Justin T Brady1, Zhaomin Xu2, Kelly B Scarberry1, Amin Saad3, Fergal J Fleming2, Feza H Remzi4, Steven D Wexner5, David P Winchester6, John R T Monson7, Lawrence Lee8, David W Dietz9. 1. Department of Surgery, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY. 3. Department of Clinical Research, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH. 4. Department of Surgery, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY. 5. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL. 6. American College of Surgeons, Chicago, IL. 7. Center for Colon and Rectal Surgery, Florida Hospital Cancer Institute, Orlando, FL. 8. Department of Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 9. Department of Surgery, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH. Electronic address: David.Dietz@UHhospitals.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In an effort to improve the quality of rectal cancer care in the US, the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer has developed the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer (NAPRC). We aimed to describe the current status of rectal cancer care before implementation of the NAPRC. STUDY DESIGN: The 2011-2014 National Cancer Database was queried for non-metastatic rectal cancer patients who underwent proctectomy. The NAPRC process measures evaluated included clinical staging completion, treatment starting fewer than 60 days from diagnosis, CEA level drawn before treatment, tumor regression grading, and margin assessment. The NAPRC performance measures included negative proximal, distal, and circumferential margins, and ≥12 lymph nodes harvested during resection. RESULTS: There were 39,068 patients identified (mean age 62 years, 61.6% male sex). In >85% of patients, clinical staging was completed, treatment was started within 60 days, and all tumor margins were assessed. Pretreatment CEA level (64.6% complete) was the process measure most often omitted. However, completion of all included process measures occurred in only 28.1% of patients. All pathologic margins were negative in 79.8% of patients and 73.2% of specimens reported ≥12 lymph nodes. Overall, 56.3% of patients achieved all performance measures. Patients treated at high-volume centers (>30 cases/year) had higher odds of meeting all performance measures (odds ratio 1.42; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, very few patients achieved all of the proposed quality measures for rectal cancer care. It will be important to re-evaluate these data after the implementation of the NAPRC.
BACKGROUND: In an effort to improve the quality of rectal cancer care in the US, the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer has developed the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer (NAPRC). We aimed to describe the current status of rectal cancer care before implementation of the NAPRC. STUDY DESIGN: The 2011-2014 National Cancer Database was queried for non-metastatic rectal cancerpatients who underwent proctectomy. The NAPRC process measures evaluated included clinical staging completion, treatment starting fewer than 60 days from diagnosis, CEA level drawn before treatment, tumor regression grading, and margin assessment. The NAPRC performance measures included negative proximal, distal, and circumferential margins, and ≥12 lymph nodes harvested during resection. RESULTS: There were 39,068 patients identified (mean age 62 years, 61.6% male sex). In >85% of patients, clinical staging was completed, treatment was started within 60 days, and all tumor margins were assessed. Pretreatment CEA level (64.6% complete) was the process measure most often omitted. However, completion of all included process measures occurred in only 28.1% of patients. All pathologic margins were negative in 79.8% of patients and 73.2% of specimens reported ≥12 lymph nodes. Overall, 56.3% of patients achieved all performance measures. Patients treated at high-volume centers (>30 cases/year) had higher odds of meeting all performance measures (odds ratio 1.42; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, very few patients achieved all of the proposed quality measures for rectal cancer care. It will be important to re-evaluate these data after the implementation of the NAPRC.
Authors: Arielle E Kanters; Joceline V Vu; Ari D Schuman; Inga Van Wieren; Ashley Duby; Karin M Hardiman; Samantha K Hendren Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2019-09-28 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Samer A Naffouje; Muhammed A Ali; Sivesh K Kamarajah; Bradley White; George I Salti; Fadi Dahdaleh Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2022-04-19 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: Gretchen C Edwards; Adriana C Gamboa; Michael P Feng; Roberta L Muldoon; Michael B Hopkins; Sherif Abdel-Misih; Glen C Balch; Jennifer Holder-Murray; Maryam Mohammed; Scott E Regenbogen; Matthew L Silviera; Alexander T Hawkins Journal: Surgery Date: 2021-09-24 Impact factor: 4.348
Authors: Lidia S van Huizen; Pieter U Dijkstra; Patrick H J Hemmer; Boudewijn van Etten; Carlijn I Buis; Linde Olsder; Frederike G I van Vilsteren; Kees C T B Ahaus; Jan L N Roodenburg Journal: Int J Integr Care Date: 2021-02-25 Impact factor: 5.120
Authors: Xiang Gao; Kristin S Weeks; Irena Gribovskaja-Rupp; Imran Hassan; Marcia M Ward; Mary E Charlton Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2020-10-10 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Rosa M Jimenez-Rodriguez; Jonathan B Yuval; Charles-Etienne Gabriel Sauve; Isaac Wasserman; Piyush Aggarwal; Paul B Romesser; Christopher H Crane; Rona Yaeger; Andrea Cercek; Jose G Guillem; Martin R Weiser; Iris H Wei; Maria Widmar; Garrett M Nash; Emmanouil P Pappou; Julio Garcia-Aguilar; Marc J Gollub; Philip B Paty; J Joshua Smith Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2021-07-22 Impact factor: 2.796