Top

Published in:

01-12-2014 | Healthcare Policy and Outcomes

Multi-institutional Assessment of Sphincter Preservation for Rectal Cancer

Authors: Zaid M. Abdelsattar, MD, Sandra L. Wong, MD, MS, Nancy J. Birkmeyer, PhD, Robert K. Cleary, MD, Melissa L. Times, MD, Ryan E. Figg, MD, Nanette Peters, RN, MSN, Robert W. Krell, MD, Darrell A. Campbell Jr., MD, Marcia M. Russell, MD, Samantha Hendren, MD, MPH

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 13/2014

Abstract

Background

Sphincter-preserving surgery (SPS) has been proposed as a quality measure for rectal cancer surgery. However, previous studies on SPS rates lack critical clinical characteristics, rendering it unclear if variation in SPS rates is due to unmeasured case-mix differences or surgeons’ selection criteria. In this context, we investigate the variation in SPS rates at various practice settings.

Methods

Ten hospitals in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative collected rectal cancer-specific data, including tumor location and reasons for non-SPS, of patients who underwent rectal cancer surgery from 2007 to 2012. Hospitals were divided into terciles of SPS rates (frequent, average, and infrequent). Patients were categorized as ‘definitely SPS eligible’ a priori if they did not have any of the following: sphincter involvement, tumor <6 cm from the anal verge, fecal incontinence, stoma preference, or metastatic disease. Fixed-effects logistic regression was used to evaluate for factors associated with SPS.

Results

In total, 329 patients underwent rectal cancer surgery at 10 hospitals (5/10 higher volume, and 6/10 major teaching). Overall, 72 % had SPS (range by hospital 47–91 %). Patient and tumor characteristics were similar between hospital terciles. On multivariable analysis, only hospital ID, younger age, and tumor location were associated with SPS, but not sex, race, body mass index, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage, preoperative radiation, or American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class. Analysis of the 181 (55 %) ‘definitely-eligible’ patients revealed an SPS rate of 90 % (65–100 %).

Conclusions

SPS rates vary by hospital, even after accounting for clinical characteristics using detailed chart review. These data suggest missed opportunities for SPS, and refute the general hypothesis that hospital variation in previous studies is due to unmeasured case-mix differences.

Monson JRT, Weiser MR, Buie WD, Chang GJ, Rafferty JF, Buie WD, et al. Practice parameters for the management of rectal cancer (revised). Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(5):535–50.PubMedCrossRef

Temple LK, Romanus D, Niland J, Veer AT, Weiser MR, Skibber J, et al. Factors associated with sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer at national comprehensive cancer network centers. Ann Surg. 2009;250(2):260–7.PubMedCrossRef

Ludwig KA. Sphincter-sparing resection for rectal cancer. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2007;1(212):203–12.CrossRef

Ricciardi R, Virnig BA, Madoff RD, Rothenberger DA, Baxter NN. The status of radical proctectomy and sphincter-sparing surgery in the United States. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007;50(8):1119–27

Richardson DP, Porter GA, Johnson PM. Population-based use of sphincter-preserving surgery in patients with rectal cancer: is there room for improvement? Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(6):704–10.PubMedCrossRef

Morris E, Quirke P, Thomas JD, Fairley L, Cottier B, Forman D. Unacceptable variation in abdominoperineal excision rates for rectal cancer: time to intervene? Gut. 2008;57(12):1690–7.PubMedCrossRef

Stelzner S, Hellmich G, Haroske G, Puffer E, Jackisch T, Witzigmann H. Practicability of quality goals for the treatment of rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2010;25(9):1093–102.PubMedCrossRef

Purves H, Pietrobon R, Hervey S, Guller U, Miller W, Ludwig K. Relationship between surgeon caseload and sphincter preservation in patients with rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48(2):195–202

Martinez SR, Chen SL, Bilchik AJ. Treatment disparities in Hispanic rectal cancer patients: a SEER database study. Am Surg. 2006;72(10):906–8.PubMed

10.

Hodgson DC, Zhang W, Zaslavsky AM, Fuchs CS, Wright WE, Ayanian JZ. Relation of hospital volume to colostomy rates and survival for patients with rectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95(10):708–16.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Meyerhardt JA, Tepper JE, Niedzwiecki D, Hollis DR, Schrag D, Ayanian JZ, et al. Impact of hospital procedure volume on surgical operation and long-term outcomes in high-risk curatively resected rectal cancer: findings from the Intergroup 0114 Study. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(1):166–74.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Ricciardi R, Roberts PL, Read TE, Baxter NN, Marcello PW, Schoetz DJ. Who performs proctectomy for rectal cancer in the United States? Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54(10):1210–5.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Campbell DA, Englesbe MJ, Kubus JJ, Phillips LRS, Shanley CJ, Velanovich V, et al. Accelerating the pace of surgical quality improvement: the power of hospital collaboration. Arch Surg. 2010;145(10):985–91.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Hendren S, Fritze D, Banerjee M, Kubus J, Cleary RK, Englesbe MJ, et al. Antibiotic choice is independently associated with risk of surgical site infection after colectomy: a population-based cohort study. Ann Surg. 2013;257(3):469–75.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Glance LG, Dick A, Osler TM, Li Y, Mukamel DB. Impact of changing the statistical methodology on hospital and surgeon ranking: the case of the New York State cardiac surgery report card. Med Care. 2006;44(4):311–9.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Engel AF, Oomen JLT, Eijsbouts QAJ, Cuesta MA, van de Velde CJH. Nationwide decline in annual numbers of abdomino-perineal resections: effect of a successful national trial? Colorectal Dis. 2003;5(2):180–4.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Martling A, Holm T, Rutqvist LE, Johansson H, Moran BJ, Heald RJ, et al. Impact of a surgical training programme on rectal cancer outcomes in Stockholm. Br J Surg. 2005;92(2):225–9.PubMedCrossRef

Title: Multi-institutional Assessment of Sphincter Preservation for Rectal Cancer
Authors: Zaid M. Abdelsattar, MD
Sandra L. Wong, MD, MS
Nancy J. Birkmeyer, PhD
Robert K. Cleary, MD
Melissa L. Times, MD
Ryan E. Figg, MD
Nanette Peters, RN, MSN
Robert W. Krell, MD
Darrell A. Campbell Jr., MD
Marcia M. Russell, MD
Samantha Hendren, MD, MPH
Publication date: 01-12-2014
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 13/2014
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3882-4

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Multi-institutional Assessment of Sphincter Preservation for Rectal Cancer

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 13/2014

CT-Guided High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy of Liver Tumours Does Not Impair Hepatic Function and Shows High Overall Safety and Favourable Survival Rates

Volume-Outcome in Cancer Surgery: Why has the Data Not Affected Policy Change?

A Promise to Our Patients with Metastatic Bone Disease

Utility of the Proximal Margin Frozen Section for Resection of Gastric Adenocarcinoma: A 7-Institution Study of the US Gastric Cancer Collaborative

Predictive Factors and Pattern of Locoregional Recurrence After Prophylactic Central Neck Dissection in Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma

Is Axillary Lymph Node Dissection Necessary After Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Patients with Mastectomy and Pathological N1 Breast Cancer?