Literature DB >> 21228670

Presence of specialty surgeons reduces the likelihood of colostomy after proctectomy for rectal cancer.

Rocco Ricciardi1, Patricia L Roberts, Thomas E Read, Nancy N Baxter, Peter W Marcello, David J Schoetz.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Geographic variability in the use of restorative proctectomy for rectal cancer has been described throughout the United States. We examined factors associated with high rates of colostomy formation after proctectomy for rectal cancer across US counties.
METHODS: We used state hospital discharge data from 21 states to determine county rates of restorative proctectomy vs nonrestorative proctectomy (ie, colostomy) for rectal cancer. We merged the county-level data with 1) tumor characteristics from Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data; 2) number of specialty surgeons in the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and Society of Surgical Oncology; 3) county socioeconomic variables from census data; 4) colorectal cancer-screening rates from Medicare; and 5) hospital characteristics from the American Hospital Association. We then determined factors associated with high rates of colostomy formation (> 60%) after proctectomy for rectal cancer across counties.
RESULTS: From January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2004, a total of 19,912 proctectomies were performed for cancer in 1050 counties, of which 489 had adequate sample size for evaluation. Based on county of residence information, nonrestorative proctectomy with colostomy was performed in greater than 60% of all patients with rectal cancer in 26% (n = 125) of counties. On multivariate analysis, more specialty surgeons (OR = 0.70; CI = 0.51-0.96) were protective against colostomy formation at the county level.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of restorative techniques in rectal cancer surgery varies based on access to specialty colorectal cancer surgeons. Population-based directives are needed to standardize care for rectal cancer across the United States.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21228670     DOI: 10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181fb8903

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum        ISSN: 0012-3706            Impact factor:   4.585


  12 in total

1.  Do Diagnostic and Procedure Codes Within Population-Based, Administrative Datasets Accurately Identify Patients with Rectal Cancer?

Authors:  Reilly P Musselman; Tara Gomes; Deanna M Rothwell; Rebecca C Auer; Husein Moloo; Robin P Boushey; Carl van Walraven
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2018-12-03       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 2.  Building an academic colorectal division.

Authors:  Walter A Koltun
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2014-06

3.  Predicting opportunities to increase utilization of laparoscopy for rectal cancer.

Authors:  Deborah S Keller; Jiejing Qiu; Anthony J Senagore
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-09-15       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Untreated peristomal skin complications among long-term colorectal cancer survivors with ostomies.

Authors:  Carmit K McMullen; Joseph Wasserman; Andrea Altschuler; Marcia L Grant; Mark C Hornbrook; Petra Liljestrand; Catherine Briggs; Robert S Krouse
Journal:  Clin J Oncol Nurs       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.027

5.  Self-reported practice patterns and knowledge of rectal cancer care among Canadian general surgeons.

Authors:  Devon P Richardson; Geoff A Porter; Paul M Johnson
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 2.089

6.  The association of hospital volume with rectal cancer surgery outcomes.

Authors:  Jeong-Heum Baek; Abdulhadi Alrubaie; Eduardo A Guzman; Sun Keun Choi; Casandra Anderson; Steven Mills; Joseph Carmichael; Andy Dagis; Dajun Qian; Joseph Kim; Julio Garcia-Aguilar; Michael J Stamos; Lisa Bening; Alessio Pigazzi
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2012-07-29       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Hospital Characteristics Associated with Stage II/III Rectal Cancer Guideline Concordant Care: Analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare Data.

Authors:  Mary E Charlton; Jennifer E Hrabe; Kara B Wright; Jennifer A Schlichting; Bradley D McDowell; Thorvardur R Halfdanarson; Chi Lin; Karyn B Stitzenberg; John W Cromwell
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2015-12-09       Impact factor: 3.452

8.  A population-based study comparing HRQoL among breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer survivors to propensity score matched controls, by cancer type, and gender.

Authors:  Traci LeMasters; Suresh Madhavan; Usha Sambamoorthi; Sobha Kurian
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2013-04-19       Impact factor: 3.894

9.  Individual and neighborhood socioeconomic status and healthcare resources in relation to black-white breast cancer survival disparities.

Authors:  Tomi F Akinyemiju; Amr S Soliman; Norman J Johnson; Sean F Altekruse; Kathy Welch; Mousumi Banerjee; Kendra Schwartz; Sofia Merajver
Journal:  J Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2013-02-20

10.  Trends in breast cancer stage and mortality in Michigan (1992-2009) by race, socioeconomic status, and area healthcare resources.

Authors:  Tomi F Akinyemiju; Amr S Soliman; Glenn Copeland; Mousumi Banerjee; Kendra Schwartz; Sofia D Merajver
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-04-29       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.