BACKGROUND: Rectal cancer outcomes have improved with the adoption of a multidisciplinary model of care. However, there is a spectrum of quality when viewed from a national perspective, as highlighted by the Consortium for Optimizing the Treatment of Rectal Cancer data on rectal cancer care in the United States. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess and identify predictors of circumferential resection margin involvement for rectal cancer across Australasia. DESIGN: A retrospective study from a prospectively maintained binational colorectal cancer database was interrogated. SETTINGS: This study is based on a binational colorectal cancer audit database. PATIENTS: Clinical information on all consecutive resected rectal cancer cases recorded in the registry from 2007 to 2016 was retrieved, collated, and analyzed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was positive circumferential resection margin, measured as a resection margin ≤1 mm. RESULTS: A total of 3367 patients were included, with 261 (7.5%) having a positive circumferential resection margin. After adjusting for hospital and surgeon volume, hierarchical logistic regression analysis identified a 6-variable model encompassing the independent predictors, including urgent operation, abdominoperineal resection, open technique, low rectal cancer, T3 to T4, and N1 to N2. The accuracy of the model was 92.3%, with an receiver operating characteristic of 0.783 (p < 0.0001). The quantitative risk associated with circumferential resection margin positivity ranged from <1% (no risk factors) to 43% (6 risk factors). LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by the lack of recorded long-term outcomes associated with circumferential resection margin positivity. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of circumferential resection margin involvement in patients undergoing rectal cancer resection in Australasia is low and is influenced by a number of factors. Risk stratification of outcome is important with the increasing demand for publicly accessible quality data. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A512.
BACKGROUND:Rectal cancer outcomes have improved with the adoption of a multidisciplinary model of care. However, there is a spectrum of quality when viewed from a national perspective, as highlighted by the Consortium for Optimizing the Treatment of Rectal Cancer data on rectal cancer care in the United States. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess and identify predictors of circumferential resection margin involvement for rectal cancer across Australasia. DESIGN: A retrospective study from a prospectively maintained binational colorectal cancer database was interrogated. SETTINGS: This study is based on a binational colorectal cancer audit database. PATIENTS: Clinical information on all consecutive resected rectal cancer cases recorded in the registry from 2007 to 2016 was retrieved, collated, and analyzed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was positive circumferential resection margin, measured as a resection margin ≤1 mm. RESULTS: A total of 3367 patients were included, with 261 (7.5%) having a positive circumferential resection margin. After adjusting for hospital and surgeon volume, hierarchical logistic regression analysis identified a 6-variable model encompassing the independent predictors, including urgent operation, abdominoperineal resection, open technique, low rectal cancer, T3 to T4, and N1 to N2. The accuracy of the model was 92.3%, with an receiver operating characteristic of 0.783 (p < 0.0001). The quantitative risk associated with circumferential resection margin positivity ranged from <1% (no risk factors) to 43% (6 risk factors). LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by the lack of recorded long-term outcomes associated with circumferential resection margin positivity. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of circumferential resection margin involvement in patients undergoing rectal cancer resection in Australasia is low and is influenced by a number of factors. Risk stratification of outcome is important with the increasing demand for publicly accessible quality data. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A512.
Authors: M G Torras; E Canals; C Muñoz-Montplet; A Vidal; D Jurado; A Eraso; S Villà; M Caro; J Molero; M Macià; M Puigdemont; E González-Muñoz; A López; F Guedea; J M Borras Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-01-31 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Biche Osong; Carlotta Masciocchi; Andrea Damiani; Inigo Bermejo; Elisa Meldolesi; Giuditta Chiloiro; Maaike Berbee; Seok Ho Lee; Andre Dekker; Vincenzo Valentini; Jean-Pierre Gerard; Claus Rödel; Krzysztof Bujko; Cornelis van de Velde; Joakim Folkesson; Aldo Sainato; Robert Glynne-Jones; Samuel Ngan; Morten Brændengen; David Sebag-Montefiore; Johan van Soest Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-03-29
Authors: Tessa L Dinger; Hidde M Kroon; Luke Traeger; Sergei Bedrikovetski; Andrew Hunter; Tarik Sammour Journal: ANZ J Surg Date: 2022-05-03 Impact factor: 2.025