Clinical and endoscopist factors associated with post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer in a population-based sample.

AIM: Factors associated with verified post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRC) have not been well defined and survival for these patients is not well described. We aimed to assess the association of patient, tumour and endoscopist characteristics with PCCRC. METHODS: Using population-based data, we identified individuals diagnosed with CRC from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2005 who underwent a colonoscopy within 3 years prior to diagnosis. Detected cancers were those diagnosed ≤6 months following colonoscopy; PCCRC were diagnosed >6 months to ≤3 years following colonoscopy. Post-colonoscopy and detected cancers were verified through chart review using a hospital-based simple random sampling frame. We used multivariable conditional logistic regression to determine the association of patient, tumour and endoscopist factors with PCCRC and compared overall survival using Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: Using the random sampling frame, we identified 498 patients with PCCRC and 498 with detected CRC; we obtained records and confirmed 367 patients with PCCRC and 412 with detected cancers. In multivariable analysis, patient age (OR 1.01; 95% CI 1.00-1.03) and tumour location (distal vs. proximal OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.25-0.53) were associated with PCCRC; endoscopist quality measures were not significantly associated with PCCRC. We did not find significant differences in overall survival between PCCRC and detected cancers (hazard ratio 1.12; 95% CI 0.92-1.32). CONCLUSION: Although endoscopic quality measures are important for CRC prevention, endoscopist factors were not associated with PCCRC. This study highlights the need for further research into the role of tumour biology in PCCRC development.

A Population-Based Study of Complications After Colorectal Surgery in Patients Who Have Received Bevacizumab.

BACKGROUND: Patients receiving Bevacizumab, a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor used to treat metastatic colorectal cancer, may be at greater risk of complications after colorectal surgery because of impaired healing. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe population-based rates of complications of colorectal surgery after Bevacizumab treatment and evaluate the relationship between time since last treatment and risk of complications. DESIGN: This was a population-based retrospective cohort study using administrative and cancer registry data. SETTINGS: The study was conducted in Ontario, Canada. PATIENTS: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving Bevacizumab between January 2008 and December 2011 were followed for a year after treatment or until death. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Administrative data were used to identify patients who underwent colorectal surgery after initiation of Bevacizumab and to determine whether they experienced a complicated postoperative course. The relationship between time since last Bevacizumab treatment (≤28 d, 29 d to 3 mo, and >3 mo) and risk of postoperative complications was evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 2759 patients who received Bevacizumab for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer, 265 underwent a colorectal procedure after exposure. The majority had a bowel resection or repair with no stoma (47.5%) and had emergency surgery (61.1%). Overall, 96 (36.2%) had a complicated postoperative course, including 20.4% readmission, 12.5% wound complications, and 7.9% mortality rate within 30 days of surgery. Adjusted multivariate analysis showed no difference in the likelihood of a complicated postoperative course among patients undergoing surgery within 28 days of receiving their last Bevacizumab dose compared with 29 days to 3 months (OR = 1.23 (95% CI, 0.53-2.84), or 3 to 12 months (OR = 0.98 (95% CI, 0.46-2.09) after receiving Bevacizumab. LIMITATIONS: Reliance on administrative data to measure complications limited the scope of this study. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer requiring colorectal surgery after exposure to Bevacizumab experience substantial morbidity and mortality. The risk of complications is not detectably associated with time since exposure. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A474.

Do Primary Care Provider Strategies Improve Patient Participation in Colorectal Cancer Screening?

OBJECTIVES: Screening rates for colorectal cancer (CRC) remain suboptimal. The impact of provider strategies to enhance screening participation in the population is uncertain. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of provider strategies to increase screening in a single-payer system. METHODS: A population-based survey was conducted in primary care providers (PCPs) linked to patients using administrative data in Ontario, Canada. Patients were due for CRC screening from April 2012 to March 2013. Patients were followed up until 31 March 2014. We determined time to become up-to-date with CRC screening. Cox proportional hazards models examined the association between PCP strategies and uptake of screening, adjusted for physician and patient factors. RESULTS: A total of 717 PCPs and their 147,834 rostered patients due for CRC screening were included. Most physicians employed strategies to enhance screening participation, including electronic medical record use, reminders, generation of lists, audit and feedback reports, or designating staff responsible for screening. No single strategy was strongly associated with screening. For those >1 year overdue, a systematic approach to generate lists of patients overdue for screening was weakly associated with screening uptake (hazard ratio (HR)=1.14, 95% CI: 1.03-1.26, P=0.04 >5 years overdue vs. <1 year overdue). The use of multiple PCP strategies was associated with screening participation (HR=1.27, 95% CI: 1.16-1.39, P<0.0001 for PCPs using 4-5 vs. 0-1 strategies). Practice-based strategies were self-reported. CONCLUSIONS: In practice, while individual PCP strategies have little effect, the use of multiple strategies to enhance screening appears to improve CRC screening uptake in patients.

