Volume-outcome analysis of colorectal cancer-related outcomes. Surgeon and hospital characteristics as predictors of major adverse outcomes following colon cancer surgery: understanding the volume-outcome relationship. Relation of surgeon and hospital volume to processes and outcomes of colorectal cancer surgery. Influence of volume of work on the outcome of treatment for patients with colorectal cancer. Surgical volume and long-term survival following surgery for colorectal cancer in the Veterans Affairs Health-Care System. Surgeon volume compared to hospital volume as a predictor of outcome following primary colon cancer resection. Evidence of the effect of 'specialization' on the management, surgical outcome and survival from colorectal cancer in Wessex. Surgeon and hospital volume and the management of colorectal cancer patients in Australia. Hospital volume can serve as a surrogate for surgeon volume for achieving excellent outcomes in colorectal resection. Surgeon volume does not predict outcomes in the setting of technical credentialing: results from a randomized trial in colon cancer. Curative rectal cancer surgery in a low-volume hospital: a quality assessment. Impact of surgeon volume and specialization on short-term outcomes in colorectal cancer surgery. Hospital and surgeon procedure volume as predictors of outcome following rectal cancer resection. Does it matter what a hospital is "high volume" for? Specificity of hospital volume-outcome associations for surgical procedures: analysis of administrative data. Association of hospital procedure volume and outcomes in patients with colon cancer at high risk for recurrence. A prospective randomized controlled trial of multimodal perioperative management protocol in patients undergoing elective colorectal resection for cancer. Surgical volume influences survival in patients undergoing resections for stage II colon cancers. Relation of hospital volume to colostomy rates and survival for patients with rectal cancer. Hospital volume and outcome of rectal cancer surgery in Denmark 1994-99. Variability in the quality of rectal cancer care in public hospitals in Catalonia (Spain): clinical audit as a basis for action. Influence of volume and specialization on survival following surgery for colorectal cancer. Population-based audit of colorectal cancer management in two UK health regions. Colorectal Cancer Working Group, Royal College of Surgeons of England Clinical Epidemiology and Audit Unit. Hospital volume and inpatient mortality after cancer-related gastrointestinal resections: the experience of an Asian country. Impact of hospital case volume on short-term outcome after laparoscopic operation for colonic cancer. Effect of surgeon specialty interest on patient outcome after potentially curative colorectal cancer surgery. Hospital volume and surgical outcomes for elderly patients with colorectal cancer in the United States. Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group. Influence of hospital volume on the frequency of abdominoperineal resection and long-term oncological outcomes in low rectal cancer. [Cooperative study of surgical adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer (third report): five-year results. Cooperative Study Group of Surgical Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Colorectal Cancer in Japan]. Impact of hospital case volume on the quality of laparoscopic colectomy in Japan. Influence of hospital volume on local recurrence and survival in a population sample of rectal cancer patients. Hospital procedure volume and teaching status do not influence treatment and outcome measures of rectal cancer surgery in a large general population. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. Effect of caseload on the short-term outcome of colon surgery: results of a multicenter study. Postoperative surveillance in patients with colorectal cancer who have undergone curative resection: a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. The risks of screening: data from the Nottingham randomised controlled trial of faecal occult blood screening for colorectal cancer. Randomized controlled trial of a patient decision aid for colorectal cancer screening. Randomized clinical trial assessing the effect of Doppler-optimized fluid management on outcome after elective colorectal resection. Elective resection of colon cancer by high-volume surgeons is associated with decreased morbidity and mortality. Effect of evidence based risk information on "informed choice" in colorectal cancer screening: randomised controlled trial. The influence of hospital and surgeon volume on in-hospital mortality for colectomy, gastrectomy, and lung lobectomy in patients with cancer. A randomized psychosocial intervention study on the effect of home visits on the well-being of Danish colorectal cancer patients--the INCA Project. A prospective, randomized trial comparing laparoscopic versus conventional techniques in colorectal cancer surgery: a preliminary report. Impact of care at a multidisciplinary congestive heart failure clinic: a randomized trial. Operative mortality after colorectal resection in the Netherlands. The impact of hospital volume on surgical outcome in patients with rectal cancer.
Significant associations between caseload and surgical outcomes highlight the conflict between local cancer care and the need for centralization. This study examined the effect of hospital volume on short-term outcomes and survival, adjusting for the effect of surgeon caseload.
                Between 1998 and 2002, 8219 patients with colorectal cancer were identified in a regional population-based audit. Outcomes were assessed using univariable and multivariable analysis to allow case mix adjustment. Surgeons were categorized as low (26 or fewer operations annually), medium (27-40) or high (more than 40) volume. Hospitals were categorized as low (86 or fewer), medium (87-109) or high (more than 109) volume.
                Some 7411 (90.2 per cent) of 8219 patients underwent surgery with an anastomotic leak rate of 2.9 per cent (162 of 5581), perioperative mortality rate of 8.0 per cent (591 of 7411) and 5-year survival rate of 46.8 per cent. Medium- and high-volume surgeons were associated with significantly better operative mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.74, P = 0.010 and OR 0.66, P = 0.002 respectively) and survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.88, P = 0.003 and HR 0.93, P = 0.090 respectively) than low-volume surgeons. Rectal cancer survival was significantly better in high-volume versus low-volume hospitals (HR 0.85, P = 0.036), with no difference between medium- and low-volume hospitals (HR 0.96, P = 0.505).
                This study has confirmed the relevance of minimum volume standards for individual surgeons. Organization of services in high-volume units may improve survival in patients with rectal cancer.
                Copyright 2010 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Although numerous studies have demonstrated an association between surgical volume and improved outcome in cancer surgery, the specific structures and mechanisms of care that are associated with volume and lead to improved outcomes remain poorly defined. We hypothesize that there are modifiable surgeon and hospital characteristics that explain observed volume-outcome relationships.
                Retrospective cohort study.
                Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry areas.
                Patients aged 66 years and older, diagnosed and surgically treated for stage I, II, or III colon cancer between 1992 and 1996 (n = 22 672).
                Thirty-day postoperative mortality and 30-day postoperative procedural interventions, including reoperation and image-guided percutaneous procedures.
                Surgeon volume, but not hospital volume, is a significant predictor of postoperative procedural intervention (adjusted odds ratio for very high-volume surgeons vs low-volume surgeons, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.98). In the unadjusted analyses, high hospital volume (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.81) and very high hospital volume (odds ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.79) is associated with lower postoperative mortality. Postoperative procedural intervention is not a significant mediator of the relationship between hospital volume and mortality. A single variable-the presence of sophisticated clinical services-was the most important explanatory variable underlying the relationship between hospital volume and mortality.
