Interhospital referral of colorectal cancer patients: a Dutch population-based study.

PURPOSE: Interhospital referral is a consequence of centralization of complex oncological care but might negatively impact waiting time, a quality indicator in the Netherlands. This study aims to evaluate characteristics and waiting times of patients with primary colorectal cancer who are referred between hospitals. METHODS: Data were extracted from the Dutch ColoRectal Audit (2015-2019). Waiting time between first tumor-positive biopsy until first treatment was compared between subgroups stratified for referral status, disease stage, and type of hospital. RESULTS: In total, 46,561 patients were included. Patients treated for colon or rectal cancer in secondary care hospitals were referred in 12.2% and 14.7%, respectively. In tertiary care hospitals, corresponding referral rates were 43.8% and 66.4%. Referred patients in tertiary care hospitals were younger, but had a more advanced disease stage, and underwent more often multivisceral resection and simultaneous metastasectomy than non-referred patients in secondary care hospitals (p<0.001). Referred patients were more often treated within national quality standards for waiting time compared to non-referred patients (p<0.001). For referred patients, longer waiting times prior to MDT were observed compared to non-referred patients within each hospital type, although most time was spent post-MDT. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of colorectal cancer patients that are treated in tertiary care hospitals are referred from another hospital but mostly treated within standards for waiting time. These patients are younger but often have a more advanced disease. This suggests that these patients are willing to travel more but also reflects successful centralization of complex oncological patients in the Netherlands.

International evaluation of circumferential resection margins after rectal cancer resection: insights from the Swedish and Dutch audits.

AIM: This study aimed to determine predictive factors for the circumferential resection margin (CRM) within two northern European countries with supposed similarity in providing rectal cancer care. METHOD: Data for all patients undergoing rectal resection for clinical tumour node metastasis (TNM) stage I-III rectal cancer were extracted from the Swedish ColoRectal Cancer Registry and the Dutch ColoRectal Audit (2011-2015). Separate analyses were performed for cT1-3 and cT4 stage. Predictive factors for the CRM were determined using univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 6444 Swedish and 12 089 Dutch patients were analysed. Over time the number of hospitals treating rectal cancer decreased from 52 to 42 in Sweden, and 82 to 79 in the Netherlands. In the Swedish population, proportions of cT4 stage (17% vs 8%), multivisceral resection (14% vs 7%) and abdominoperineal excision (APR) (37% vs 31%) were higher. The overall proportion of patients with a positive CRM (CRM+) was 7.8% in Sweden and 5.4% in the Netherlands. In both populations with cT1-3 stage disease, common independent risk factors for CRM+ were cT3, APR and multivisceral resection. No common risk factors for CRM+ in cT4 stage disease were found. An independent impact of hospital volume on CRM+ could be demonstrated for the cT1-3 Dutch population. CONCLUSION: Within two northern European countries with implemented clinical auditing, rectal cancer care might potentially be improved by further optimizing the treatment of distal and locally advanced rectal cancer.

Multicentre study of surgical referral and outcomes of patients with benign colorectal lesions.

Background: A multicentre cohort study was performed to analyse the motivations for surgical referral of patients with benign colorectal lesions, and to evaluate the endoscopic and pathological characteristics of these lesions as well as short-term surgical outcomes. Methods: Patients who underwent surgery for a benign colorectal lesion in 15 Dutch hospitals between January 2014 and December 2017 were selected from the pathology registry. Lesions were defined as complex when at least one of the following features was present: size at least 40 mm, difficult location according to the endoscopist, previous failed attempt at resection, or non-lifting sign. Results: A total of 358 patients were included (322 colonic and 36 rectal lesions). The main reasons for surgical referral of lesions in the colon and rectum were large size (33·5 and 47 per cent respectively) and suspicion of invasive growth (31·1 and 58 per cent). Benign lesions could be categorized as complex in 80·6 per cent for colonic and 80 per cent for rectal locations. Surgery consisted of local excision in 5·9 and 64 per cent of colonic and rectal lesions respectively, and complicated postoperative course rates were noted in 11·2 and 3 per cent. In the majority of patients, no attempt was made to resect the lesion endoscopically (77·0 per cent of colonic and 83 per cent of rectal lesions). Conclusion: The vast majority of the benign lesions referred for surgical resection could be classified as complex. Considering the substantial morbidity of surgery for benign colonic lesions, reassessment for endoscopic resection by another advanced endoscopy centre seems to be underused and should be encouraged.