Corrigendum: Do Primary Care Provider Strategies Improve Patient Participation in Colorectal Cancer Screening?

This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2017.4.

Self-reported practice patterns and knowledge of rectal cancer care among Canadian general surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to examine the knowledge and treatment decision practice patterns of Canadian surgeons who treat patients with rectal cancer. METHODS: A mail survey with 6 questions on staging investigations, management of low rectal cancer, lymph node harvest, surgical margins and use of adjuvant therapies was sent to all general surgeons in Canada. Appropriate responses to survey questions were defined a priori. We compared survey responses according to surgeon training (colorectal/surgical oncology v. others) and geographic region (Atlantic, Central, West). RESULTS: The survey was sent to 2143 general surgeons; of the 1312 respondents, 703 treat patients with rectal cancer. Most surgeons responded appropriately to the questions regarding staging investigations (88%) and management of low rectal cancer (88%). Only 55% of surgeons correctly identified the recommended lymph node harvest as 12 or more nodes, 45% identified 5 cm as the recommended distal margin for upper rectal cancer, and 70% appropriately identified which patients should be referred for adjuvant therapy. Surgeons with subspecialty training were significantly more likely to provide correct responses to all of the survey questions than other surgeons. There was limited variation in responses according to geographic region. Subspecialty-trained surgeons and recent graduates were more likely to answer all of the survey questions correctly than other surgeons. CONCLUSION: Initiatives are needed to ensure that all surgeons who treat patients with rectal cancer, regardless of training, maintain a thorough and accurate knowledge of rectal cancer treatment issues.

CONTEXTE: Notre objectif était d'évaluer les connaissances et les processus décisionnels thérapeutiques des chirurgiens canadiens qui traitent des patients atteints de cancer rectal. MÉTHODES: Un sondage envoyé par la poste comportant 6 questions sur les épreuves de stadification, la prise en charge du cancer du bas rectum, le prélèvement des ganglions lymphatiques, les marges chirurgicales et l'utilisation de traitements adjuvants a été envoyé à tous les chirurgiens généraux au Canada. Les réponses appropriées aux questions du sondage avaient été définies au préalable. Nous avons comparé les réponses au sondage selon la formation des chirurgiens (oncologie colorectale/chirurgicale c. autres) et selon la région (Atlantique, Centre, Ouest). RÉSULTATS: Le sondage a été envoyé à 2143 chirurgiens généraux; parmi les 1312 répondants, 703 traitent des patients atteints de cancer rectal. La plupart des chirurgiens ont répondu de façon appropriée aux questions concernant les épreuves de stadification (88 %) et la prise en charge du cancer du bas rectum (88 %). Seulement 55 % des chirurgiens ont correctement répondu à la question sur le nombre optimal de ganglions lymphatiques à prélever, soit 12 ganglions ou plus, 45 % ont donné 5 cm comme marge distale recommandée pour le cancer du haut rectum et 70 % ont déterminé de manière appropriée quels patients il faut orienter vers un traitement adjuvant. Les chirurgiens qui avaient reçu une formation spécialisée étaient significativement plus susceptibles de fournir des réponses exactes à toutes les questions du sondage comparativement aux autres chirurgiens. On a noté une variation limitée entre les réponses selon les régions. Les chirurgiens spécialisés et les nouveaux diplômés étaient plus susceptibles de répondre correctement à toutes les questions du sondage comparativement aux autres chirurgiens. CONCLUSION: Des initiatives s'imposent pour s'assurer qu'indépendamment de leur formation tous les chirurgiens qui traitent des patients atteints d'un cancer rectal maintiennent des connaissances complètes et exactes sur les enjeux thérapeutiques entourant le cancer rectal.

