PURPOSE: Surgical options for the treatment of rectal cancer may involve sphincter-sparing procedures (SSP) or abdominoperineal resection (APR). We sought to examine variations in the surgical treatment of rectal cancer for a large, well-defined patient population and specifically to determine if differences exist in management and survival based on hospital type and surgical caseload. METHODS: The Cancer Surveillance Program database for Los Angeles County was used to retrospectively retrieve data on all patients who underwent SSP or APR for rectal adenocarcinoma between 1988 and 1992. RESULTS: A total of 2,006 patients with adenocarcinoma of the rectum underwent SSP or APR during the study period. Overall, 55 percent underwent SSP, and the remaining 45 percent underwent APR. Use of SSP remained relatively constant for each year of the five-year period. Substantial variability was seen in the use of SSP at various hospital types. For localized disease, this varied from as low as 52 percent at teaching hospitals to as high as 78 percent at hospitals approved by the American College of Surgeons (P = 0.067). To examine the role of caseload experience, hospitals were divided into those completing an average of five or fewer rectal cancer cases per year vs. those completing an average of more than five cases per year. For localized disease, hospitals with higher caseloads performed SSP in significantly more cases, 69 vs. 63 percent (P = 0.049). Survival was seen to be significantly improved for patients operated on at hospitals with higher caseloads, in cases of both localized and regional diseases (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Surgical choices in the treatment of rectal cancer may vary widely, even in a well-defined geographic region. Although the reasons for this variability are multifactorial, hospital environment and surgical caseload experience seem to have a significant role in the choice of surgical procedure and on survival.
PURPOSE: Surgical options for the treatment of rectal cancer may involve sphincter-sparing procedures (SSP) or abdominoperineal resection (APR). We sought to examine variations in the surgical treatment of rectal cancer for a large, well-defined patient population and specifically to determine if differences exist in management and survival based on hospital type and surgical caseload. METHODS: The Cancer Surveillance Program database for Los Angeles County was used to retrospectively retrieve data on all patients who underwent SSP or APR for rectal adenocarcinoma between 1988 and 1992. RESULTS: A total of 2,006 patients with adenocarcinoma of the rectum underwent SSP or APR during the study period. Overall, 55 percent underwent SSP, and the remaining 45 percent underwent APR. Use of SSP remained relatively constant for each year of the five-year period. Substantial variability was seen in the use of SSP at various hospital types. For localized disease, this varied from as low as 52 percent at teaching hospitals to as high as 78 percent at hospitals approved by the American College of Surgeons (P = 0.067). To examine the role of caseload experience, hospitals were divided into those completing an average of five or fewer rectal cancer cases per year vs. those completing an average of more than five cases per year. For localized disease, hospitals with higher caseloads performed SSP in significantly more cases, 69 vs. 63 percent (P = 0.049). Survival was seen to be significantly improved for patients operated on at hospitals with higher caseloads, in cases of both localized and regional diseases (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Surgical choices in the treatment of rectal cancer may vary widely, even in a well-defined geographic region. Although the reasons for this variability are multifactorial, hospital environment and surgical caseload experience seem to have a significant role in the choice of surgical procedure and on survival.
Authors: Jennie K Lee; Aristithes G Doumouras; Jeremy E Springer; Cagla Eskicioglu; Nalin Amin; Margherita Cadeddu; Dennis Hong Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-06-10 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Deborah Schrag; Katherine S Panageas; Elyn Riedel; Laura D Cramer; Jose G Guillem; Peter B Bach; Colin B Begg Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: E Kuhry; H J Bonjer; E Haglind; W C J Hop; R Veldkamp; M A Cuesta; J Jeekel; L Påhlman; M Morino; A Lacy; S Delgado Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2005-03-30 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Kristen Cagino; Maria S Altieri; Jie Yang; Lizhou Nie; Mark Talamini; Konstantinos Spaniolas; Paula Denoya; Aurora Pryor Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-12-07 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Juan C Gutierrez; Noor Kassira; Rabih M Salloum; Dido Franceschi; Leonidas G Koniaris Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2007-09-18 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Alexander L Lazarides; David L Kerr; Daniel P Nussbaum; R Timothy Kreulen; Jason A Somarelli; Dan G Blazer; Brian E Brigman; William C Eward Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 4.176