INTRODUCTION: In the 1990s, several organizations began recommending evaluation of > 12 lymph nodes during colon resection because of its association with improved survival. We examined practice implications of multispecialty quality guidelines over the past 20 years recommending evaluation of ≥ 12 lymph nodes during colon resection for adequate staging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the 1988 to 2009 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program to conduct a retrospective observational cohort study of 90,203 surgically treated patients with colon cancer. We used Cochran-Armitage tests to examine trends in lymph node examination over time and multivariate logistic regression to identify patient characteristics associated with guideline-recommended lymph node evaluation. RESULTS: The introduction of practice guidelines was associated with gradual increases in guideline-recommended lymph node evaluation. From 1988 to 1990, 34% of patients had > 12 lymph nodes evaluated, increasing to 38% in 1994 to 1996 and to > 75% from 2006 to 2009. Younger, white patients and those with more-extensive bowel penetration (T3/4 nonmetastatic) and high tumor grade saw more-rapid increases in lymph node evaluation (P < .001). Multivariate analyses demonstrated a significant interaction between year of diagnosis and both T stage and grade, indicating that those with higher T stage and higher grade were more likely to receive guideline-recommended care earlier. CONCLUSION: The implementation of lymph node evaluation guidelines was accepted gradually into practice but adopted more quickly among higher risk patients. By identifying patients who are least likely to receive guideline-recommended care, these findings present a starting point for promoting targeted improvements in cancer care and further understanding underlying contributors to these disparities.
INTRODUCTION: In the 1990s, several organizations began recommending evaluation of > 12 lymph nodes during colon resection because of its association with improved survival. We examined practice implications of multispecialty quality guidelines over the past 20 years recommending evaluation of ≥ 12 lymph nodes during colon resection for adequate staging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the 1988 to 2009 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program to conduct a retrospective observational cohort study of 90,203 surgically treated patients with colon cancer. We used Cochran-Armitage tests to examine trends in lymph node examination over time and multivariate logistic regression to identify patient characteristics associated with guideline-recommended lymph node evaluation. RESULTS: The introduction of practice guidelines was associated with gradual increases in guideline-recommended lymph node evaluation. From 1988 to 1990, 34% of patients had > 12 lymph nodes evaluated, increasing to 38% in 1994 to 1996 and to > 75% from 2006 to 2009. Younger, white patients and those with more-extensive bowel penetration (T3/4 nonmetastatic) and high tumor grade saw more-rapid increases in lymph node evaluation (P < .001). Multivariate analyses demonstrated a significant interaction between year of diagnosis and both T stage and grade, indicating that those with higher T stage and higher grade were more likely to receive guideline-recommended care earlier. CONCLUSION: The implementation of lymph node evaluation guidelines was accepted gradually into practice but adopted more quickly among higher risk patients. By identifying patients who are least likely to receive guideline-recommended care, these findings present a starting point for promoting targeted improvements in cancer care and further understanding underlying contributors to these disparities.
Authors: Daniel Otchy; Neil H Hyman; Clifford Simmang; Thomas Anthony; W Donald Buie; Peter Cataldo; James Church; Jeffrey Cohen; Frederick Dentsman; C Neal Ellis; John W Kilkenny; Clifford Ko; Richard Moore; Charles Orsay; Ronald Place; Janice Rafferty; Jan Rakinic; Paul Savoca; Joe Tjandra; Mark Whiteford Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: L P Fielding; P A Arsenault; P H Chapuis; O Dent; B Gathright; J D Hardcastle; P Hermanek; J R Jass; R C Newland Journal: J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 1991 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.029
Authors: Helen M Parsons; Todd M Tuttle; Karen M Kuntz; James W Begun; Patricia M McGovern; Beth A Virnig Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-09-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: C C Compton; L P Fielding; L J Burgart; B Conley; H S Cooper; S R Hamilton; M E Hammond; D E Henson; R V Hutter; R B Nagle; M L Nielsen; D J Sargent; C R Taylor; M Welton; C Willett Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: T E Le Voyer; E R Sigurdson; A L Hanlon; R J Mayer; J S Macdonald; P J Catalano; D G Haller Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-08-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ahmed N Dehal; Amanda N Graff-Baker; Brooke Vuong; Daniel Nelson; Shu-Ching Chang; David Y Lee; Melanie Goldfarb; Anton J Bilchik Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2018-05-22 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Alexander Wilhelm; Sascha A Müller; Thomas Steffen; Bruno M Schmied; Ulrich Beutner; Rene Warschkow Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Fabio Bagante; Thuy Tran; Gaya Spolverato; Andrea Ruzzenente; Stefan Buttner; Cecilia G Ethun; Bas Groot Koerkamp; Simone Conci; Kamran Idrees; Chelsea A Isom; Ryan C Fields; Bradley Krasnick; Sharon M Weber; Ahmed Salem; Robert C G Martin; Charles Scoggins; Perry Shen; Harveshp D Mogal; Carl Schmidt; Eliza Beal; Ioannis Hatzaras; Gerardo Vitiello; Jan N M IJzermans; Shishir K Maithel; George Poultsides; Alfredo Guglielmi; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Yara Backes; Sjoerd G Elias; Bibie S Bhoelan; John N Groen; Jeroen van Bergeijk; Tom C J Seerden; Hendrikus J M Pullens; Bernhard W M Spanier; Joost M J Geesing; Koen Kessels; Marjon Kerkhof; Peter D Siersema; Wouter H de Vos Tot Nederveen Cappel; Niels van Lelyveld; Frank H J Wolfhagen; Frank Ter Borg; G Johan A Offerhaus; Miangela M Lacle; Leon M G Moons Journal: BMC Med Date: 2017-07-14 Impact factor: 8.775