Antonio Caycedo-Marulanda1,2,3, Sunil V Patel4, Chris P Verschoor5, Johanna P Uscategui6, Sami A Chadi7, Gabriela Moeslein8, Manish Chand9, Yasuko Maeda10, John R T Monson11, Steven D Wexner12, Julio Mayol13. 1. Department of Surgery, Queens University, Kingston, Canada. Antonio.Caycedo@Kingstonhsc.ca. 2. Health Sciences North Research Institute, Sudbury, Canada. Antonio.Caycedo@Kingstonhsc.ca. 3. Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, Canada. Antonio.Caycedo@Kingstonhsc.ca. 4. Department of Surgery, Queens University, Kingston, Canada. 5. Health Sciences North Research Institute, Sudbury, Canada. 6. Colorectal Surgery North, Sudbury, Canada. 7. Department of Surgery University Health Network (UHN), Toronto, Canada. 8. Department of Surgery, University of Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany. 9. Department of Surgery, University College London, London, UK. 10. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. 11. Center for Colon and Rectal Surgery, Digestive Health and Surgery Institute, AdventHealth Orlando, Orlando, USA. 12. Department of Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, USA. 13. Department of Surgery, Hospital Clinico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Management of rectal cancer has a number of potentially appropriate alternatives for each patient. Despite acceptance of standards, practices may vary among regions. There is significant paucity of data in this area. The objective was to create a snapshot of the regional differences. DESIGN: This online survey included 10 questions. Enquiries focused on controversial topics, on surgeon and hospital volume, surgical margins, appropriateness of surgical approaches and techniques, watch-and-wait strategies, and total neoadjuvant therapy. Major colorectal surgery societies around the world were asked to invite their members to complete the survey. OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency of responses across regions within each question was compared by Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Seven hundred and fifty-three participants from 60 countries responded. Eight regions were identified, and four had sufficient representation for comparisons. Similarities and differences in the therapies among these regions were identified. Robotic surgery penetrance is higher in North America, and watch and wait is more accepted in South America. Patients in Oceania are more likely to be diverted; Europe has more usage of taTME. DISCUSSION: This online survey was practical as a mean to provide a rapid assessment of the international picture on consistency and variability of rectal cancer patients' care, and to potentially identify opportunities to standardized care to patients. Medical surveys have inherent limitations; pertinence to our study is selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: The management of rectal cancer varies among different regions. Identification of differences is important when considering global efforts to improve management and interpret data.
BACKGROUND: Management of rectal cancer has a number of potentially appropriate alternatives for each patient. Despite acceptance of standards, practices may vary among regions. There is significant paucity of data in this area. The objective was to create a snapshot of the regional differences. DESIGN: This online survey included 10 questions. Enquiries focused on controversial topics, on surgeon and hospital volume, surgical margins, appropriateness of surgical approaches and techniques, watch-and-wait strategies, and total neoadjuvant therapy. Major colorectal surgery societies around the world were asked to invite their members to complete the survey. OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency of responses across regions within each question was compared by Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Seven hundred and fifty-three participants from 60 countries responded. Eight regions were identified, and four had sufficient representation for comparisons. Similarities and differences in the therapies among these regions were identified. Robotic surgery penetrance is higher in North America, and watch and wait is more accepted in South America. Patients in Oceania are more likely to be diverted; Europe has more usage of taTME. DISCUSSION: This online survey was practical as a mean to provide a rapid assessment of the international picture on consistency and variability of rectal cancerpatients' care, and to potentially identify opportunities to standardized care to patients. Medical surveys have inherent limitations; pertinence to our study is selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: The management of rectal cancer varies among different regions. Identification of differences is important when considering global efforts to improve management and interpret data.
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: 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: James Fleshman; Megan Branda; Daniel J Sargent; Anne Marie Boller; Virgilio George; Maher Abbas; Walter R Peters; Dipen Maun; George Chang; Alan Herline; Alessandro Fichera; Matthew Mutch; Steven Wexner; Mark Whiteford; John Marks; Elisa Birnbaum; David Margolin; David Larson; Peter Marcello; Mitchell Posner; Thomas Read; John Monson; Sherry M Wren; Peter W T Pisters; Heidi Nelson Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-10-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Nelleke P M Brouwer; Amanda C R K Bos; Valery E P P Lemmens; Pieter J Tanis; Niek Hugen; Iris D Nagtegaal; Johannes H W de Wilt; Rob H A Verhoeven Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2018-09-29 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Jin K Kim; Hannah Thompson; Rosa M Jimenez-Rodriguez; Fan Wu; Francisco Sanchez-Vega; Garrett M Nash; Jose G Guillem; Philip B Paty; Iris H Wei; Emmanouil P Pappou; Maria Widmar; Martin R Weiser; J Joshua Smith; Julio Garcia-Aguilar Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-10-03 Impact factor: 5.344