Does the subspecialty of the surgeon performing primary colonic resection influence the outcome of patients with hepatic metastases referred for resection?
(1/111)
OBJECTIVE: To compare resection rates and outcome of patients subsequently referred with hepatic metastases whose initial colon cancers were resected by surgeons with different specialty interests. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Variation in practice among noncolorectal specialist surgeons has led to recommendations that colorectal cancers should be treated by surgeons trained in colorectal surgery or surgical oncology. METHODS: The resectability of metastases, the frequency and pattern of recurrence after resection, and the length of survival were compared in patients referred to a single center for resection of colorectal hepatic metastases. The patients were divided into those whose colorectal resection had been performed by general surgeons (GS) with other subspecialty interests (n = 108) or by colorectal specialists (CS; n = 122). RESULTS No differences were observed with respect to age, sex, tumor stage, site of primary tumor, or frequency of synchronous metastases. Comparing the GS group with the CS group, resectable disease was identified in 26% versus 66%, with tumor recurrence after a median follow-up of 19 months in 75% versus 44%, respectively. Recurrences involving bowel or lymph nodes accounted for 55% versus 24% of all recurrences, with respective median survivals of 14 months versus 26 months. CONCLUSION: Fewer patients referred by general surgeons had resectable liver disease. After surgery, recurrent tumor was more likely to develop in the GS group; their overall outcome was worse than that of the CS group. This observation is partly explained by a lower local recurrence rate in the CS group. (+info)
Preoperative radiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision for resectable rectal cancer.
(2/111)
BACKGROUND: Short-term preoperative radiotherapy and total mesorectal excision have each been shown to improve local control of disease in patients with resectable rectal cancer. We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial to determine whether the addition of preoperative radiotherapy increases the benefit of total mesorectal excision. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1861 patients with resectable rectal cancer either to preoperative radiotherapy (5 Gy on each of five days) followed by total mesorectal excision (924 patients) or to total mesorectal excision alone (937 patients). The trial was conducted with the use of standardization and quality-control measures to ensure the consistency of the radiotherapy, surgery, and pathological techniques. RESULTS: Of the 1861 patients randomly assigned to one of the two treatment groups, 1805 were eligible to participate. The overall rate of survival at two years among the eligible patients was 82.0 percent in the group assigned to both radiotherapy and surgery and 81.8 percent in the group assigned to surgery alone (P=0.84). Among the 1748 patients who underwent a macroscopically complete local resection, the rate of local recurrence at two years was 5.3 percent. The rate of local recurrence at two years was 2.4 percent in the radiotherapy-plus-surgery group and 8.2 percent in the surgery-only group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Short-term preoperative radiotherapy reduces the risk of local recurrence in patients with rectal cancer who undergo a standardized total mesorectal excision. (+info)
Use of surgical procedures and adjuvant therapy in rectal cancer treatment: a population-based study.
(3/111)
OBJECTIVE: To assess the use of surgical procedures by tumor location and compliance with adjuvant therapy recommendations by tumor stage. The study was conducted in a population-based setting to identify target patient groups for improved care. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Rectal cancer therapy potentially involves similar patients receiving different treatments. Low anterior resection (LAR), sparing the anal sphincter, and abdominoperineal resection (APR), ablating the anal sphincter, offer equivalent local recurrence and survival rates but may differ in quality of life measurements. The 1990 NIH Consensus Conference recommended that patients with stage II and III rectal cancer receive radiation and chemotherapy in conjunction with surgical resection, but this is not uniformly applied. To interpret the use of these therapies, information on tumor location in the rectum, which is rarely known in population-based studies, is necessary. Patient, hospital, or surgeon characteristics may influence which procedure is performed and whether adjuvant therapy is given. METHODS: Information about primary, invasive rectal adenocarcinomas diagnosed between 1994 to 1996 in 13 California counties was obtained from the regional cancer registry. Tumor location, determined from abstracted medical text, was divided into the upper, middle, and lower rectum. Hospitals were characterized by teaching status, number of beds, and cancer center designation. Surgeons were categorized as general or colorectal surgeons. Factors associated with a higher use of LAR versus APR in patients with middle and lower rectum tumors and factors associated with a higher use of NIH-recommended therapy in patients with stage II and III disease were separately analyzed. RESULTS: Among 637 eligible patients, APR was used in 22% of those with middle rectum tumors and 55% of those with lower rectum tumors. Factors significantly associated with a higher use of LAR included female gender, middle rectum location, and treatment in a major teaching hospital versus a nonteaching hospital. Recommended therapy was received by 44% of patients with stage II disease and 60% of those with stage III disease. Factors significantly associated with higher compliance with NIH recommendations included age younger than 60 versus older than 75, age 60 to 75 years versus older than 75, tumor location in the middle or lower rectum versus the upper rectum, stage III disease, and treatment at a teaching hospital versus a nonteaching hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with similar rectal cancers receive different treatments independent of tumor stage or location. This may result in more APRs performed for middle and lower rectum tumors than necessary and less adequate treatment for stage II and III tumors than recommended. (+info)
Management of obstetric anal sphincter injury: a systematic review & national practice survey.
