specialization and experience, duration of surgery and operating room time, blood loss, stay on specialized postoperative ward, complication occurrence, reintervention and day of surgery and linked to case-mix data available in the Dutch Colorectal Audit. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the influence of these factors on 30-day mortality, severe complication and failure to rescue (FTR), after adjustment for case-mix.ResultsPatients operated by a non-Gastro intestinal/oncology specialized surgeon have significantly increased mortality (Odds Ratio (OR) 2.28 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.23–4.23]) and severe complication risk (OR 1.61 [95% CI 1.08–2.39]). Also, duration of stay in the operating room was significantly associated with increased risk on severe complication (OR 1.03 [95% CI 1.01–1.06]). Patients admitted to a non-specialized ward have significantly increased mortality (OR 2.25 [95% CI 1.46–3.47]) and FTR risk (OR 2.39 [95% CI 1.52–3.75]). A low ICU level (basic ICU) was associated with a lower severe complication risk (OR 0.72 [95% CI 0.52–1.00]). Surgery on Tuesday was associated with a higher mortality risk (OR 2.82 [95% CI 1.24–6.40]) and a severe complication risk (OR 1.77, [95% CI 1.19–2.65]).ConclusionThis study identified a non-specialized surgeon and ward, operating room, time and day of surgery to be risk factors for worse outcomes in emergency colon cancer surgery.