                Very high surgeon volume is associated with a reduction in surgical complications. However, the association between increasing hospital volume and postoperative mortality appears to derive mainly from a full spectrum of clinical services that may facilitate the prompt recognition and treatment of complications. Greater hospital volume has been associated with lower mortality after colorectal cancer surgery. The contribution of surgeon volume to processes and outcomes of care is less well understood. We assessed the relation of surgeon and hospital volume to postoperative and overall mortality, colostomy rates, and use of adjuvant radiation therapy.
                From the California Cancer Registry, we studied 28,644 patients who underwent surgical resection of stage I to III colorectal cancer during 1996 to 1999 and were followed up to 6 years after surgery to assess 30-day postoperative mortality, overall long-term mortality, permanent colostomy, and use of adjuvant radiation therapy.
                Across decreasing quartiles of hospital and surgeon volume, 30-day postoperative mortality ranged from 2.7% to 4.2% (P < 0.001). Adjusting for age, stage, comorbidity, and median income among patients with colorectal cancer who survived at least 30 days, patients in the lowest quartile of surgeon volume had a higher adjusted overall mortality rate than those in the highest quartile (hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.24), as did patients in the lowest quartile of hospital volume relative to those treated in the highest quartile (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.19). For rectal cancer, adjusted colostomy rates were significantly higher for low-volume surgeons, and the use of adjuvant radiation therapy was significantly lower for low-volume hospitals.
                Greater surgeon and hospital volumes were associated with improved outcomes for patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer. Further study of processes that led to these differences may improve the quality of colorectal cancer care. Recent recommendations for the reorganization of cancer services emphasize the importance of a 'minimal acceptable volume of work'. The influence of both hospital and surgical workload has been examined using a population-based series of patients with colorectal cancer.
                Nine hundred and twenty-seven patients with primary colorectal cancer diagnosed during the period 1 January to 30 June 1993 were identified from the North Western Regional Cancer Registry. Case notes were reviewed for information on patient age and sex, histological diagnosis, disease stage, degree of tumour differentiation, mode of admission, identity of operating surgeon, timing of operative procedure, and use of radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was then constructed to examine, simultaneously, the effects of patient-, disease- and health service-related variables on survival.
                Age, tumour stage and differentiation, and mode of admission were revealed as significant independent prognostic variables. After adjusting for these variables, neither operator grade (consultant versus junior), consultant workload nor hospital throughput were identified as independently influencing patient survival.
                The results of this study do not support an association between volume of work and patient outcome. The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between hospital surgical volume and long-term survival in patients with a new diagnosis of colorectal cancer who underwent surgical resection during fiscal years 1991-2000 in the Veterans Affairs (VA) health-care system.
                This research was a cohort study of patients admitted to all VA hospitals with a new diagnosis of colorectal cancer who underwent surgical resection between October 1990 and September 2000 and followed through September 2001. Overall 5-yr cumulative survival was calculated from Kaplan-Meier estimates, while adjusted risk of death was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model. Adjustment was made for differences in patient characteristics including comorbidity, receipt of therapy, and year of surgery.
                We identified 34,888 individuals with a new diagnosis of colorectal cancer in VA hospitals during fiscal years 1991-2000, of whom 22,633 (65%) underwent surgical resection. The majority (98.5%) were men, the mean age was 68 yr, and the two largest race/ethnic groups were whites (75%) and blacks (17%). The 5-yr cumulative survival was greater among those who received surgery in high surgical volume hospitals as defined by 25 or more procedures per year (52.1%) than among those who received surgery in low volume hospitals (48.3%). After adjusting for differences in patient characteristics, comorbidity, receipt of adjuvant therapy, and year of surgery, we found 7% and 11% increases in 5-yr survival for patients with colon and rectal cancers, respectively, who underwent surgical resection in high volume hospitals compared with those who had surgery in low volume hospitals.
                Greater hospital surgical volume is an independent predictor of prolonged long-term survival following surgery for both colon and rectal cancer in the VA health-care system. The volume-long-term mortality relationship is greater for rectal than for colon cancer patients, perhaps reflecting the fact that surgery for rectal cancer is more technically demanding. Future studies are needed to discover what aspects of clinical management explain these differences. A strong association between high hospital procedure volume and survival following colon cancer resection has been demonstrated. However, the importance of surgeon case volume as a determinant of outcome has been less well studied, and it is unclear whether hospital or surgeon volume is the more powerful predictor of outcomes.
                A retrospective population-based cohort study utilizing the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database identified 24,166 colon cancer patients aged 65 years and older who had surgery for a primary tumor diagnosed in 1991-1996 in a SEER area. Hospital and surgeon-specific procedure volume was ascertained based on the number of claims submitted over the 6-year study period. Outcome measures were mortality at 30 days and 2 years, overall survival, and the frequency of operations requiring an intestinal stoma. Age, sex, race, comorbid illness, cancer stage, socioeconomic status, emergent hospitalization, and the presence of obstruction/perforation were used to adjust for differences in case-mix.
                After adjusting for surgeon procedure volume, high hospital procedure volume remained a strong predictor of low post-operative mortality rates (P < 0.001 for each outcome with and without adjustment for surgeon procedure volume). Surgeon-specific procedure volume was also an important predictor of surgical outcomes (P = 0.002 for 30-day mortality, P = 0.001 for 2-year mortality), although this effect was attenuated after adjusting for hospital volume (P = 0.03 for 30-day mortality, P = 0.02 for 2-year mortality). Hospital volume and surgeon volume were each an important predictor of the ostomy rate. Among high volume institutions and surgeons, individual providers with unusually high ostomy rates could be identified.
                Both hospital and surgeon-specific procedure volume predict outcomes following colon cancer resection; but hospital volume may exert a stronger effect. Therefore, efforts to optimize the quality of colon cancer surgery should focus on multidisciplinary aspects of hospital care rather than solely on intraoperative technique.
                Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc. A prospective audit of the management of colorectal cancer was established to investigate factors associated with variation in survival observed within the former Wessex region (population three million).
                Some 5173 patients (4562 surgically treated) with colorectal cancer diagnosed between 1991 and 1994 were followed for 5 years. Details of referral, diagnosis, surgical treatment, postoperative complications and outcomes were collected. The association between surgical outcomes and survival and both case volume and specialization (defined to include membership of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland) was explored, accounting for variables with prognostic significance.
                There was a statistically significant association between high-volume operators (more than 50 operations per year) and specialization. The greatest benefit was observed with respect to specialists versus non-specialists, in terms of a lower postoperative mortality rate (odds ratio 0.67 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i. 0.53 to 0.84)), lower anastomotic leak rates (odds ratio 0.46 (c.i. 0.31 to 0.66)), higher local recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio 0.56 (0.44 to 0.71)) and better long-term survival (hazard ratio 0.76 (c.i. 0.71 to 0.83)).
