Outcomes Of Surgery For Rectal Cancer Research Articles

Comparative outcomes of rectal cancer surgery between elderly and non-elderly patients: a systematic review

Elderly people represent almost all patients diagnosed with and treated for rectal cancer, and this trend is likely to become more apparent in the future. Surgical management and treatment decisions for this disease are becoming increasingly complex, but only a few reports deal specifically with older patients. In this systematic review, we provide an overview of published studies of outcomes after curative surgery for rectal cancer in elderly people (>70 years). We identified 48 studies providing information about postoperative results, survival, surgical approach, stoma formation, functional results, and quality of life after rectal resection for cancer. We found that advanced chronological age should not, by itself, exclude patients from curative rectal surgery or from other surgical options that are available for younger patients. Although overall survival is lower in elderly patients than in younger patients, cancer-specific survival does not decrease with age. However, the level of evidence for most studies was weak, emphasising the need for high-quality clinical trials for this population.

Volume and outcome in rectal cancer surgery: the importance of quality management

For many years, the impact of the surgeon volume on short- and long-term outcome after rectal carcinoma surgery is controversially discussed. Literature and own department data were reviewed in order to clarify the impact of surgeon volume in the current era of total mesorectal excision surgery, multimodal therapy, quality management, and centralization of cancer care. Uni- and multivariate analysis of data from 1,028 patients with solitary rectal carcinoma, treated between 1995 and 2010 at the Department of Surgery, University Hospital, Erlangen, Germany, was performed. Surgeons were subdivided according to the number of operations/year into high- (at least seven/year), medium- (three to six), and low- (less than three) volume surgeons. Of 1,028 patients, 800 (77.8 %) were operated by five high-volume surgeons, 193 (18.8 %) by seven medium-volume surgeons, and 35 (3.4 %) by 12 low-volume surgeons. Surgeon volume was significantly associated with postoperative mortality and the rate of positive pathological circumferential resection margin. In risk-adjusted analysis, after primary surgery, surgeon volume had a significant impact on observed overall survival and disease-free survival, but not on locoregional recurrence. After neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy, only observed overall survival was significantly influenced by surgeon volume. In surgical departments with special interest in rectal carcinoma, surgeon volume has some influence on short- and long-term outcome. Irrespective of this fact, specialization, experience, individual skill, hospital organization, and regular quality assurance are essential prognostic factors ensuring good results in rectal carcinoma surgery.

The Myth of Informed Consent in Rectal Cancer Surgery

Previous research in colorectal cancer has focused on survival, recurrence, and functional outcomes. Few have assessed the decisional needs of patients or the information patients are retaining from the informed consent process. The aims of this study were to describe the decisional needs of adult patients with rectal cancer when deciding on the surgical treatment of their disease and to identify gaps in patients' recollection of the informed consent discussion. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with the use of a questionnaire based on the validated Ottawa Decision Support Framework Needs Assessment. This study was performed at a university-based academic Cancer Assessment Center, in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Adult patients with rectal cancer treated with low anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection were included. The primary outcomes measured were patients' knowledge and understanding of decision and their decisional needs. Thirty patients were interviewed between November 2009 and July 2010. Eighty percent were male, with a median age of 65. None of the patients perceived having a choice of surgical options. When questioned about the main outcomes of rectal cancer surgery, 47% could not recall a preoperative discussion of risks to bowel function, 47% could not recall a preoperative discussion of risks to sexual function, and 57% could not recall a preoperative discussion of risks to urinary function. Patients would like information regarding functional outcomes, body image, and the immediate postoperative period. A minority of patients desire information regarding cure rate, need for a second surgery, or the ability of surgery to treat their symptoms. Patients would like information that is portable and trusted by their health care team that they can review at their own time. To avoid introducing decisional conflict before surgery, patients were interviewed at the first postoperative visit. Preoperative informed consent discussions were not standardized. Despite a comprehensive educational oncology pathway, patients retain little of the informed consent discussion. This study highlights the dichotomy between the outcomes that surgeons and patients value most. The results of this study will guide future efforts to improve informed consent.