Surgeon knowledge contributes to the relationship between surgeon volume and patient outcomes in rectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether surgeon knowledge contributes to the relationship between surgeon procedure volume and patient outcomes in rectal cancer. BACKGROUND: Although previous research has shown that treatment by high-volume surgeons is associated with improved outcomes among patients with rectal cancer, the mechanisms for such an association are not well understood. METHODS: In 2009, a mail survey with 8 questions pertaining to rectal cancer care was created, modified for content validity, and sent to all general surgeons in Nova Scotia, Canada. Patients with rectal cancer, who were treated by the survey respondents between July 1, 2002, and June 30, 2006, were identified retrospectively, and a comprehensive standardized review of medical records was used to collect outcome data for this population-based cohort. The association between surgeon survey score (dichotomized into high- and low-score groups on the basis of the median score), surgeon procedure volume, and patient outcomes was examined. RESULTS: Of 521 patients who underwent treatment with curative intent from July 1, 2002, to June 30, 2006, 377 patients (72%) were treated by 25 surgeons who responded to the survey. After controlling for patient and tumor factors, patients treated by high-volume surgeons were more likely to receive a total mesorectal excision (TME) [odds ratio (OR) = 3.89; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.20-5.83], more likely to undergo an adequate lymph node harvest (OR = 3.67; 95%CI, 2.36-5.70), less likely to have a permanent colostomy (OR = 0.53; 95%CI, 0.30-0.93), and less likely to develop local recurrence (HR = 0.54; 95%CI, 0.29-0.99). When surgeon survey score was included in the multivariate regression models, the relationship between surgeon procedure volume and permanent colostomy was diminished. There was a significant interaction between surgeon survey score and surgeon volume for the outcomes of use of TME (P < 0.01) and local recurrence (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that surgeon knowledge may, at least in part, explain surgeon volume-associated differences in rectal cancer outcomes.

Population-based use of sphincter-preserving surgery in patients with rectal cancer: is there room for improvement?

BACKGROUND: Treatment of rectal cancer in North America has been associated with lower rates of sphincter-preserving surgery in comparison with other regions. It is unclear if these lower rates are due to patient, tumor, or treatment factors; thus, the potential to increase the use of sphincter-preserving surgery is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to identify the factors associated with the use of sphincter-preserving surgery and to quantify the potential for an increase in sphincter preservation. DESIGN: This population-based retrospective cohort study used patient-level data collected through a comprehensive, standardized review of hospital inpatient and outpatient medical records and cancer center charts. SETTINGS: This study was conducted in all hospitals providing rectal cancer surgery in a Canadian province. PATIENTS: All patients with a new diagnosis of rectal cancer from July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2006 who underwent potentially curative radical surgery were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with receiving a permanent colostomy. Patients were categorized as having received an appropriate or potentially inappropriate colostomy based on a priori determined patient, tumor, operative, and pathologic criteria. RESULTS: Of 466 patients who underwent radical surgery, 48% received a permanent colostomy. There was significant variation in the rate of sphincter-preserving surgery among the 10 hospitals that provided rectal cancer care (12%-73%, p = 0.0001). On multivariate analysis, male sex, low tumor height, and increasing tumor stage were associated with the receipt of a permanent colostomy. Among patients who received a permanent stoma, 65 of 224 (29%) patients received a potentially inappropriate stoma. On multivariate analysis, male sex and treatment in a medium- or low-volume hospital was associated with the receipt of a potentially inappropriate colostomy. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that the receipt of a permanent colostomy by many patients with rectal cancer may be inappropriate, and there is potential to increase the use of sphincter-preserving surgery in patients with rectal cancer.

Hospitalization Rates Among Survivors of Young Adult Malignancies.

PURPOSE: There are limited data on health care use among survivors of young adult cancers. We aimed to describe patterns of hospitalization among a cohort of long-term survivors compared with noncancer controls. METHODS: Persons diagnosed between the ages of 20 and 44 years with malignancies in Ontario, Canada, from 1992 to 1999, who lived at least 5 years recurrence free, were identified using the Ontario Cancer Registry and matched to noncancer controls. Hospitalizations were determined using hospital discharges, and rates were compared between survivors and controls. The absolute excess rate of hospitalizations was determined for each type of malignancy in survivors per 100 person-years of follow-up. RESULTS: The cohort included 20,275 survivors and 101,344 noncancer controls. During the study period, 6,948 (34.3%) survivors were admitted to the hospital and the adjusted relative rate (ARR) of hospitalizations in survivors compared with controls was 1.51 (95% CI, 1.48 to 1.54). The rate of hospitalization was highest for survivors of upper GI, leukemia, and urologic malignancies. The hospitalization rate (per person) for survivors significantly decreased from 0.22 in the first time period examined (5 to 8 years after diagnosis) to 0.15 in the last time period examined (18 to 20 years after diagnosis, P < .0001). However, at all time periods, survivors were more likely to be hospitalized than controls (ARR at 5 to 8 years, 1.67 [95% CI, 1.57 to 1.81]; ARR at 18 to 20 years, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.08 to 1.37]). CONCLUSION: Survivors of young adult cancers have an increased rate of hospitalization compared with controls. The rate of hospitalization for 20-year survivors did not return to baseline, indicating a substantial and persistent burden of late effects among this generally young population.