Guideline-Recommended Chemoradiation for Patients With Rectal Cancer at Large Hospitals: A Trend in the Right Direction.

BACKGROUND Many patients with rectal cancer are treated at small, low-volume hospitals despite evidence that better outcomes are associated with larger, high-volume hospitals. OBJECTIVES This study aims to examine trends of patients with rectal cancer who are receiving care at large hospitals, to determine the patient characteristics associated with treatment at large hospitals, and to assess the relationships between treatment at large hospitals and guideline-recommended therapy. DESIGN This study was a retrospective cohort analysis to assess trends in rectal cancer treatment. SETTINGS Data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Patterns of Care studies were used. PATIENTS The study population consisted of adults diagnosed with stages II/III rectal cancer in 1990/1991, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was treatment at large hospitals (≥500 beds). The receipt of guideline-recommended preoperative chemoradiation therapy and postoperative chemotherapy was assessed for patients diagnosed in 2005+. RESULTS Two thousand two hundred thirty-one patients were included. The proportion treated at large hospitals increased from 19% in 1990/1991 to 27% in 2015 (ptrend < 0.0001). Black race was associated with treatment at large hospitals (vs white) (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.30-2.31), as was being 55 to 64 years of age (vs 75+), and diagnosis in 2015 (vs 1990/1991). Treatment in large hospitals was associated with twice the odds of preoperative chemoradiation, as well as younger age and diagnosis in 2010 or 2015 (vs 2005). LIMITATIONS The study did not account for the change in the number of large hospitals over time. CONCLUSIONS Results suggest that patients with rectal cancer are increasingly being treated in large hospitals where they receive more guideline-recommended therapy. Although this trend is promising, patients receiving care at larger, higher-volume facilities are still the minority. Initiatives increasing patient and provider awareness of benefits of specialized care, as well as increasing referrals to large centers may improve the use of recommended treatment and ultimately improve outcomes. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A994. QUIMIORRADIACIÓN RECOMENDADA EN GUÍAS PARA PACIENTES CON CÁNCER RECTAL EN HOSPITALES DE GRAN TAMAÑO: UNA TENDENCIA EN LA DIRECCIÓN CORRECTA: Muchos pacientes con cáncer rectal se tratan en hospitales pequeños y de bajo volumen a pesar de evidencia de que los mejores resultados se asocian con hospitales más grandes y de gran volumen. OBJETIVOS Examinar las tendencias en los pacientes con cáncer rectal que reciben atención en hospitales de gran tamaño, determinar las características de los pacientes asociadas con el tratamiento en hospitales grandes y evaluar la relación entre el tratamiento en hospitales grandes y la terapia recomendada en guías. DISEÑO:: Este estudio fue un análisis de cohorte retrospectivo para evaluar las tendencias en el tratamiento del cáncer de recto. ESCENARIO Se utilizaron datos de los estudios del programa Patrones de Atención, Vigilancia, Epidemiología y Resultados Finales (SEER) del Instituto Nacional de Cáncer (NIH). PACIENTES La población de estudio consistió en adultos diagnosticados con cáncer rectal en estadio II / III en 1990/1991, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 y 2015. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO El resultado primario fue el tratamiento en hospitales grandes (≥500 camas). La recepción de quimiorradiación preoperatoria recomendada según las guías y la quimioterapia posoperatoria se evaluaron para los pacientes diagnosticados en 2005 y posteriormente. RESULTADOS Se incluyeron 2,231 pacientes. La proporción tratada en los hospitales grandes aumentó del 19% en 1990/1991 al 27% en 2015 (ptrend < 0.0001). La raza afroamericana se asoció con el tratamiento en hospitales grandes (vs. blanca) (OR, 1.73; IC 95%, 1.30-2.31), al igual que 55-64 años de edad (vs ≥75) y diagnóstico en 2015 (vs 1990/1991). El tratamiento en los hospitales grandes se asoció con el doble de probabilidad de quimiorradiación preoperatoria, así como con una edad más temprana y diagnóstico en 2010 o 2015 (vs 2005). LIMITACIONES El estudio no tomó en cuenta el cambio en el número de hospitales grandes a lo largo del tiempo. CONCLUSIONES Los resultados sugieren que los pacientes con cáncer rectal reciben cada vez más tratamiento en hospitales grandes donde reciben terapia recomendada por las guías mas frecuentemente. Aunque esta tendencia es prometedora, los pacientes que reciben atención en hospitales más grandes y de mayor volumen siguen siendo una minoría. Las iniciativas que aumenten la concientización del paciente y del proveedor de servicios médicos sobre los beneficios de la atención especializada, así como el aumento de las referencias a centros grandes podrían mejorar el uso del tratamiento recomendado y, en última instancia, mejorar los resultados. Vea el Resumen en video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/A994.

[1]  Ahmed Kamel,et al.  Rectal Cancer, Version 2.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. , 2018, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN.

[2]  L. Temple,et al.  Is the Distance Worth It? Patients With Rectal Cancer Traveling to High-Volume Centers Experience Improved Outcomes , 2017, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[3]  A. Stiggelbout,et al.  Preferred and Perceived Participation of Younger and Older Patients in Decision Making About Treatment for Early Breast Cancer: A Prospective Study , 2017, Clinical breast cancer.