(4/111)
BACKGROUND: We aim to establish the evidence base for the recognition and management of obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) and to compare this with current practice amongst UK obstetricians and coloproctologists. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature and a postal questionnaire survey of consultant obstetricians, trainee obstetricians and consultant coloproctologists was carried out. RESULTS: We found a wide variation in experience of repairing acute anal sphincter injury. The group with largest experience were consultant obstetricians (46.5% undertaking > or = 5 repairs/year), whilst only 10% of responding colorectal surgeons had similar levels of experience (p < 0.001). There was extensive misunderstanding in terms of the definition of obstetric anal sphincter injuries. Overall, trainees had a greater knowledge of the correct classification (p < 0.01). Observational studies suggest that a new 'overlap' repair using PDS sutures with antibiotic cover gives better functional results. However, our literature search found only one randomised controlled trial (RCT) on the technique of repair of OASI, which showed no difference in incidence of anal incontinence at three months. Despite this, there was a wide variation in practice, with 337(50%) consultants, 82 (55%) trainees and 80 (89%) coloproctologists already using the 'overlap' method for repair of a torn EAS (p < 0.001). Although over 50% of colorectal surgeons would undertake long-term follow-up of their patients, this was the practice of less than 10% of obstetricians (p < 0.001). Whilst over 70% of coloproctologists would recommend an elective caesarean section in a subsequent pregnancy, only 22% of obstetric consultants and 14% of trainees (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: An agreed classification of OASI, development of national guidelines, formalised training, multidisciplinary management and further definitive research is strongly recommended. (+info)
Dose surgical sub-specialization influence survival in patients with colorectal cancer?
(5/111)
AIM: To perform a review of patients with colorectal cancer to a community hospital and to compare the risk-adjusted survival between patients managed in general surgical units versus a colorectal unit. METHODS: The study evaluated all patients with colorectal cancer referred to either general surgical units or a colorectal unit from 1/1996 to 6/2001. These results were compared to a historical control group treated within general surgical units at the same hospital from 1/1989 to 12/1994. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis compared the overall survivals (all-cause mortality) between the groups. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine the influence of a number of independent variables on survival. These variables included age, ASA score, disease stage, emergency surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, disease location, and surgical unit. RESULTS: There were 974 patients involved in this study. There were no significant differences in the demographic details for the three groups. Patients in the colorectal group were more likely to have rectal cancer and Stage I cancers, and less likely to have Stage II cancers. Patients treated in the colorectal group had a significantly higher overall 5-year survival when compared with the general surgical group and the historical control group (56 % versus 45 % and 40 % respectively, P<0.01). Survival regression analysis identified age, ASA score, disease stage, adjuvant chemotherapy, and treatment in a colorectal unit (Hazards ratio: 0.67; 95 % CI: 0.53 to 0.84, P =0.0005), as significant independent predictors of survival. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that there may be a survival advantage for patients with colon and rectal cancers being treated within a specialist colorectal surgical unit. (+info)
Referral letters to colorectal surgeons: the impact of peer-mediated feedback.
(6/111)
BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) select few patients for specialist investigation. Having selected a patient, the GP writes a referral letter which serves primarily to convey concerns about the patient and offer background information. Referral letters to specialists sometimes provide an inadequate amount of information. The content of referral letters to colorectal surgeons can now be scored based on the views of GPs about the ideal content of referral letters. AIM: To determine if written feedback about the contents of GP referral letters mediated by local peers was acceptable to GPs and how this feedback influenced the content and variety of their referrals. DESIGN: A non-randomised control trial. SETTING: GPs in North Nottinghamshire. METHOD: In a controlled trial, 26 GPs were offered written feedback about the documented contents of their colorectal referral letters over 1 year. The feedback was designed and mediated by two nominated local GPs. The contents of referral letters were measured in the year before and 6 months after feedback. GPs were asked about the style of the feedback. The contents of referral letters and the proportion of patients with organic pathology were compared for the feedback GPs and other local GPs who could be identified as having used the same hospital for their referrals in the period before and after feedback. RESULTS: All GPs declared the method of feedback to be acceptable but raised concerns about their own performance, and some were upset by the experience. None withdrew from the project. There was a difference of 7.1 points (95% confidence interval = 1.9 to 12.2) in the content scores between the feedback group and the controls after adjusting for baseline differences between the groups. Of the GPs who referred to the same hospital before and after feedback, the feedback GPs referred more patients with organic pathology than other local colleagues. CONCLUSIONS: GPs welcome feedback about the details appearing on their referral letters, although peer comparisons may not always lead to changes in practice. However, in some cases feedback improves the content of GP referral letters and may also impact on the type of patients referred for investigation by specialists. (+info)
Pharmacokinetics and tissue penetration of single-dose cefotetan used for antimicrobial prophylaxis in patients undergoing colorectal surgery.