                There is a stronger association between surgical specialization in coloproctology and beneficial outcome than with high-volume caseloads. This is not entirely accounted for by case-mix or patient population, and is seen following colonic and rectal surgery and among patients with advanced disease.
                Copyright 2003 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. The evidence for a relationship between patient outcomes and clinician and hospital volume is increasing. The National Colorectal Cancer Care Survey was undertaken to determine the management patterns in Australia for individuals newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer in a 3 month period in the year 2000.
                All new cases of colorectal cancer registered at each Australian State Cancer Registry were entered into the survey. This generated a questionnaire that was sent to the treating surgeon. Chi-squared tests and logistic regression analyses were used to determine levels of statistical significance.
                Of 2,383 surgical questionnaires generated, 2,015 (85%) were completed. The majority (58%) of surgeons treated one or two patients with colorectal cancer over the 3 months of the survey. There was variation across surgeon cohorts for preoperative measures including the use of deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis. Patients seen by low volume surgeons were most likely to be given a permanent stoma (P < 0.0001). Patients with rectal cancer who were operated on by high volume surgeons were significantly more likely to receive a colonic pouch (P < 0.0001).
                This nationwide population-based survey of the treatment of colorectal cancer patients suggests that the delivery of care by surgeons (the majority) who treat patients with rectal cancer infrequently should be evaluated. To examine the association of surgeon and hospital case volumes with the short-term outcomes of in-hospital death, total hospital charges, and length of stay for resection of colorectal carcinoma.
                The study design was a cross-sectional analysis of all adult patients who underwent resection for colorectal cancer using Maryland state discharge data from 1992 to 1996. Cases were divided into three groups based on annual surgeon case volume--low (< or =5), medium (5 to 10), and high (>10)--and hospital volume--low (<40), medium (40 to 70), and high (> or =70). Poisson and multiple linear regression analyses were used to identify differences in outcomes among volume groups while adjusting for variations in type of resections performed, cancer stage, patient comorbidities, urgency of admission, and patient demographic variables.
                During the 5-year period, 9739 resections were performed by 812 surgeons at 50 hospitals. The majority of surgeons (81%) and hospitals (58%) were in the low-volume group. The low-volume surgeons operated on 3461 of the 9739 total patients (36%) at an average rate of 1.8 cases per year. Higher surgeon volume was associated with significant improvement in all three outcomes (in-hospital death, length of stay, and cost). Medium-volume surgeons achieved results equivalent to high-volume surgeons when they operated in high- or medium-volume hospitals.
                A skewed distribution of case volumes by surgeon was found in this study of patients who underwent resection for large bowel cancer in Maryland. The majority of these surgeons performed very few operations for colorectal cancer per year, whereas a minority performed >10 cases per year. Medium-volume surgeons achieved excellent outcomes similar to high-volume surgeons when operating in medium-volume or high-volume hospitals, but not in low-volume hospitals. The results of low-volume surgeons improved with increasing hospital volume but never equaled those of the high-volume surgeons. To test the hypothesis that surgeon volume would not predict short- and long-term outcomes when evaluated in the setting of technical credentialing.
                Surgical volume is a known predictor of outcomes; the importance of technical credentialing has not been evaluated.
                Fifty-three credentialed surgeons operated on 871 patients in the Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study (NCT00002575), investigating laparoscopic versus open surgery for colon cancer. Credentialing required that each surgeon document performance of at least 20 laparoscopic colon cases and demonstrate oncologic techniques on a video-recorded case. Surgeons were separated based on volume entered into the trial (low, < or =5 cases (n = 39); medium, 6-10 cases (n = 9); or high, >10 cases (n = 5)) and compared by outcomes.
                Patients treated by high volume compared with medium or low volume surgeons were older (70, 66, and 68 years; P < 0.001), more often had right-sided tumors (63%, 46%, and 53%; P < 0.001) and had more previous operations (48%, 38% and 45%; P < 0.004), respectively. Mean operative times were shorter (123, 147 and 145 minutes; P < 0.001), distal margins longer (13.4, 12.4 and 11.6 cm; P = 0.005), and lymph node harvest greater (14.8, 12.8, 12.6; P = 0.05) for high versus medium versus low volume surgeons. However, rates of conversion, complications, 5-year survival, and disease-free survival showed no significant differences.
                When tested in a randomized controlled trial with case-specific surgical technical credentialing and auditing, surgeon volume did not predict differences in rates of conversion, complications, or long-term cancer outcomes. Case-specific technical credentialing should be further studied specific to the role it could play in creating consistent, high quality outcomes. Hospital volume or caseload is often used as a surrogate measure for quality of care in rectal cancer treatment. The aim of this study was to assess outcome in a low-volume hospital and secondly to examine the impact of surgeon volume on the results.
                A retrospective review of 131 patients' charts identified 102 patients receiving apparently curative resections for rectal cancer in the period 1993-2002. Our study population did not differ significantly from the national average except for shift towards more advanced Dukes stage (p=0.00) and a higher rate of node positive patients at time of diagnosis (p=0.00).
                There were no significant differences from the national outcome results, neither in perioperative mortality or complications, nor 5-year survival or local recurrences. Thirteen different on-staff surgeons performed rectal cancer surgery in our hospital in the decade, and median annual caseload was four. We detect a difference in 5-year survival when grouping the surgeons by annual caseload, but the significance is inconclusive. It is, however, interesting that in 85% of the resections, two or more certified gastrointestinal surgeons with specific training were involved. A relatively high number (9%) of discrepancies between the Norwegian Rectal Cancer Registry (NRCR) database and the local hospital database were identified.
                Adequate results for surgical outcome can be achieved in a low-volume hospital. Surgeon volume showed inconclusive impact for our results of outcome. A local quality initiative is justified in addition to national registries. Several studies have shown a relationship between surgeon volume and outcomes in colorectal cancer surgery. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of surgeon volume and specialization on primary tumour resection rate, restoration of bowel continuity following rectal cancer resection, anastomotic leakage and perioperative mortality.
                The Northern Region Colorectal Cancer Audit Group conducts a population-based audit of patients with colorectal cancer managed by surgeons. This study examined 8219 patients treated between 1998 and 2002. Outcomes were modelled using multivariate logistic regression analysis.