[4]  K. Phan,et al.  Systematic review and a meta-analysis of hospital and surgeon volume/outcome relationships in colorectal cancer surgery. , 2017, Journal of gastrointestinal oncology.

[5]  C. Ford,et al.  Intersection of Living in a Rural Versus Urban Area and Race/Ethnicity in Explaining Access to Health Care in the United States. , 2016, American journal of public health.

[6]  Chi Lin,et al.  Hospital Characteristics Associated with Stage II/III Rectal Cancer Guideline Concordant Care: Analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare Data , 2016, Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.

[7]  J. Monson,et al.  High volume improves outcomes: The argument for centralization of rectal cancer surgery. , 2016, Surgery.

[8]  Mary R. Kwaan,et al.  Rectal cancer: An evidence-based update for primary care providers. , 2015, World journal of gastroenterology.

[9]  J. Fleshman,et al.  Optimizing Rectal Cancer Management: Analysis of Current Evidence , 2014, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[10]  Dawid Pieper,et al.  State of evidence on the relationship between high-volume hospitals and outcomes in surgery: a systematic review of systematic reviews. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[11]  Li Wang,et al.  Rectal Cancer and Teaching Hospitals: Hospital Teaching Status Affects Use of Neoadjuvant Radiation and Survival for Rectal Cancer Patients , 2013, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[12]  G. Porter,et al.  Surgeon Knowledge Contributes to the Relationship Between Surgeon Volume and Patient Outcomes in Rectal Cancer , 2013, Annals of surgery.

[13]  J. Baek,et al.  The association of hospital volume with rectal cancer surgery outcomes , 2013, International Journal of Colorectal Disease.

[14]  H. Dickinson,et al.  Impact of surgeon volume on outcomes of rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2010, The surgeon : journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland.

[15]  P. Neary,et al.  Rectal cancer surgery: volume–outcome analysis , 2010, International Journal of Colorectal Disease.

[16]  N. Meropol,et al.  Trends in Centralization of Cancer Surgery , 2010, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[17]  B. Egleston,et al.  Centralization of cancer surgery: implications for patient access to optimal care. , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[18]  R. Sandler,et al.  The effect of hospital and surgeon volume on outcomes for rectal cancer surgery. , 2008, Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association.

[19]  S. Sonnad,et al.  National Cancer Institute Designation Predicts Improved Outcomes in Colorectal Cancer Surgery , 2008, Annals of surgery.

[20]  A. Morris,et al.  Does surgeon case volume influence nonfatal adverse outcomes after rectal cancer resection? , 2008, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[21]  D. Borowski,et al.  Impact of surgeon volume and specialization on short‐term outcomes in colorectal cancer surgery , 2007, The British journal of surgery.

[22]  Therese A. Stukel,et al.  Hospital Volume and Late Survival After Cancer Surgery , 2007, Annals of surgery.

[23]  H. Harling,et al.  Influence of caseload and surgical speciality on outcome following surgery for colorectal cancer: a review of evidence. Part 1: short‐term outcome , 2007, Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

[24]  A. Zaslavsky,et al.  Relation of Surgeon and Hospital Volume to Processes and Outcomes of Colorectal Cancer Surgery , 2006, Annals of surgery.

[25]  R. Gibberd,et al.  Surgeon and hospital volume and the management of colorectal cancer patients in Australia , 2005, ANZ journal of surgery.

[26]  R. Pietrobon,et al.  Relationship Between Surgeon Caseload and Sphincter Preservation in Patients With Rectal Cancer , 2005, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[27]  A. Zaslavsky,et al.  Relation of hospital volume to colostomy rates and survival for patients with rectal cancer. , 2003, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[28]  M. Thompson,et al.  Evidence of the effect of ‘specialization’ on the management, surgical outcome and survival from colorectal cancer in Wessex , 2003, The British journal of surgery.

[29]  C. Begg,et al.  Hospital and Surgeon Procedure Volume as Predictors of Outcome Following Rectal Cancer Resection , 2002, Annals of surgery.

[30]  H. Johansson,et al.  The surgeon as a prognostic factor after the introduction of total mesorectal excision in the treatment of rectal cancer , 2002, The British journal of surgery.

[31]  J. Birkmeyer,et al.  Hospital Volume and Surgical Mortality in the United States , 2002 .

[32]  H. Lippert,et al.  Hospital caseload and the results achieved in patients with rectal cancer , 2001, The British journal of surgery.

[33]  K. Smedh,et al.  Reduction of postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients with rectal cancer following the introduction of a colorectal unit , 2001, The British journal of surgery.

[34]  M. Choti,et al.  Hospital volume can serve as a surrogate for surgeon volume for achieving excellent outcomes in colorectal resection. , 1999, Annals of surgery.

[35]  C. Begg,et al.  Impact of hospital volume on operative mortality for major cancer surgery. , 1998, JAMA.

[36]  H. Burstein,et al.  NCCN CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES IN ONCOLOGY , 2019 .

[37]  A. Jemal,et al.  Cancer statistics, 2014 , 2014, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[38]  J. Meyerhardt,et al.  Impact of hospital procedure volume on surgical operation and long-term outcomes in high-risk curatively resected rectal cancer: findings from the Intergroup 0114 Study. , 2004, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[39]  Academic health centers: leading change in the 21st century. , 2004, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.