(7/111)
The pharmacokinetics and tissue penetration of cefotetan were studied after a single injection of 2 g given intravenously for antimicrobial prophylaxis to 16 consecutive patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Concentrations in tissue greater than or equal to the MIC for 90% of the main pathogens tested were considered adequate. The elimination half-life at beta phase was 4.6 +/- 1.4 h, the total body clearance was 0.75 +/- 0.19 ml/kg/min, and the volume of distribution was 260 +/- 71 ml/kg. At the time of incision (33 +/- 16 min after the injection), cefotetan concentrations were 14.2 +/- 7 micrograms/g in abdominal-wall fat, 16.4 +/- 1 micrograms/g in epiploic fat, and 163 +/- 62 mg/liter in serum. At the time of surgical anastomosis (151 +/- 54 min), cefotetan concentrations were 33.3 +/- 6 micrograms/g in the colonic wall and 73 +/- 34 mg/liter in serum. Upon closure of the abdomen (216 +/- 76 min), cefotetan concentrations were 6.3 +/- 3 micrograms/g in abdominal-wall fat, 6.1 +/- 4 micrograms/g in epiploic fat, and 64 +/- 38 mg/liter in serum. Cefotetan tissue penetration was 10% into abdominal and epiploic fat and 46% into the colonic wall. Levels in tissue were compared with the MIC for 90% of the most frequently encountered pathogenic germs (Staphylococcus aureus, Bacteroides fragilis, and Escherichia coli). Adequate concentrations in tissue were obtained up to anastomosis but not upon closure. The authors therefore recommend the injection of an additional dose of 1 g before closure in order to ensure optimal efficacy throughout the surgical procedure. (+info)
Anterior resection for rectal cancer with mesorectal excision: a prospective evaluation of 622 patients.
(8/111)
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to review the operative results and oncological outcomes of anterior resection for rectal and rectosigmoid cancer. Comparison was made between patients with total mesorectal excision (TME) for mid and distal cancer and partial mesorectal excision (PME) for proximal cancer, when a 4- to 5-cm mesorectal margin could be achieved. Risk factors for local recurrence and survival were also analyzed. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Anterior resection has become the preferred treatment option rectal cancer. TME with sharp dissection has been shown to be associated with a low local recurrence rate. Controversies still exist as to the need for TME in more proximal tumor. METHODS: Resection of primary rectal and rectosigmoid cancer was performed in 786 patients from August 1993 to July 2002. Of these, 622 patients (395 men and 227 women; median age, 67 years) underwent anterior resection. The technique of perimesorectal dissection was used. Patients with mid and distal rectal cancer were treated with TME while PME was performed for those with more proximal tumors. Prospective data on the postoperative results and oncological outcomes were reviewed. Risk factors for anastomotic leakage, local recurrence, and survival of the patients were analyzed with univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: The median level of the tumor was 8 cm from the anal verge (range, 2.5-20 cm) and curative resection was performed in 563 patients (90.5%). TME was performed in 396 patients (63.7%). Significantly longer median operating time, more blood loss, and a longer hospital stay were found in patients with TME. The overall operative mortality and morbidity rates were 1.8% and 32.6%, respectively, and there were no significant differences between those of TME and PME. Anastomotic leak occurred in 8.1% and 1.3% of patients with TME and PME, respectively (P < 0.001). Independent factors for a higher anastomotic leakage rate were TME, the male gender, the absence of stoma, and the increased blood loss. The 5-year actuarial local recurrence rate was 9.7%. The advanced stage of the disease and the performance of coloanal anastomosis were independent factors for increased local recurrence. The 5-year cancer-specific survival was 74.5%. The independent factors for poor survival were the advanced stage of the disease and the presence of lymphovascular and perineural invasion. CONCLUSIONS: Anterior resection with mesorectal excision is a safe option and can be performed in the majority of patients with rectal cancer. The local recurrence rate was 9.7% and the cancer-specific survival was 74.5%. When the tumor requires a TME, this procedure is more complex and has a higher leakage rate than in those higher tumors where PME provides adequate mesorectal clearance. By performing TME in patients with mid and distal rectal cancer, the local control and survival of these patients are similar to those of patients with proximal cancers where adequate clearance can be achieved by PME. (+info)