Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Variations in treatment of rectal cancer

The influence of hospital type and caseload

  • Original Contributions
  • Published:
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

Abstract

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.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Harms BA, Starling JR. Current status of sphincter preservation in rectal cancer. Oncology 1990;4:53–60.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Lockhard-Mummery HE, Ritchie JK, Hawley PR. The results of surgical reatment for carcinoma of the rectum at St. Marks Hospital from 1948 to 1972. Br J Surg 1976;63:673–7.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Mettlin C, Mittelman A, Natarajan N, Murphy G, Schmitz R, Smart C. Trends in the United States for the management of adenocarcinoma of the rectum. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1981;153:701–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Nazarian HK, Giuliano AE, Hiatt JR. Colorectal carcinoma: analysis of management in two medical eras. J Surg Oncol 1993;52:46–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Lee-Feldstein A, Anton-Culver H, Feldstein PJ. Treatment differences and other prognostic factors related to breast cancer survival: delivery systems and medical outcomes. JAMA 1994;271:1163–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and propotions. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1981:138–43.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Miller RG Jr. Survival analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1981:46–51.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Miles EW. A method of performing abdominoperineal excision for carcinoma of the rectum and of the terminal portion of the pelvic colon. Lancet 1908;2:1812–3.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gillen P, Peel AL. Comparison of the mortality, morbidity and incidence of local recurrence in patients with rectal cancer treated by either stapled anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection. Br J Surg 1986;73:339–41.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Jones PF, Thomson HJ. Long-term results of a consistent policy of sphincter preservation in the treatment of carcinoma of the rectum. Br J Surg 1982;69:564–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Strauss RJ, Friedman M, Platt N, Wise L. Surgical treatment of rectal carcinoma: results of anterior resection vs abdominoperineal resection at a community hospital. Dis Colon Rectum 1978;21:269–76.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Williams NS, Durdey P, Johnston D. The outcome following sphincter-saving resection and abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer. Br J Surg 1985;72:595–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Steele GD. The National Cancer Data Base report on colorectal cancer. Cancer 1994;74:1979–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Vernon SW, Hughes JI, Heckel VM, Jackson GL. Quality of care for colorectal cancer in fee-for-service and health maintenance organization practice. Cancer 1992;69:2418–25.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Supported in part by National Cancer Institute Grants CA14089 and CA17054 and the California Public Health Foundation, subcontract 050-F-8709.

The ideas and opinions expressed here are those of the authors, and no endorsement by the State of California, Department of Health Services, or the California Public Health Foundation is intended or should be inferred.

Read at the meeting of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, Seattle, Washington, June 9 to 14, 1996.

About this article

Cite this article

Simons, A.J., Ker, R., Groshen, S. et al. Variations in treatment of rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 40, 641–646 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02140891

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02140891

Key words

Navigation