Trends and outcomes of sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer: a national cancer database study
Previous studies have shown that sphincter-preserving surgery is associated with better quality of life in postsurgical rectal cancer patients. However, the factors predicting the likelihood of undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery have not been well-described. The aim of this study was to report the factors that determined the likelihood of undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery.
Characteristics of 24,018 rectal cancer patients undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery and abdominoperineal resection diagnosed from 2008 to 2012 from the National Cancer Database were investigated retrospectively for rate, pattern, and differences in mortality. Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate hazard ratios for assessing mortality. Odds ratios were calculated using logistic regressions models for outcome sphincter-preserving surgery.
Eighteen thousand four hundred fifty-two (77%) patients had sphincter-preserving surgery. Majority of sphincter-preserving surgery patients were aged < 70 (74%), had private insurance (52%), and got treatment at a comprehensive community cancer program (54%). Multivariable analysis showed that patients with age ≥ 70 (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80–0.95), male gender (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84–0.96), having Medicare (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.76–0.90), Medicaid (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63–0.81), and poorly differentiated grade (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.71–0.85) were less likely to undergo sphincter-preserving surgery. Multivariable analysis showed that patients having abdominoperineal resection have higher likelihood of mortality than sphincter-preserving surgery (HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.16–1.36).
We were able to identify several patient and tumor-related factors impacting the likelihood of undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery. Patients undergoing non-sphincter sparing surgery had a higher mortality that sphincter preservation.
KeywordsSphincter-preserving surgery SPS Rectal cancer NCDB Abdominoperineal resection
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 11.Engel AF, Oomen JL, Eijsbouts QA, Cuesta MA, van de Velde CJ (2003) Nationwide decline in annual numbers of abdomino-perineal resections: effect of a successful national trial? Colorectal Dis 5(2):180–184Google Scholar
- 15.Archampong D, Borowski D, Wille-Jorgensen P, Iversen LH. (2012) Workload and surgeon’s specialty for outcome after colorectal cancer surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3):Cd005391Google Scholar
- 17.Harmon JW, Tang DG, Gordon TA, Bowman HM, Choti MA, Kaufman HS, et al. (1999) Hospital volume can serve as a surrogate for surgeon volume for achieving excellent outcomes in colorectal resection. Ann Surg, 230(3):404–11; discussion 11–3Google Scholar
- 19.(ACS) ACoS. National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer (NAPRC) [Available from: https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/cancer/naprc
- 20.(ACS) ACoS. National Cancer Database (NCDB) [Available from: https://www.facs.org/quality%20programs/cancer/ncdb