The association of hospital volume with rectal cancer surgery outcomes

An association between hospital volume and postoperative mortality has been identified for several oncologic surgical procedures. Our objective was to analyze differences in surgical outcomes for patients with rectal cancer according to hospital volume in the state of California. A cross-sectional study from 2000 to 2005 was performed using the state of California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development database. Hospitals were categorized into low (≤30)-, medium (31-60)-, and high (>60)-volume groups based on the total number of rectal cancer operations performed during the study period. Overall, 7,187 rectal cancer operations were performed. Of the 321 hospitals in the study cohort, 72 % (n = 232), 20 % (n = 65), and 8 % (n = 24) were low-, medium-, and high-volume hospitals, respectively. Postoperative mortality was significantly lower- in high-volume hospitals (0.9 %) when compared to medium- (1.1 %) and low-volume hospitals (2.1 %; p < 0.001). High-volume hospitals also performed more sphincter-preserving procedures (64 %) when compared to medium- (55 %) and low-volume hospitals (51 %; p < 0.001). These data indicate that hospital volume correlates with improved outcomes in rectal cancer surgery. Rectal cancer patients may benefit from lower mortality and increased sphincter preservation in higher-volume centers.

Postoperative morbidity after fast-track laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer

Analysis was carried out of the nature and chronological order of early complications after fast-track laparoscopic rectal surgery with a view to optimizing the short-time outcome of rectal cancer surgery. A total of 102 consecutive patients who underwent elective fast-track laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery were analysed prospectively from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Database supplemented by data from the medical records. We studied in detail the nature and chronological order of postoperative morbidity and reason for prolonged stay (> 5 days). Twenty-five patients (25%) had one or more complications. Surgical complications occurred in 19 patients, while six patients had medical complications as the primary event. Fifteen patients underwent reoperation, three died, and eight were readmitted within 30 days. The median length of stay was 5 days (range 2-42). Postoperative morbidity remains a significant problem in the fast-track era, even in experienced surgical hands. Our results suggest that besides improvement of surgical technique further improvement of outcome lies in early recognition and proper treatment of complications and the perioperative optimization of organ function.

Measures of Outcome in Rectal Cancer Surgery

Surrey, United Kingdom Correspondence: H. S. Tilney, M.D., F.R.C.S., Consultant Colorectal Surgeon, Frimley Park Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Surrey, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected]

Increased use of multidisciplinary treatment modalities adds little to the outcome of rectal cancer treated by optimal total mesorectal excision

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard surgical treatment for rectal cancer. The roles of chemotherapy and radiotherapy have become more defined, accompanied by improvements in preoperative staging and histopathological assessment. We analyse our ongoing results in the light of changing patterns of treatment over consecutive time periods. In total, 151 consecutive patients underwent potentially curative rectal excision for cancer in a single institution. Management and outcomes were compared between 1993-1999 and 2000-2007 which corresponded with the restructuring of the regional oncological services. We found an increase in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy after 1999 (20/89 vs 1/62, p < 0.001). There was an increase in the mean number of lymph nodes examined (11.9 vs 9.4, p = 0.037). The locoregional recurrence rate was 5.3%. The rates were not significantly different between the two study periods [4/89 (4.5%) 1999-2007 vs 4/62 (6.5%) 1993-1999, p = 0.597]. There was no statistical difference in overall or disease-free survival in the time periods examined. Increasing use of neoadjuvant therapy and concomitant improvement in lymph node assessment did not translate into a concurrent reduction in the local recurrence, disease-free and overall survival rates. Our results demonstrate the enduring benefit of specialist training in TME in the outcome of rectal cancer surgery. This observational study suggests that low local recurrence rates are surrogate markers for improved overall and disease-free survival. Multidisciplinary team practice should be examined and made cost effective according to the individual unit's local recurrence rate in the light of this and other reports.

Oncological outcome after incidental perforation in radical rectal cancer surgery

Identification of risk factors of poor oncological outcome in rectal cancer surgery is of utmost importance. This study examines the impact of incidental perforation on the oncological outcome. Using the Swedish Rectal Cancer Registry, patients were selected who received major abdominal surgery for rectal cancer between 1995 and 1997 with registered incidental perforation. A control group was also selected for analysis of the oncological outcome after 5-year follow-up. Multivariate analysis was performed. Registry data were validated, and additional data were supplemented from medical records. After validation and exclusion of non-radically operated patients, 118 patients with incidental perforation and 155 controls in TNM stages I-III were included in the analysis. The rate of local recurrence (LR) [20% (23/118) vs. 8% (12/155) (p = 0.007)] was significantly higher among patients with perforation, whereas the rates of distant metastasis [27% (32/118) vs. 21% (33/155) (p = 0.33)] and overall recurrence (OAR) [35% (41/118) vs. 25% (38/155) (p = 0.087)] were not significantly different between the groups. Overall as well as cancer-specific 5-year survival rates were significantly reduced for the patients with perforation [44 vs. 64% (p = 0.002) and 66 vs. 80% (p = 0.026), respectively]. In the multivariate analysis, perforation was a significant risk factor of increased rates of LR and OAR as well as reduced 5-year overall and cancer-specific survival. Incidental perforation in rectal cancer surgery is an important risk factor of poor oncological outcome and should be considered in the discussion concerning postoperative adjuvant treatment as well as the follow-up regime.

