Emily F Midura1,2, Andrew D Jung1,2, Meghan C Daly1,2, Dennis J Hanseman1,2, Bradley R Davis1, Shimul A Shah1,2, Ian M Paquette3,4,5. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Cincinnati School of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 2. Cincinnati Research in Outcomes and Safety in Surgery (CROSS), Cincinnati, OH, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, University of Cincinnati School of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA. ian.paquette@uc.edu. 4. Cincinnati Research in Outcomes and Safety in Surgery (CROSS), Cincinnati, OH, USA. ian.paquette@uc.edu. 5. , 2123 Auburn Avenue, #524, Cincinnati, OH, 45219, USA. ian.paquette@uc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation reduces local recurrence in locally advanced rectal cancer, and adherence to national and societal recommendations remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine variability in guideline adherence in rectal cancer treatment and investigate whether hospital volume correlated with variability seen. DESIGN: We performed a retrospective analysis using the National Cancer Database rectal cancer participant user files from 2005 to 2010. Stage-specific predictors of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation use were determined, and variation in use across hospitals analyzed. Hospitals were ranked based on likelihood of preoperative therapy use by stage, and observed-to-expected ratios for neoadjuvant therapy use calculated. Hospital outliers were identified, and their center characteristics compared. RESULTS: A total of 23,488 patients were identified at 1183 hospitals. There was substantial variability in the use of neoadjuvant chemoradiation across hospitals. Patients managed outside clinical guidelines for both stage 1 and stage 3 disease tended to receive treatment at lower-volume, community cancer centers. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variability in adherence to national guidelines in the use of neoadjuvant chemoradiation for rectal cancer across all stages. Both hospital volume and center type are associated with over-treatment of early-stage tumors and under-treatment of more invasive tumors. These findings identify a clear need for national quality improvement efforts in the treatment of rectal cancer.
BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation reduces local recurrence in locally advanced rectal cancer, and adherence to national and societal recommendations remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine variability in guideline adherence in rectal cancer treatment and investigate whether hospital volume correlated with variability seen. DESIGN: We performed a retrospective analysis using the National Cancer Database rectal cancerparticipant user files from 2005 to 2010. Stage-specific predictors of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation use were determined, and variation in use across hospitals analyzed. Hospitals were ranked based on likelihood of preoperative therapy use by stage, and observed-to-expected ratios for neoadjuvant therapy use calculated. Hospital outliers were identified, and their center characteristics compared. RESULTS: A total of 23,488 patients were identified at 1183 hospitals. There was substantial variability in the use of neoadjuvant chemoradiation across hospitals. Patients managed outside clinical guidelines for both stage 1 and stage 3 disease tended to receive treatment at lower-volume, community cancer centers. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variability in adherence to national guidelines in the use of neoadjuvant chemoradiation for rectal cancer across all stages. Both hospital volume and center type are associated with over-treatment of early-stage tumors and under-treatment of more invasive tumors. These findings identify a clear need for national quality improvement efforts in the treatment of rectal cancer.
Authors: E Kapiteijn; C A Marijnen; I D Nagtegaal; H Putter; W H Steup; T Wiggers; H J Rutten; L Pahlman; B Glimelius; J H van Krieken; J W Leer; C J van de Velde Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-08-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: C B M van den Broek; W van Gijn; E Bastiaannet; B Møller; R Johansson; M A G Elferink; A Wibe; L Påhlman; L H Iversen; F Penninckx; V Valentini; C J H van de Velde Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2014-10-18 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Willem van Gijn; Corrie A M Marijnen; Iris D Nagtegaal; Elma Meershoek-Klein Kranenbarg; Hein Putter; Theo Wiggers; Harm J T Rutten; Lars Påhlman; Bengt Glimelius; Cornelis J H van de Velde Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-05-17 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Karl Y Bilimoria; David J Bentrem; Clifford Y Ko; Andrew K Stewart; David P Winchester; Mark S Talamonti; Amy L Halverson Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2008-04-15 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: N J van Leersum; H S Snijders; M W J M Wouters; D Henneman; C A M Marijnen; H R Rutten; R A E M Tollenaar; P J Tanis Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2013-06-28 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Douglas S Swords; Benjamin S Brooke; David E Skarda; Gregory J Stoddard; H Tae Kim; William T Sause; Courtney L Scaife Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Douglas S Swords; David E Skarda; William T Sause; Ute Gawlick; George M Cannon; Mark A Lewis; Courtney L Scaife; Jesse A Gygi; H Tae Kim Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Celine Soriano; Henry T Bahnson; Jennifer A Kaplan; Bruce Lin; Ravi Moonka; Huong T Pham; Hagen F Kennecke; Vlad Simianu Journal: World J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2022-06-15