» Articles » PMID: 30706375

Surgeon-Level Variation in Utilization of Local Staging and Neoadjuvant Therapy for Stage II-III Rectal Adenocarcinoma

Overview
Specialty Gastroenterology
Date 2019 Feb 2
PMID 30706375
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: Neoadjuvant therapy (NT) is the standard of care for clinical stage II-III rectal adenocarcinoma, but utilization remains suboptimal. We aimed to determine the underlying reasons for omission of local staging and NT.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of patients with clinical stage II-III or undocumented clinical stage/pathologic stage II-III rectal adenocarcinoma who were treated in 2010-2016 in one of nine Intermountain Healthcare hospitals. The outcomes of omission of local staging and NT were examined with multivariable models. Risk- and reliability-adjusted rates of local staging and NT were calculated for surgeons who treated ≥ 3 patients. Pathologic and long-term outcomes were examined after excluding patients who were not resected or who underwent local excision (N = 11).

Results: Local staging was omitted in 43/240 (17.9%) patients and NT was omitted in 41/240 (17.1%). The strongest risk factors for local staging and NT omission were upper rectal tumors and surgeons who treated ≤ 3 cases/year. Thirty-six of 41 (87.8%) cases of omitted NT had local staging omitted. Adjusted surgeon-specific local staging rates varied 1.6-fold (56.3-92.4%) and NT rates varied 2.8-fold (34.1-97.1%). Surgeon local staging and NT rates were strongly correlated (r = 0.92). NT was associated with lower rates of positive circumferential radial margins (7.9 vs. 20.0%; P = 0.02), node positivity (33.3 vs. 55.0%; P = 0.01), and local recurrences (7.6 vs. 14.9% at 5 years; P = 0.0176).

Conclusions: NT omission should be understood as a consequence of surgeon failure to perform local staging in most cases. Quality improvement efforts should focus on improving utilization of local staging.

Citing Articles

Knowledge Translation Interventions to Address Gaps in Rectal Cancer Care.

Kennedy E, Pooni A, Schmocker S, Brown C, MacLean A, Baxter N JAMA Netw Open. 2025; 8(2):e2461047.

PMID: 39960667 PMC: 11833516. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.61047.


The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer Rectal Cancer Project: Protocol for a Pan-Canadian, Multidisciplinary Quality Improvement Initiative to Optimize the Quality of Rectal Cancer Care.

Pooni A, Schmocker S, Brown C, MacLean A, Williams L, Baxter N JMIR Res Protoc. 2020; 9(1):e15535.

PMID: 32012108 PMC: 7016615. DOI: 10.2196/15535.


Facility Variation in Local Staging of Rectal Adenocarcinoma and its Contribution to Underutilization of Neoadjuvant Therapy.

Swords D, Brooke B, Skarda D, Stoddard G, Tae Kim H, Sause W J Gastrointest Surg. 2018; 23(6):1206-1217.

PMID: 30421120 DOI: 10.1007/s11605-018-4039-8.

References
1.
Tepper J, OConnell M, Niedzwiecki D, Hollis D, Benson 3rd A, Cummings B . Adjuvant therapy in rectal cancer: analysis of stage, sex, and local control--final report of intergroup 0114. J Clin Oncol. 2002; 20(7):1744-50. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2002.07.132. View

2.
Gunderson L, Sargent D, Tepper J, Wolmark N, OConnell M, Begovic M . Impact of T and N stage and treatment on survival and relapse in adjuvant rectal cancer: a pooled analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2004; 22(10):1785-96. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2004.08.173. View

3.
Dimick J, Welch H, Birkmeyer J . Surgical mortality as an indicator of hospital quality: the problem with small sample size. JAMA. 2004; 292(7):847-51. DOI: 10.1001/jama.292.7.847. View

4.
Sauer R, Becker H, Hohenberger W, Rodel C, Wittekind C, Fietkau R . Preoperative versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004; 351(17):1731-40. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa040694. View

5.
Deyo R, Cherkin D, Ciol M . Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992; 45(6):613-9. DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(92)90133-8. View