                Tumour resection was performed in 6949 (93.8 per cent) of 7411 patients. High-volume surgeons with an annual caseload of at least 18.5 (odds ratio (OR) 1.53 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 1.10 to 2.12); P = 0.012) and colorectal specialists (OR 1.42 (95 per cent c.i. 1.06 to 1.90); P = 0.018) were more likely to perform elective sphincter-saving rectal surgery. In elective surgery, the risk of perioperative death was lower for high-volume surgeons (OR 0.58 (95 per cent c.i. 0.44 to 0.76); P < 0.001), but this was not the case in emergency surgery.
                High-volume surgeons had lower perioperative mortality rates for elective surgery, and were more likely to use restorative rectal procedures.
                Copyright (c) 2007 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. To compare surgeon and hospital procedure volume as predictors of outcomes for patients with rectal cancer.
                Although a "volume-outcome" relationship exists for several major cancer operations, the impact of procedure volume on outcomes following rectal cancer surgery remains uncertain, and it has not been determined whether hospital or surgeon volume is a more important predictor of outcomes.
                A retrospective population-based cohort study utilizing the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database identified 2,815 rectal cancer patients aged 65 and older who had surgery for a primary tumor diagnosed in 1992-1996 in a SEER area. Hospital- and surgeon-specific procedure volume was ascertained based on the number of claims submitted over the 5-year study period. Outcome measures were mortality at 30 days and 2 years, overall survival, and the rate of abdominoperineal resections. Age, sex, race, comorbid illness, cancer stage, and socioeconomic status were used to adjust for differences in case mix.
                Neither hospital- nor surgeon-specific procedure volume was significantly associated with 30-day postoperative mortality or rates of rectal sphincter-sparing operations. Although an association between hospital volume and mortality at 2 years was evident, this finding was no longer significant once surgeon-specific volume was controlled for. In contrast, surgeon-specific volume was associated with 2-year mortality and remained an important predictor even after adjustment for hospital volume. Surgeon volume was also better than hospital procedure volume at predicting long-term survival.
                Surgeon-specific experience as measured by procedure volume can have a significant impact on survival for patients with rectal cancer. To determine whether the improved outcome of a surgical procedure in high volume hospitals is specific to the volume of the same procedure.
                Analysis of secondary data in Ontario, Canada.
                Patients having an oesophagectomy, colorectal resection for cancer, pancreaticoduodenectomy, major lung resection for cancer, or repair of an unruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm between 1994 and 1999.
                Odds ratio for death within 30 days of surgery in relation to the hospital volume of the same surgical procedure and the hospital volume of the other four procedures. Estimates were adjusted for age, sex, and comorbidity and accounted for hospital level clustering.
                With the exception of colorectal resection, 30 day mortality seemed to be inversely related not only to the hospital volume of the same procedure but also to the hospital volume of most of the other procedures. In some cases the effect of the volume of a different procedure was stronger than the effect of the volume of the same procedure. For example, the association of mortality from pancreaticoduodenectomy with hospital volume of lung resection (odds ratio for death in hospitals with a high volume of lung resection compared with low volume 0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.23 to 0.57) was much stronger than the association of mortality from pancreaticoduodenectomy with hospital volume of pancreaticoduodenectomy (0.76, 0.44 to 1.32).
                The inverse association between high volume of procedure and risk of operative death is not specific to the volume of the procedure being studied. Studies that use registry data have demonstrated superior long-term overall survival after curative surgical resection of colon cancer at hospitals where the volume of such surgeries is high. However, because such administrative data lack information on cancer recurrence, the true nature of this relation remains uncertain.
                To determine whether hospital procedure volume predicts long-term outcomes of colon cancer surgery.
                Nested cohort study within a randomized clinical trial.
                Intergroup 0089 national adjuvant colon cancer study conducted between 1988 and 1992.
                3161 patients with high-risk stage II and stage III colon cancer.
                Overall survival and recurrence-free survival, by hospital procedure volume as defined by Medicare claims data.
                With a median follow-up of 9.4 years, 5-year overall survival significantly differed across tertiles of hospital procedure volume (63.8% for patients who had resection at low-volume hospitals compared with 67.3% at high-volume hospitals; P = 0.04). After adjustment for other predictors of colon cancer outcome, the hazard ratio for overall mortality in patients treated at low-volume centers was 1.16 (95% CI, 1.03 to 1.32). However, the risk for cancer recurrence was not associated with hospital procedure volume. Five-year recurrence-free survival was 63.9% for patients who had resection at low-volume hospitals compared with 63.0% at high-volume hospitals (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03 [CI, 0.89 to 1.18]). These findings did not materially change after stratification by other potential demographic and clinical predictors of outcome.
                According to prospectively recorded data from a large clinical trial, patients whose colon cancer was resected at low-volume hospitals experienced a higher risk for long-term mortality; however, this increased mortality was not attributable to differences in colon cancer recurrences. A prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) of multimodal perioperative management protocol in patients undergoing elective colorectal resection for cancer.
                This study evaluates the use of a multimodal package in colorectal cancer surgery in the context of an RCT.
                Patients for elective resection for colorectal cancer were offered trial entry. Participants were stratified by sex and requirement for a total mesorectal excision and centrally randomized. Multimodal patients received intravenous fluid restriction, unrestricted oral intake with prokinetic agents, early ambulation, and fixed regimen epidural analgesia. Control patients received intravenous fluids to prevent oliguria, restricted oral intake until return of bowel motility, and weaning regimen epidural analgesia. Adherence to both regimens was reinforced using a daily checklist and protocol guidance sheets. Discharge decision was made using pre-agreed criteria. The primary endpoint was postoperative stay, and achievement of independence milestones. Secondary endpoints were postoperative complications, readmission rates, and mortality. Analysis was by intention to treat.
                Seventy patients were recruited. Approximately one fourth underwent TME. Median ages were similar (69.3 vs. 73.0 years). The median stay was significantly reduced in the multimodal group (5 vs. 7 days; P < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test). Patients in the control arm were 2.5 times as likely to require a postoperative stay of more than 5 days. Patients in the multimodal group had less cardiorespiratory and anastomotic complications but more readmissions. There were 2 deaths, both controls.
                This RCT provides level 1b evidence that a multimodal management protocol can significantly reduce postoperative stay following colorectal cancer surgery. Morbidity and mortality are not increased. There is current interest in the correlation between surgical volume and outcomes. Survival in patients with rectal cancer appears to improve when carried out by surgeons who do high volumes of procedures. A similar correlation for patients with colon cancer has never been clearly established. The aim of this study was to determine whether surgical volume was an independent predictor for survival in patients undergoing surgery for stage II colon cancer.
