Douglas S Swords1,2, Benjamin S Brooke3, David E Skarda3,4, Gregory J Stoddard5, H Tae Kim4, William T Sause6, Courtney L Scaife3. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Utah, 30 North 1900 East, Salt Lake City, UT, 84132, USA. douglas.swords@hsc.utah.edu. 2. Surgical Services Clinical Program, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. douglas.swords@hsc.utah.edu. 3. Department of Surgery, University of Utah, 30 North 1900 East, Salt Lake City, UT, 84132, USA. 4. Surgical Services Clinical Program, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 5. Division of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 6. Oncology Services Clinical Program, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend neoadjuvant therapy (NT) for clinical stage II-III (locally advanced) rectal adenocarcinoma, but utilization remains suboptimal. The causes of NT omission remain poorly understood. METHODS: The main outcomes in this study of patients with resected clinically non-metastatic rectal adenocarcinoma in the 2010-2015 National Cancer Database were local staging utilization in patients with non-metastatic tumors (i.e., undocumented clinical stage/pathologic stage I-III) and NT utilization for locally advanced tumors. Multivariable regression was used to examine predictors of these outcomes. Facility-specific risk- and reliability-adjusted local staging and NT rates were calculated. Positive margins and overall survival (OS) were examined as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Local staging was omitted in 7737/43,819 (17.7%) patients with clinically non-metastatic tumors and NT was omitted in 5199/31,632 (16.4%) patients with locally advanced tumors. NT was utilized in 24,826 (91.1%) locally advanced patients who had local staging vs. 1607 (36.6%) patients who did not; 2785 (53.6%) locally advanced patients with NT omitted also had local staging omitted. Treatment at facilities with lowest quintile local staging rates was associated with NT omission (relative risk 2.41, 95% confidence interval 2.11, 2.75). Adjusted facility local staging rates varied sixfold (16.1-98.0%), facility NT rates varied twofold (43.9-95.9%), and they were correlated (r = 0.58; P < 0.001). Local staging omission and NT omission were independently associated with positive margins and decreased OS. CONCLUSIONS: Local staging omission is a common care process in over half of cases of omitted NT. These data emphasize the need for quality improvement efforts directed at providing facilities feedback about their local staging rates.
BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend neoadjuvant therapy (NT) for clinical stage II-III (locally advanced) rectal adenocarcinoma, but utilization remains suboptimal. The causes of NT omission remain poorly understood. METHODS: The main outcomes in this study of patients with resected clinically non-metastatic rectal adenocarcinoma in the 2010-2015 National Cancer Database were local staging utilization in patients with non-metastatic tumors (i.e., undocumented clinical stage/pathologic stage I-III) and NT utilization for locally advanced tumors. Multivariable regression was used to examine predictors of these outcomes. Facility-specific risk- and reliability-adjusted local staging and NT rates were calculated. Positive margins and overall survival (OS) were examined as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Local staging was omitted in 7737/43,819 (17.7%) patients with clinically non-metastatic tumors and NT was omitted in 5199/31,632 (16.4%) patients with locally advanced tumors. NT was utilized in 24,826 (91.1%) locally advanced patients who had local staging vs. 1607 (36.6%) patients who did not; 2785 (53.6%) locally advanced patients with NT omitted also had local staging omitted. Treatment at facilities with lowest quintile local staging rates was associated with NT omission (relative risk 2.41, 95% confidence interval 2.11, 2.75). Adjusted facility local staging rates varied sixfold (16.1-98.0%), facility NT rates varied twofold (43.9-95.9%), and they were correlated (r = 0.58; P < 0.001). Local staging omission and NT omission were independently associated with positive margins and decreased OS. CONCLUSIONS: Local staging omission is a common care process in over half of cases of omitted NT. These data emphasize the need for quality improvement efforts directed at providing facilities feedback about their local staging rates.
Authors: Rolf Sauer; Heinz Becker; Werner Hohenberger; Claus Rödel; Christian Wittekind; Rainer Fietkau; Peter Martus; Jörg Tschmelitsch; Eva Hager; Clemens F Hess; Johann-H Karstens; Torsten Liersch; Heinz Schmidberger; Rudolf Raab Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-10-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jan P Vandenbroucke; Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche; Cynthia D Mulrow; Stuart J Pocock; Charles Poole; James J Schlesselman; Matthias Egger Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2007-10-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Mark S Roh; Linda H Colangelo; Michael J O'Connell; Greg Yothers; Melvin Deutsch; Carmen J Allegra; Morton S Kahlenberg; Luis Baez-Diaz; Carol S Ursiny; Nicholas J Petrelli; Norman Wolmark Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-09-21 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Samuel Y Ngan; Bryan Burmeister; Richard J Fisher; Michael Solomon; David Goldstein; David Joseph; Stephen P Ackland; David Schache; Bev McClure; Sue-Anne McLachlan; Joseph McKendrick; Trevor Leong; Cris Hartopeanu; John Zalcberg; John Mackay Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-09-24 Impact factor: 44.544