Neoadjuvant Treatment Does Not Influence Perioperative Outcome in Rectal Cancer Surgery

To identify the risk factors for perioperative morbidity in patients undergoing resection of primary rectal cancer, with a specific focus on the effect of neoadjuvant therapy. This exploratory analysis of prospectively collected data included all patients who underwent anterior resection/low anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection for primary rectal cancer between October 2001 and October 2006. The study endpoints were perioperative surgical and medical morbidity. Univariate and multivariate analyses of potential risk factors were performed. A total of 485 patients were included in this study; 425 patients (88%) underwent a sphincter-saving anterior resection/low anterior resection, 47 (10%) abdominoperineal resection, and 13 (2%) multivisceral resection. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was performed in 100 patients (21%), and 168 (35%) underwent neoadjuvant short-term radiotherapy (5 x 5 Gy). Patient age and operative time were independently associated with perioperative morbidity, and operative time, body mass index >27 kg/m(2) (overweight), and resection type were associated with surgical morbidity. Age and a history of smoking were confirmed as independent prognostic risk factors for medical complications. Neoadjuvant therapy was not associated with a worse outcome. The results of this prospective study have identified several risk factors associated with an adverse perioperative outcome after rectal cancer surgery. In addition, neoadjuvant therapy was not associated with increased perioperative complications.

The Effect of Hospital and Surgeon Volume on Outcomes for Rectal Cancer Surgery

The Effect of Hospital and Surgeon Volume on Outcomes for Rectal Cancer Surgery

Outcome of Rectal Cancer Surgery After the Introduction of Preoperative Radiotherapy in a Low-Volume Hospital

The improvement in local control by preoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer can be at the cost of substantial morbidity. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of short-course preoperative radiotherapy on morbidity and mortality after total mesorectal excision in a low-volume hospital. From 2000 to 2007, 104 patients underwent rectal resection for a proven malignancy. Outcome parameters including anastomotic leakage rate, duration of hospital stay, and survival were retrospectively compared between patients who received radiotherapy followed by resection and patients who underwent resection alone. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 11 of 28 patients (39%) who underwent radiotherapy and in 10 of 54 patients (19%) in the surgery-alone group (P = 0.04). The length of hospital stay was significantly longer in the radiotherapy group in comparison with the surgery-alone group (median 22 vs. 12 days; P = 0.002). Independent predictors of decreased overall survival were high American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, application of preoperative radiotherapy, necessity of Intensive Care Unit admission, and advanced pathological stage. A negative impact of preoperative radiotherapy on morbidity and mortality after rectal cancer surgery with an annual caseload of 16 was observed. Auditing of local practices is essential for quality control and potential improvement of clinical outcome.

Total Mesorectal Excision: The Unrecognized Pelvic Plane

Total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancers has been shown to reduce local recurrence rate after curative operation to <5 percent. The lack of anatomic appreciation of the mesorectum is an important cause of inter-surgeon variability in the outcome of rectal cancer surgery. Surgical illustrations depicting the mesorectal anatomy, however, are less than accurate. Basic surgical concepts must be illustrated correctly to be learned correctly. True-to-life illustration is the only way the learner can appreciate the actual situation and improve his/her surgical results. We describe the mesorectal anatomy with correlation to computerized tomography scans of the in vivo rectum to further illustrate the technique of total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer surgery.

Hospital volume and outcome of rectal cancer surgery in Denmark 1994–99

The association between hospital volumen and outcome of major cancer surgery is being debated at present. We analysed the outcome of rectal cancer surgery in Denmark during the period 1994-99. All patients with a first-time rectal cancer were registered in a national database during the 5-year period. In this observational cohort study, the influence of hospital case volume on resectional procedure, complications, 30-day mortality and 5-year mortality was analysed. The register comprised 5021 patients. Surgery was performed in 27 hospitals with <15 operations per year, 15 hospitals with 15-30 operations per year and 11 hospitals with >30 operations per year. In a multivariate model, the risk of permanent colostomy was significantly increased in the group of low-volume hospitals. On the contrary, volume did not influence the risk of anastomotic leakage, 30-day mortality and 5-year mortality. However, a large variation in 5-year mortality was observed particularly within the low-volume group of hospitals. In this study, only risk of having a permanent colostomy during surgery for rectal cancer was significantly related to hospital case volume. When individual hospitals were analysed, a large variation in 5-year mortality was observed within the low-volume group of hospitals.