                Population-based findings were collected from all patients diagnosed with stage II colon cancer in Western Australia between 1993 and 2003. The Kaplan-Meier product limit estimate of survival was used to calculate overall and cancer-specific survival. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to define the correlation between a number of covariates and survival. The results are recorded as hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
                From 1993 to 2003, 1467 patients underwent resections for stage II colon cancers. Significant independent predictors for overall survival were surgeon carrying out more than 25 procedures (P = 0.0001, HR 0.657, 95%CI 0.532-0.811), surgery in a private hospital (P = 0.0001, HR 0.487, 95%CI 0.400-0.594), use of chemotherapy (P = 0.001, HR 0.664, 95%CI 0.496-0.837), age at diagnosis (P = 0.0001, HR 1.014, 95%CI 1.027-1.044) and T staging and vascular invasion (T4 and vascular positive P = 0.001, HR 1.850, 95%CI 1.294-2.645).
                Surgical volume was a significant independent predictor for survival in patients undergoing resections for stage II colon cancers. Surgeons carrying out only 25 procedures over a 10-year period outperformed surgeons doing fewer cases. Postoperative mortality after some types of cancer surgery is inversely related to the number of operations performed at a hospital (i.e., hospital volume). This study assessed the association of hospital volume with colostomy rates and survival for patients with rectal cancer in a large representative cohort identified from the California Cancer Registry.
                We identified 7257 patients diagnosed from January 1, 1994, through December 31, 1997, with stage I-III rectal cancer who underwent surgical resection. Registry data were linked to hospital discharge abstracts and ZIP-code-level data from the 1990 U.S. Census. Associations of hospital volume with permanent colostomy and 30-day mortality were assessed with the Mantel-Haenszel trend test and logistic regression. Overall survival was examined with the Kaplan-Meier method and a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. Multivariable analyses adjusted for demographic and clinical variables and patient clustering within hospitals. All tests of statistical significance were two-sided.
                In unadjusted analyses across decreasing quartiles of hospital volume, we observed statistically significant increases in colostomy rates (29.5%, 31.8%, 35.2%, and 36.6%; P<.001) and in 30-day postoperative mortality (1.6%, 1.6%, 2.9%, and 4.8%; P<.001) and a decrease in 2-year survival (83.7%, 83.2%, 80.9%, and 76.6%; P<.001). The adjusted risks of permanent colostomy (odds ratio [OR] = 1.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.10 to 1.70), 30-day mortality (OR = 2.64, 95% CI = 1.41 to 4.93), and 2-year mortality (hazard ratio = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.15 to 1.44) were greater for patients at hospitals in the lowest volume quartile than for patients at hospitals in the highest volume quartile. Stratification by tumor stage and comorbidity index did not appreciably affect the results. Adjusted colostomy rates varied statistically significantly (P<.001) among individual hospitals independent of volume.
                Rectal cancer patients who underwent surgery at high-volume hospitals were less likely to have a permanent colostomy and had better survival rates than those treated in low-volume hospitals. Identifying processes of care that contribute to these differences may improve patients' outcomes in all hospitals. The association between hospital volumen and outcome of major cancer surgery is being debated at present. We analysed the outcome of rectal cancer surgery in Denmark during the period 1994-99.
                All patients with a first-time rectal cancer were registered in a national database during the 5-year period. In this observational cohort study, the influence of hospital case volume on resectional procedure, complications, 30-day mortality and 5-year mortality was analysed.
                The register comprised 5021 patients. Surgery was performed in 27 hospitals with <15 operations per year, 15 hospitals with 15-30 operations per year and 11 hospitals with >30 operations per year. In a multivariate model, the risk of permanent colostomy was significantly increased in the group of low-volume hospitals. On the contrary, volume did not influence the risk of anastomotic leakage, 30-day mortality and 5-year mortality. However, a large variation in 5-year mortality was observed particularly within the low-volume group of hospitals.
                In this study, only risk of having a permanent colostomy during surgery for rectal cancer was significantly related to hospital case volume. When individual hospitals were analysed, a large variation in 5-year mortality was observed within the low-volume group of hospitals. Clinical practice guidelines in cancer are a relevant component of Catalonian Cancer Strategy aimed at promoting equity of access to therapy and quality of cancer care. The colorectal cancer (CRC) guideline was first published in 2003 and subsequently updated in 2008. This study examined the quality of therapy administered to patients with rectal cancer in public hospitals in Catalonia (Spain) in 2005 and 2007, according to CRC guideline recommendations.
                We conducted a multicentre retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent curative-intent surgery for primary rectal cancer at Catalonian public hospitals in 2005 and 2007. Data were drawn from clinical records.
                The study covered 1831 patients with rectal cancer. Performance of total mesorectal excision (TME) was poorly reported by surgeons (46.4%) and pathologists (36.2%). Pre-operative radiotherapy was performed on 52% of stage-II and -III patients. Compared to high-caseload hospitals, those with a low caseload (≤11 cases/year) registered more Hartman's procedures, worse TME quality, a higher rate of post-operative complications and lower adherence to recommended pre-operative radio-chemotherapy.
                Reporting quality of care is essential for ascertaining current performance status and opportunities for improvement. In our case, there is a need for the quality of the information included in clinical records to be improved, and variability in adherence to guideline recommendations to be reduced. In view of the fact that heterogeneity in the quality of the health care process was linked to hospital caseload, the health authorities have decided to reorganise the provision of rectal cancer care.
                Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Previous studies have shown that significant surgeon-related differences in survival exist following surgery for colorectal cancer. It is not clear whether these differences were due to differences in caseload or degree of specialization.
                Outcome in 3200 patients who underwent resection for colorectal cancer between 1991 and 1994 was analysed on the basis of caseload and degree of specialization of individual surgeons. Five-year survival rates, and the corresponding hazard ratios adjusted for case mix, were calculated.
                Cancer-specific survival rate at 5 years following curative resection varied among surgeons from 53.4 to 84.6 per cent; the adjusted hazard ratios varied from 0.48 to 1.55. Cancer-specific survival rate at 5 years following curative resection was 70.2, 62.0 and 65.9 per cent for surgeons with a high, medium and low case volume respectively. There were no consistent differences in the adjusted hazard ratios by volume. Cancer-specific survival rate at 5 years following curative resection was 72.7 per cent for those treated by specialists and 63.8 per cent for those treated by non-specialists; the adjusted hazard ratio for non-specialists was 1.35 (95 per cent confidence interval 1.13 to 1.62; P = 0.001).
                The differences in outcome following apparently curative resection for colorectal cancer among surgeons appear to reflect the degree of specialization rather than case volume. It is likely that increased specialization will lead to further improvements in survival.
                Copyright 2004 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. To obtain information on the contemporary management of colorectal cancer in the UK to assist in the development of management guidelines, an independent, 1-year population audit was carried out in Trent Region and Wales.