Antecedentes: Se realizó un estudio de cohorte multicéntrico para analizar los motivos de la derivación quirúrgica de pacientes con lesiones colorrectales benignas y evaluar las características endoscópicas y patológicas de estas lesiones, así como los resultados quirúrgicos a corto plazo. Métodos: A partir de un registro anatomopatológico, se seleccionaron los pacientes que se sometieron a cirugía por una lesión colorrectal benigna en 15 hospitales holandeses entre enero de 2014 y diciembre de 2017. Se definió como lesión compleja aquella que presentaba, al menos, una de las siguientes características: tamaño > 40 mm, ubicación difícil según el endoscopista, fracaso previo de la resección o signo de no­elevación. Resultados: Se incluyeron 358 pacientes (322 lesiones de colon y 36 rectales). Las principales razones para la derivación quirúrgica de las lesiones de colon y recto fueron el gran tamaño (34% y 47%) y la sospecha de crecimiento invasivo (31% y 58%). Las lesiones benignas se consideraron complejas en el 81% de los casos del colon y en el 80% del recto. La cirugía consistió en una exéresis local en el 6% y el 64% y se observó una tasa de complicaciones postoperatorias del 11% y el 3% de las lesiones de colon y recto, respectivamente. En la mayoría de los casos, no se intentó la resección endoscópica de la lesión (77% en colon y 83% en recto). Conclusión: La gran mayoría de las lesiones benignas derivadas para la resección quirúrgica podrían clasificarse como complejas. Considerando la notable morbilidad de la cirugía de las lesiones benignas de colon, debería contemplarse y fomentarse la reevaluación de la resección endoscópica en un centro de endoscopia avanzada.

The rectosigmoid problem.

The lack of consensus over the transition point for the end of the sigmoid and beginning of the rectum is a problem for the colorectal multidisciplinary team. In this review, we survey the wide number of landmarks for the rectosigmoid junction, and describe the theoretical and evidence-based strengths and weaknesses of each one. Without a reliable definition of the rectum, sigmoid and rectal cancers will be classified inconsistently. As the treatment strategies for sigmoid and rectal cancers are radically different, incorrect tumour localisation has a substantial impact on patient management, leading to under or over treatment. Inconsistent classification will confound investigation of metastatic patterns and treatment outcomes. Now that the rectosigmoid junction has been recognised as a distinct segment of colon by the International Classification of Diseases, further heterogeneity in management and outcomes could result to the detriment of patients and research. We describe a bespoke, anatomical and reliable landmark for the rectosigmoid junction; the sigmoid take-off.

[Surgery for colorectal cancer since the introduction of the Netherlands national screening programmeInvestigations into changes in number of resections and waiting times for surgery]. / Darmkankerchirurgie sinds het bevolkingsonderzoek.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of the Netherlands national colorectal cancer screening programme on the number of surgical resections for colorectal carcinoma and on waiting times for surgery. DESIGN: Descriptive study. METHOD: Data were extracted from the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit. Patients with primary colorectal cancer surgery between 2011-2015 were included. The volume and median waiting times for the years 2011-2015 are described. Waiting times from first tumor positive biopsy until the operation (biopsy-operation) and first preoperative visit to the surgeon until the operation (visit-operation) are analyzed with a univariate and multivariate linear regression analysis. Separate analysis was done for visit-operation for academic and non-academic hospitals and for screening compared to non-screening patients. RESULTS: In 2014 there was an increase of 1469 (15%) patients compared to 2013. In 2015 this increase consisted of 1168 (11%) patients compared to 2014. In 2014 and 2015, 1359 (12%) and 3111 (26%) patients were referred to the surgeon through screening, respectively. The median waiting time of biopsy-operation significantly decreased (ß: 0.94, 95%BI) over the years 2014-2015 compared to 2011-2013. In non-academic hospitals, the waiting time visit-operation also decreased significantly (ß: 0.89, 95%BI 0.87-0.90) over the years 2014-2015 compared to 2011-2013. No difference was found in waiting times between patients referred to the surgeon through screening compared to non-screening. CONCLUSION: There is a clear increase in volume since the introduction of the colorectal cancer screening programme without an increase in waiting time until surgery.