F H W Jonker1, J A W Hagemans2, C Verhoef3, J W A Burger4. 1. Department of Surgery, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Henri Dunantweg 2, 8934 AD Leeuwarden, The Netherlands. Electronic address: jonkerfrederik@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, 's-Gravendijkwal 230, 3015 CE Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: jan_hagemans@hotmail.com. 3. Department of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, 's-Gravendijkwal 230, 3015 CE Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: c.verhoef@erasmusmc.nl. 4. Department of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, 's-Gravendijkwal 230, 3015 CE Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: j.burger@erasmusmc.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of hospital volume on perioperative outcomes of clinical tumour stage (cT)1-3 and cT4 rectal cancer. METHODS: 16.162 patients operated for rectal cancer enrolled in the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit were included. Hospitals were divided into low (<20 cases/year), medium (21-50 cases/year) and high (>50 cases/year) volume for cT1-3 rectal cancer, and for cT4 rectal cancer into low (1-4 cases/year), medium (5-9 cases/year) and high (≥10 cases/year) volume. The influence of hospital volume on perioperative outcomes was investigated. RESULTS: With regards to cT1-3 tumours, low volume had lower rates of complications (33.8% vs. 36.6% and 38.1%, p = 0.009), anastomotic leakage (5.4% vs. 8.1% and 8.6%), and reinterventions (11.5% vs. 12.6% and 14.8%, p = 0.002) as compared to medium and high volume hospitals. Thirty-day mortality and R0 rates were comparable between groups. In high cT4 volume hospitals, rates of extensive resection of tumour involvement (49.4% vs. 25.4% and 15.5%, p < 0.001) and additional resection of metastasis (17.5% vs. 14.4% and 3.0%, p < 0.001) were increased as compared to medium and low volume hospitals. Thirty-day mortality and R0 rates were comparable between groups. In a sub-analysis of pathologic tumour stage 4 patients, irradical resections were increased in low volume hospitals (33.8% vs. 22.5% and 20.8% in medium and high volume hospitals, p = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: For cT4 rectal cancer, high volume hospitals may offer a better multimodality treatment, while for cT1-3 rectal cancer there appears no benefit for centralization.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of hospital volume on perioperative outcomes of clinical tumour stage (cT)1-3 and cT4 rectal cancer. METHODS: 16.162 patients operated for rectal cancer enrolled in the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit were included. Hospitals were divided into low (<20 cases/year), medium (21-50 cases/year) and high (>50 cases/year) volume for cT1-3 rectal cancer, and for cT4 rectal cancer into low (1-4 cases/year), medium (5-9 cases/year) and high (≥10 cases/year) volume. The influence of hospital volume on perioperative outcomes was investigated. RESULTS: With regards to cT1-3 tumours, low volume had lower rates of complications (33.8% vs. 36.6% and 38.1%, p = 0.009), anastomotic leakage (5.4% vs. 8.1% and 8.6%), and reinterventions (11.5% vs. 12.6% and 14.8%, p = 0.002) as compared to medium and high volume hospitals. Thirty-day mortality and R0 rates were comparable between groups. In high cT4 volume hospitals, rates of extensive resection of tumour involvement (49.4% vs. 25.4% and 15.5%, p < 0.001) and additional resection of metastasis (17.5% vs. 14.4% and 3.0%, p < 0.001) were increased as compared to medium and low volume hospitals. Thirty-day mortality and R0 rates were comparable between groups. In a sub-analysis of pathologic tumour stage 4 patients, irradical resections were increased in low volume hospitals (33.8% vs. 22.5% and 20.8% in medium and high volume hospitals, p = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: For cT4 rectal cancer, high volume hospitals may offer a better multimodality treatment, while for cT1-3 rectal cancer there appears no benefit for centralization.
Authors: Julia Tessa van Groningen; Perla J Marang-van de Mheen; Daniel Henneman; Geerard L Beets; Michel W J M Wouters Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-09-24 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Joost Besseling; Jan Reitsma; Judith A Van Erkelens; Maike H J Schepens; Michiel P C Siroen; Cathelijne M P Ziedses des Plantes; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Laurens V Beerepoot; Theo Van Voorthuizen; Lia Van Zuylen; Rob H A Verhoeven; Hanneke van Laarhoven Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-01-05 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: L Siragusa; B Sensi; D Vinci; M Franceschilli; C Pathirannehalage Don; G Bagaglini; V Bellato; M Campanelli; G S Sica Journal: Discov Oncol Date: 2021-04-12