Rates of circumferential resection margin involvement vary between surgeons and predict outcomes in rectal cancer surgery.

To analyze the potential variability in rates of circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement between different surgeons and time periods and to determine the suitability of using CRM status as an immediate predictor of outcome after rectal cancer surgery. After disease stage has been taken into account, survival in rectal cancer has been shown to be very variable between surgeons and institutions. One of the major factors influencing survival is local recurrence, and this in turn is strongly related to inadequate tumor excision, particularly at the CRM. In a study involving 608 patients who underwent surgery for rectal cancer in Leeds during the 12-year period 1986 to 1997, the authors examined the role of CRM status as an immediate predictor of likely outcome, paying particular attention to its relationships with different surgeons and time periods. Of 586 patients on whom full clinical follow-up was obtained, 165 (28.2%) had CRM involvement by carcinoma on pathologic examination. Up to the end of 1998, 105 (17.9%) patients had developed local recurrence. A significantly higher proportion (38.2%) of CRM-positive patients developed local recurrence than CRM-negative ones (10.0%). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed significant improvements in survival for CRM-negative patients over CRM-positive patients. Survival analysis in relation to two gastrointestinal surgeons and a group of other surgeons showed survival improvements that paralleled a reduction in the rates of CRM involvement for the two gastrointestinal surgeons during the period of the study. No improvement in survival or reduction in rates of CRM involvement was seen in the group of other surgeons. These results show that CRM status may be used as an immediate predictor of survival after rectal cancer surgery and serves as a useful indicator of the quality of surgery. The frequency of CRM involvement can be used both for overall surgical audit and for monitoring the value of training programs in improving rectal surgery by individual surgeons. Its use in the current MRC CR07 study is valid and the best indicator of a requirement for further local therapy.

Reply to Lee et al.

Dear Sir,We are grateful to Lee et al. for their comments on our article [1] and for highlighting the importance of endoscopists' experience and competence in order to achieve a higher success rate with a low rate of complications. Whatever procedure is discussed in modern medicine, and specifically in surgery, it has been obvious that the results differ depending upon the individual surgeon. Therefore population-based data are of utmost importance and will confirm whether or not new technology will be implemented in a proper way. Previous studies have emanated from specialized referral centers and it has not been well understood until now to what extent the success rates and rate of complications reported were valid in other clinical settings. The only way to explore this very important issue is of course the exploration and validation of the different end points. Without defining the end points and analysing the results of an endoscopic or surgical procedure, preferably in a population-based setting, it is not possible to detect whether a procedure is being adequately performed. A comparison can be made with rectal cancer surgery. It has been claimed the surgical technique is difficult, demanding, and has to be performed in a specific way, but without monitoring of the results, the outcome of rectal cancer surgery can never be evaluated. End points such as postoperative mortality and morbidity, as well as cancer-related end points such as local recurrence and cancer-specific survival, are knowledge which is essential for evaluation of the final outcome [2] [3]. When proper monitoring is undertaken, the surgical community becomes aware of the results and can act to improve upon them.

Hospital procedure volume and teaching status do not influence treatment and outcome measures of rectal cancer surgery in a large general population

A clear benefit of increased hospital procedure volume or teaching hospital status on outcomes of rectal cancer surgery has yet to be shown. Few have examined treatment differences that may lead to varying outcomes. This study assessed the impact of hospital procedure volume and teaching status on both treatment and outcome measures of rectal cancer surgery in a large general population. Data were obtained for 1072 incident cases of rectal adenocarcinoma diagnosed in 1990 from Ontario, Canada, and treated with a major resection. Hospitals were classified by teaching status and procedure volume. Pathology reports were examined for 418 procedures. Abdominoperineal resections accounted for 31.0% of all procedures. There were no clinically significant differences in treatment measures, operative mortality, and long-term survival among the hospital groups according to both univariate and multivariate analyses. In conclusion, the absence of a hospital volume or teaching status effect on treatment and outcome measures suggests that for rectal cancer surgery in Ontario, centralization of procedures into high-volume or teaching centers is unlikely to improve surgical quality.