                Data were collected on all patients admitted to hospital with a new diagnosis of colorectal cancer in a 1-year period.
                Of 3520 patients, 3221 (91.5 per cent) had surgery. Emergency/urgent operations were carried out as the first procedure in 552 (17.1 per cent). Resection of the primary disease was achieved in 2859 (81.2 per cent) and this was deemed curative in 2070 (58.8 per cent). Twenty-one per cent of all patients had metastatic disease at presentation. Overall, 30-day operative mortality was 7.6 per cent (21.7 per cent for emergency/urgent and 5.5 per cent for scheduled/elective procedures). Anastomotic dehiscence occurred in 105 patients (4.9 per cent); this was 3.9 per cent after colonic resections and 7.9 per cent after anterior rectal resections. Elective rectal excision resulted in a permanent stoma in 486 of 1054 patients (46 per cent).
                This initial report from a comprehensive, independent audit of colorectal cancer management shows improvement in some aspects of treatment as evidenced by improved anastomotic dehiscence and stoma rates when compared with previous studies. However, there has been little improvement in the proportion of patients presenting with advanced disease, and curative resection rates remain low. Using 4-year nationwide population-based data for Taiwan, this study compared in-hospital surgical mortality rates with hospital volume for five cancer-related gastrointestinal resections.
                The study sample was drawn from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. A total of 34,715 patients, each of whom had undergone a cancer-related colectomy, gastrectomy, esophagectomy, pancreatic resection, or liver lobectomy between 2000 and 2003, were selected as the study sample. The outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. The study sample was categorized into five patient groups for each procedure, and logistic regression analyses were performed for each procedure after adjustment for hospital and patient characteristics to assess the independent association between hospital volume and in-hospital mortality.
                The adjusted odds ratios showed a steady decline in mortality rates for colectomy, gastrectomy, esophagectomy, and liver lobectomy with increasing hospital volume. The adjusted mortality odds for these four procedures in very-high-volume hospitals, relative to very-low-volume hospitals, ranged from .65 to .05. As regards pancreatic resection, after adjustment for patient, clinical, and hospital factors, no statistically significant association was discernible between hospital volume and the likelihood of mortality.
                After adjustment for hospital and physician characteristics, in four of the five procedures, patients treated at higher-volume hospitals had lower in-hospital mortality rates than those treated at lower-volume hospitals. Our findings confirm, for the most part, the hypothesis that better outcomes are associated with higher-volume hospitals. High hospital case volume has been associated with improved outcome after open operation for colorectal malignancies.
                To assess the impact of hospital case volume on short-term outcome after laparoscopic operation for colon cancer, we conducted an analysis of patients who underwent laparoscopic colon resection within the COlon Cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR) trial.
                A total of 536 patients with adenocarcinoma of the colon were included in the analysis. Median operating time was 240, 210 and 188 min in centers with low, medium, and high case volumes, respectively (p < 0.001). A significant difference in conversion rate was observed among low, medium, and high case volume hospitals (24% vs 24% vs 9%; p < 0.001). A higher number of lymph nodes were harvested at high case volume hospitals (p < 0.001). After operation, fewer complications (p = 0.006) and a shorter hospital stay (p < 0.001) were observed in patients treated at hospitals with high caseloads.
                Laparoscopic operation for colon cancer at hospitals with high caseloads appears to be associated with improved short-term results. There are significant differences in patient outcome after potentially curative surgery for colorectal cancer that relate to the surgeon performing the procedure. The reasons for these differences remain obscure. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of the surgeon's specialty on patient outcome after potentially curative colorectal cancer surgery and to identify factors that may help explain differences in outcome among specialty groups.
                Between 1990 and 1993, 378 patients underwent potentially curative surgery for colorectal cancer by surgeons with different specialty interests, vascular or transplant, general, and colorectal surgeons, in a large teaching hospital. Information on operative details, including the length of the resection specimen, resection margins, whether the tumor was removed with en bloc resection of adjacent clinically involved organs, number of lymph nodes removed, and stage was collected. Factors affecting both local and overall recurrence rates were analyzed using logistic regression analysis at both univariate and multivariate levels.
                At a median follow-up of 45 months the only factors associated with a significantly reduced local recurrence rate were the length of the resection specimen (odds ratio, 0.56; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.31-0.99) and colorectal specialty (P = 0.04). Patients operated on by a general surgeon were 3.42 times (95 percent confidence interval, 1.32-8.9) more likely to develop a local recurrence than those operated on by a colorectal surgeon. For overall recurrence, early stage disease (P < 0.0001), absence of vascular invasion (0.005), and colorectal specialty (0.025) were the only factors associated with significantly improved outcome at multivariate analysis.
                These data show that surgeons with an interest in colorectal cancer achieve lower local and overall recurrence rates compared with vascular or transplant or general surgeons. Differences in local recurrence rates seem to be predominantly related to the extent of resection performed and demonstrate the need to remove an adequate specimen when performing potentially curative colorectal cancer surgery. Recent emphasis has been placed on the quality of surgical care in the United States. As such, patients, providers, and payers are increasingly aware of the outcomes of surgical care as a marker of quality. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of hospital volume on mortality for patients of different age groups to determine whether elderly patients would derive more benefit from selective referral policies.
                Data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample for all patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer during 1997 were obtained (N = 20,862). Differences in mortality associated with increasing age and hospital volume quartiles were determined. Risk-adjusted analyses of mortality were performed using multiple logistic regression.
                The overall mortality rate was 3.1% for the 842 hospitals included. Patient age breakdown was the following: age <50, 7%; age 50 to 64, 19%; age 65 to 80, 51%; and age >80, 22%. Increasing age was associated with higher mortality rates: age <50, 0.8%; age 51 to 65, 1.3%; age 66 to 80, 2.9%; and >80, 6.9%. Overall, the highest volume hospitals (HVH) (>150/year) had lower mortality than the lowest volume hospitals (LVH) (<55/year) (2.5% vs. 3.7%; P = 0.006). However, the effect of volume on mortality was primarily due to differences in older patients. For patients greater than 65 years old, the mortality rate was 3.1% at HVH and 4.5% at LVH (P = 0.03). For patients greater than 80 years old, the mortality rate was 4.6% at HVH and 7.3% at LVH (P = 0.04). The results were unchanged after adjustment for patient demographics, comorbid disease, site of cancer, and type of resection.
                The majority of deaths after surgery for colorectal cancer occur in older patients. Hospitals that perform higher volumes of colorectal resection have lower mortality rates, especially for older patients. In the absence of other information about the quality of surgical care, provider volumes are a useful marker of postoperative outcomes for older patients in need of surgery for colorectal cancer. The aim of the current study is to report the long-term outcomes after laparoscopic-assisted surgery compared with conventional open surgery within the context of the UK MRC CLASICC trial. Results from randomized trials have indicated that laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer is as effective as open surgery in the short term. Few data are available on rectal cancer, and long-term data on survival and recurrence are now required.
