Literature DB >> 19638922

Factors associated with sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer at national comprehensive cancer network centers.

Larissa K Temple1, Dorothy Romanus, Joyce Niland, Anna Ter Veer, Martin R Weiser, John Skibber, John Wilson, Ashwani Rajput, Al Benson, Yu Ning Wong, Deborah Schrag.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine rate and predictors of sphincter-preserving surgery (SPS) for rectal cancer patients treated at specialty institutions. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: SPS has been considered a surrogate for surgical quality, and sphincter preservation is tremendously important to patients. Evidence of association between case volume and SPS rate has prompted recommendations that all rectal cancer patients undergo surgery at specialty institutions. However, rates of SPS, and the factors associated with ability to perform SPS, have not been well-characterized.
METHODS: A prospective registry of all colorectal cancer patients treated at 7 National Comprehensive Cancer Network institutions was used to identify patients with clinical stage I-III rectal cancer undergoing surgery (n = 674) between September 2005 and October 2007. Patient, tumor and treatment factors were abstracted; patients' clinical characteristics with and without SPS were compared using descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression.
RESULTS: Of 674 identified patients (median age, 58.2; 60% male), 520 (77%) had SPS. Of these, 240 had low anterior resection with coloanal anastomosis, 268 low anterior resection without coloanal anastomosis; 12 had other SPS procedures. Sixty-two percent had a temporary diverting stoma. On multivariable analyses, independent predictors of SPS included younger age at diagnosis, proximal location in the rectum, nonfixed tumor, and institution.
CONCLUSIONS: SPS rates at National Comprehensive Cancer Network institutions exceed those seen in population-based samples and clinical trials. In addition to expected variation in SPS rates based on patient and tumor characteristics, we identified variation among institutions. Although the optimal rate of SPS remains unknown, this provides areas for further research and potential performance improvement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19638922     DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181ae330e

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg        ISSN: 0003-4932            Impact factor:   12.969


  16 in total

1.  Hospital variation in sphincter preservation for elderly rectal cancer patients.

Authors:  Christopher M Dodgion; Bridget A Neville; Stuart R Lipsitz; Deborah Schrag; Elizabeth Breen; Michael J Zinner; Caprice C Greenberg
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2014-03-22       Impact factor: 2.192

2.  Do older Americans undergo stoma reversal following low anterior resection for rectal cancer?

Authors:  Christopher M Dodgion; Bridget A Neville; Stuart R Lipsitz; Yue-Yung Hu; Deborah Schrag; Elizabeth Breen; Caprice C Greenberg
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2012-12-21       Impact factor: 2.192

3.  Factors affecting sphincter-preserving resection treatment for patients with low rectal cancer.

Authors:  Zhenqiang Sun; Xianbo Yu; Haijiang Wang; Ming Ma; Zeliang Zhao; Qisan Wang
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2015-06-05       Impact factor: 2.447

4.  Incidence of minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery at National Comprehensive Cancer Network centers.

Authors:  Heather Yeo; Joyce Niland; Dana Milne; Anna ter Veer; Tanios Bekaii-Saab; Jeffrey M Farma; Lily Lai; John M Skibber; William Small; Neal Wilkinson; Deborah Schrag; Martin R Weiser
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-12-19       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Risk factors for adverse outcome in low rectal cancer.

Authors:  Zhi-Hui Chen; Xin-Ming Song; Shi-Cai Chen; Ming-Zhe Li; Xin-Xin Li; Wen-Hua Zhan; Yu-Long He
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-01-07       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 6.  Surgeon perspectives on the use and effects of neoadjuvant chemoradiation in the treatment of rectal cancer: a comprehensive review of the literature.

Authors:  Sami A Chadi; Marianna Berho; Steven D Wexner
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2015-08-07       Impact factor: 3.445

7.  Risk factors associated with sphincter-preserving resection in patients with low rectal cancer.

Authors:  Zhi-Jie Cong; Liang-Hao Hu; Jun-Jie Xing; Wei Zhang; Chuan-Gang Fu; En-Da Yu; Ming Zhong
Journal:  Int Surg       Date:  2014 Jul-Aug

8.  Multi-institutional assessment of sphincter preservation for rectal cancer.

Authors:  Zaid M Abdelsattar; Sandra L Wong; Nancy J Birkmeyer; Robert K Cleary; Melissa L Times; Ryan E Figg; Nanette Peters; Robert W Krell; Darrell A Campbell; Marcia M Russell; Samantha Hendren
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2014-07-08       Impact factor: 5.344

9.  [Spincter preservation after selective chemoradiotherapy of rectal cancer. Interim results of the OCUM study].

Authors:  J Baral; M R Schön; R Ruppert; H Ptok; J Strassburg; P Brosi; M E Kreis; A Lewin; J Sauer; S Sawicki; L Schiffmann; G Winde; T Junginger; S Merkel; P Hermanek
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 0.955

10.  Can Pre-Treatment Inflammatory Parameters Predict the Probability of Sphincter-Preserving Surgery in Patients with Locally Advanced Low-Lying Rectal Cancer?

Authors:  Richard Partl; Katarzyna Lukasiak; Bettina Stranz; Eva Hassler; Marton Magyar; Heidi Stranzl-Lawatsch; Tanja Langsenlehner
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.