Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Multi-institutional Assessment of Sphincter Preservation for Rectal Cancer

  • Healthcare Policy and Outcomes
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Sphincter-preserving surgery (SPS) has been proposed as a quality measure for rectal cancer surgery. However, previous studies on SPS rates lack critical clinical characteristics, rendering it unclear if variation in SPS rates is due to unmeasured case-mix differences or surgeons’ selection criteria. In this context, we investigate the variation in SPS rates at various practice settings.

Methods

Ten hospitals in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative collected rectal cancer-specific data, including tumor location and reasons for non-SPS, of patients who underwent rectal cancer surgery from 2007 to 2012. Hospitals were divided into terciles of SPS rates (frequent, average, and infrequent). Patients were categorized as ‘definitely SPS eligible’ a priori if they did not have any of the following: sphincter involvement, tumor <6 cm from the anal verge, fecal incontinence, stoma preference, or metastatic disease. Fixed-effects logistic regression was used to evaluate for factors associated with SPS.

Results

In total, 329 patients underwent rectal cancer surgery at 10 hospitals (5/10 higher volume, and 6/10 major teaching). Overall, 72 % had SPS (range by hospital 47–91 %). Patient and tumor characteristics were similar between hospital terciles. On multivariable analysis, only hospital ID, younger age, and tumor location were associated with SPS, but not sex, race, body mass index, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage, preoperative radiation, or American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class. Analysis of the 181 (55 %) ‘definitely-eligible’ patients revealed an SPS rate of 90 % (65–100 %).

Conclusions

SPS rates vary by hospital, even after accounting for clinical characteristics using detailed chart review. These data suggest missed opportunities for SPS, and refute the general hypothesis that hospital variation in previous studies is due to unmeasured case-mix differences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Monson JRT, Weiser MR, Buie WD, Chang GJ, Rafferty JF, Buie WD, et al. Practice parameters for the management of rectal cancer (revised). Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(5):535–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Temple LK, Romanus D, Niland J, Veer AT, Weiser MR, Skibber J, et al. Factors associated with sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer at national comprehensive cancer network centers. Ann Surg. 2009;250(2):260–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ludwig KA. Sphincter-sparing resection for rectal cancer. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2007;1(212):203–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ricciardi R, Virnig BA, Madoff RD, Rothenberger DA, Baxter NN. The status of radical proctectomy and sphincter-sparing surgery in the United States. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007;50(8):1119–27

  5. Richardson DP, Porter GA, Johnson PM. Population-based use of sphincter-preserving surgery in patients with rectal cancer: is there room for improvement? Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(6):704–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Morris E, Quirke P, Thomas JD, Fairley L, Cottier B, Forman D. Unacceptable variation in abdominoperineal excision rates for rectal cancer: time to intervene? Gut. 2008;57(12):1690–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Stelzner S, Hellmich G, Haroske G, Puffer E, Jackisch T, Witzigmann H. Practicability of quality goals for the treatment of rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2010;25(9):1093–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Purves H, Pietrobon R, Hervey S, Guller U, Miller W, Ludwig K. Relationship between surgeon caseload and sphincter preservation in patients with rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48(2):195–202

  9. Martinez SR, Chen SL, Bilchik AJ. Treatment disparities in Hispanic rectal cancer patients: a SEER database study. Am Surg. 2006;72(10):906–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hodgson DC, Zhang W, Zaslavsky AM, Fuchs CS, Wright WE, Ayanian JZ. Relation of hospital volume to colostomy rates and survival for patients with rectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95(10):708–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Meyerhardt JA, Tepper JE, Niedzwiecki D, Hollis DR, Schrag D, Ayanian JZ, et al. Impact of hospital procedure volume on surgical operation and long-term outcomes in high-risk curatively resected rectal cancer: findings from the Intergroup 0114 Study. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(1):166–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ricciardi R, Roberts PL, Read TE, Baxter NN, Marcello PW, Schoetz DJ. Who performs proctectomy for rectal cancer in the United States? Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54(10):1210–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Campbell DA, Englesbe MJ, Kubus JJ, Phillips LRS, Shanley CJ, Velanovich V, et al. Accelerating the pace of surgical quality improvement: the power of hospital collaboration. Arch Surg. 2010;145(10):985–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hendren S, Fritze D, Banerjee M, Kubus J, Cleary RK, Englesbe MJ, et al. Antibiotic choice is independently associated with risk of surgical site infection after colectomy: a population-based cohort study. Ann Surg. 2013;257(3):469–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Glance LG, Dick A, Osler TM, Li Y, Mukamel DB. Impact of changing the statistical methodology on hospital and surgeon ranking: the case of the New York State cardiac surgery report card. Med Care. 2006;44(4):311–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Engel AF, Oomen JLT, Eijsbouts QAJ, Cuesta MA, van de Velde CJH. Nationwide decline in annual numbers of abdomino-perineal resections: effect of a successful national trial? Colorectal Dis. 2003;5(2):180–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Martling A, Holm T, Rutqvist LE, Johansson H, Moran BJ, Heald RJ, et al. Impact of a surgical training programme on rectal cancer outcomes in Stockholm. Br J Surg. 2005;92(2):225–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

Zaid M. Abdelsattar is supported by AHRQ T32 HS000053-22, and Samantha Hendren is supported in this work by NIH/NCI 1K07 CA163665-22 and by the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Research Foundation.

Disclosures

Zaid M. Abdelsattar, Sandra L. Wong, Nancy J. Birkmeyer, Robert K. Cleary, Melissa L. Times, Ryan E. Figg, Nanette Peters, Robert W. Krell, Darrell A. Campbell Jr, Marcia M. Russell, and Samantha Hendren have no disclosures to make.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zaid M. Abdelsattar MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abdelsattar, Z.M., Wong, S.L., Birkmeyer, N.J. et al. Multi-institutional Assessment of Sphincter Preservation for Rectal Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 21, 4075–4080 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3882-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3882-4

Keywords

Navigation