                The United Kingdom Medical Research Council Conventional versus Laparoscopic-Assisted Surgery in Colorectal Cancer (UK MRC CLASICC; clinical trials number ISRCTN 74883561) trial study comparing conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with cancer of the colon and rectum. The randomization ratio was 2:1 in favor of laparoscopic surgery. Long-term outcomes (3-year overall survival [OS], disease-free survival [DFS], local recurrence, and quality of life [QoL]) have now been determined on an intention-to-treat basis.
                Seven hundred ninety-four patients were recruited (526 laparoscopic and 268 open). Overall, there were no differences in the long-term outcomes. The differences in survival rates were OS of 1.8% (95% CI, -5.2% to 8.8%; P = .55), DFS of -1.4% (95% CI, -9.5% to 6.7%; P = .70), local recurrence of -0.8% (95% CI, -5.7% to 4.2%; P = .76), and QoL (P > .01 for all scales). Higher positivity of the circumferential resection margin was reported after laparoscopic anterior resection (AR), but it did not translate into an increased incidence of local recurrence.
                Successful laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colon cancer is as effective as open surgery in terms of oncological outcomes and preservation of QoL. Long-term outcomes for patients with rectal cancer were similar in those undergoing abdominoperineal resection and AR, and support the continued use of laparoscopic surgery in these patients. Studies analysing the outcome after resection of low rectal cancer that has not infiltrated the anal sphincter reveal poorer long-term outcomes after abdominoperineal resections (APR) in comparison with low anterior resections (LAR). Further, a relationship between the frequency of APR and LAR for low rectal cancer and hospital volume is known. Our aim was to investigate the independent impact of hospital volume and type of resection on oncological outcomes after resection of low rectal cancer.
                In a prospective multi-centre observational study of 1557 patients with low rectal cancer undergoing LAR or APR, the long-term oncological outcomes were analysed for their dependence on hospital volume and type of procedure.
                Univariate analysis revealed that patients undergoing APR had a higher local recurrence rate (p = 0.022) and shorter disease-free survival (p < 0.001) than patients undergoing LAR, while hospital volume showed merely a tendency to impact the local recurrence rate (p = 0.060). With regard to disease-free survival, no dependence on hospital volume was to be found (p = 0.201). The rate of APR was significantly associated with hospital volume (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed an independent impact of hospital volume on local recurrence rate, while disease-free survival was influenced by the type of surgical procedure performed.
                In the surgical treatment of low rectal cancer the hospital volume has a major impact on outcome. The type of procedure does not affect the local recurrence rate but the disease free survival. A randomized controlled study was carried out by the envelope method with 491 institutions in participation across the country in order to find an optimal surgical adjuvant chemotherapy for curatively resected colorectal cancer. The schedules for drug administration were different in four districts: ACNU + Futraful (FT) group and FT alone group in the Hokkaido-Shikoku district; the same schedule groups plus untreated group in the Chubu-Kinki district; MMC+FT group, FT alone group in the Tohoku-Kanto district; and ADM+FT group and FT alone group in the Chugoku-Kyushu district. The numbers of patients admitted to this study were 2,450 cases with colon cancer and 2,456 cases met the evaluation criteria of this study. The 5-year survival rate on the whole did not differ from combination therapy to single drug therapy in either colon cancer or rectal cancer, but in Dukes C rectal cancer the five-year survival rate tended to be higher with the combination therapies. In n2 (+) or a2(s) rectal cancer in particular, combination therapies with MMC and FT and with ADM and FT achieved significantly higher five-year survival rate, and the rate of local recurrence was significantly lower with ADM+FT. The increased use of laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer requires the evaluation of hospital case volume, quality care, and training systems, considering the difficulty of this surgery for various tumor locations.
                We assessed the quality of this procedure in Japan, based on hospital case volume and tumor location. A total of 3,765 patients were enrolled across 567 hospitals between July and December 2007. We analyzed patient characteristics, postoperative surgical complications, the administration of stapling devices or chemotherapy, hospital volume and teaching status, postoperative length of stay, total charges, and operating room time. Hospitals were classified into four case-volume categories: high (> or =5 cases per month), intermediate to high (3-4), low to intermediate (1-2), and low (<1). Multivariate analysis was used to test the impact of hospital category and tumor location.
                Ten high-volume hospitals performed 401 cases, while 355 low-volume hospitals did 903. Hospital case volume, operating time, and complications affected postoperative stay and total costs. Longer procedural time was an independent predictor of complications. Tumor location, case volume, and teaching status explained the variations in procedural time individually but not complications. Training systems highlighting the applicability of techniques are important to promote the quality of laparoscopic colectomy. To investigate the role of hospital volume and individual hospitals on long term outcomes (local recurrence and survival) of rectal cancer patients.
                One thousand thirty-eight patients with rectal cancer were diagnosed between 1996 and 1998. From these, we analysed 884 patients with a resected invasive primary rectal cancer. Median follow-up was 5.7 years. The impact of hospital volume (<10, 10-30 and >30 rectal cancer patients annually) on local recurrence and survival was examined in a Cox model. Differences between the four largest clinics in the high volume group were also investigated.
                In the multivariate model predicting survival the following variables were significant: UICC stage, grade, age, local recurrence, and (neo-) adjuvant therapy treatment. In the multivariate model predicting local recurrence UICC stage, tumour localisation, and neoadjuvant therapy treatment were significant variables. Hospital volume was not a significant factor for survival or local recurrence. Within the high volume category one hospital showed significantly worse local recurrence rates than all other hospitals, but no survival difference could be seen between the four largest hospitals of the high volume group.
                This analysis of a rectal cancer population found that hospital volume did not determine survival or local recurrence. Detailed clinical data with long term follow-up from cancer registries are vital to demonstrate the quality of routine care. A clear benefit of increased hospital procedure volume or teaching hospital status on outcomes of rectal cancer surgery has yet to be shown. Few have examined treatment differences that may lead to varying outcomes. This study assessed the impact of hospital procedure volume and teaching status on both treatment and outcome measures of rectal cancer surgery in a large general population. Data were obtained for 1072 incident cases of rectal adenocarcinoma diagnosed in 1990 from Ontario, Canada, and treated with a major resection. Hospitals were classified by teaching status and procedure volume. Pathology reports were examined for 418 procedures. Abdominoperineal resections accounted for 31.0% of all procedures. There were no clinically significant differences in treatment measures, operative mortality, and long-term survival among the hospital groups according to both univariate and multivariate analyses. In conclusion, the absence of a hospital volume or teaching status effect on treatment and outcome measures suggests that for rectal cancer surgery in Ontario, centralization of procedures into high-volume or teaching centers is unlikely to improve surgical quality. Although numerous studies suggest that there is an inverse relation between hospital volume of surgical procedures and surgical mortality, the relative importance of hospital volume in various surgical procedures is disputed.
                Using information from the national Medicare claims data base and the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, we examined the mortality associated with six different types of cardiovascular procedures and eight types of major cancer resections between 1994 and 1999 (total number of procedures, 2.5 million). Regression techniques were used to describe relations between hospital volume (total number of procedures performed per year) and mortality (in-hospital or within 30 days), with adjustment for characteristics of the patients.
                Mortality decreased as volume increased for all 14 types of procedures, but the relative importance of volume varied markedly according to the type of procedure. Absolute differences in adjusted mortality rates between very-low-volume hospitals and very-high-volume hospitals ranged from over 12 percent (for pancreatic resection, 16.3 percent vs. 3.8 percent) to only 0.2 percent (for carotid endarterectomy, 1.7 percent vs. 1.5 percent). The absolute differences in adjusted mortality rates between very-low-volume hospitals and very-high-volume hospitals were greater than 5 percent for esophagectomy and pneumonectomy, 2 to 5 percent for gastrectomy, cystectomy, repair of a nonruptured abdominal aneurysm, and replacement of an aortic or mitral valve, and less than 2 percent for coronary-artery bypass grafting, lower-extremity bypass, colectomy, lobectomy, and nephrectomy.
                In the absence of other information about the quality of surgery at the hospitals near them, Medicare patients undergoing selected cardiovascular or cancer procedures can significantly reduce their risk of operative death by selecting a high-volume hospital. This prospective multicenter study investigated the effect of hospital caseload on early postoperative outcome of surgery for carcinoma of the colon in 75 German hospitals and included 2293 patients. The hospitals were divided into those with a caseload of 1-30 (group A), 31-60 (group B), and more than 60 (group C) operations. Increasing caseload was associated only with fewer general postoperative complications. It was also associated with significantly greater use of antibiotic prophylaxis. No significant differences between the groups were found in resection rates, intraoperative complications, specific postoperative complications, overall postoperative morbidity, hospital mortality, or 30-day mortality. The significance of hospital caseload for the short-term postoperative outcome following surgery on the colon should not be overestimated. Basing conclusions about the results to be expected simply on the case volume is impermissible. On the basis of the available data it is not possible to establish a threshold value, that is, a minimum number of required operations. Although systematic postoperative surveillance of patients with colorectal cancer has been demonstrated to improve survival, it remains unknown whether a more intensive strategy provides any significant advantage. This prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial was aimed at comparing the efficacy of two different surveillance strategies in terms of both survival and recurrence resectability.
                Patients with stage II or III colorectal cancer were allocated randomly to either a simple surveillance strategy including clinical evaluation and serum carcinoembryonic antigen monitoring, or an intensive strategy in which abdominal computed tomography or ultrasonography, chest radiograph, and colonoscopy were added.
                A total of 259 patients were included: 132 were observed according to the simple strategy and 127 were observed according to the intensive strategy. Both groups were similar with respect to baseline characteristics and rate and type of tumor recurrence. After a median follow-up of 48 months, there was no difference in the probability of overall survival in the whole series (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.54; P = .62). However, the intensive strategy was associated with higher overall survival in patients with stage II tumors (HR = 0.34; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.98; P = .045) and in those with rectal lesions (HR = 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.81; P = .03), mainly due to higher rate of resectability for recurrent tumors. Colonoscopy was responsible for the detection of the highest proportion (44%) of resectable tumor recurrence in the intensive arm.
                A more intensive surveillance strategy improves the prognosis of patients with stage II colorectal cancer or those with rectal tumors. Inclusion of regular performance of colonoscopy seems justified up to the fifth year of follow-up, at least. To determine the harm that ensues from faecal occult blood (FOB) screening for colorectal cancer.
                150 251 people were randomly allocated either to receive biennial Haemoccult FOB tests (n =75 253) or not to be contacted (n=74 998). Study group patients returning positive tests were offered colonic investigation; 1774 underwent complete investigation of the colon.
                There was no significant difference in the stage at presentation of interval versus control group cancers. Survival in the interval cancer group was significantly prolonged compared with the control group. Sensitivity for colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy and double contrast barium enema (DCBE) was 96.7%. There were no complications of DCBE but seven (0.5%) complications of colonoscopy, of which six required surgical intervention. There were no colonoscopy related deaths. No patients without colorectal cancer died within 30 days of colonic investigation. Five patients died within 30 days of surgery for screen detected colorectal neoplasia and a further two died without having surgery. Six patients died after 30 days but within two years of surgery for screen detected benign adenomas or stage A cancers; in all cases the cause of death was not related to colorectal cancer.
                There was investigation related morbidity but no mortality and little to support overdiagnosis bias. The group returning falsely negative tests had a better outcome compared with the whole control group. There is a negative side to any screening programme but mortality reduction in this and other trials suggests that a national programme of colorectal cancer screening should be given consideration. To conduct a pilot test of a decision aid designed to help patients choose among currently recommended colorectal cancer screening programs.
                Randomized controlled trial comparing a patient decision aid based on multicriteria decision-making theory with a simple educational intervention.
                96 patients at average risk for colorectal cancer seen in an Internal Medicine practice in Rochester, New York.
                The two primary outcome measures were patient decision process and the decision outcome. Patient decision process was assessed using the decisional conflict scale. Decision outcome was defined as the proportion of colorectal cancer screening plans carried out.
                After controlling for the effects of the physicians in a factorial analysis of variance, patients who used the decision aid had lower decisional conflict regarding colorectal cancer screening decisions (F ratio 6.47, P = 0.01) due to increased knowledge, better clarity of values, and higher ratings of the quality of the decisions they made. There was no difference between the groups in decision outcomes: 52% of patients in the control group and 49% in the experimental group completed planned screening tests (P = 1.0).
                In a pilot study, a multicriteria-based patient decision aid for colorectal cancer screening improved patients' decision-making processes but had no effect on the implementation of screening plans. Protocolized fluid administration using oesophageal Doppler monitoring may improve the postoperative outcome in patients undergoing surgery.
                A total of 108 patients undergoing elective colorectal resection were recruited into a double-blind prospective randomized controlled trial. An oesophageal Doppler probe was placed in all patients. The control group received perioperative fluid at the discretion of the anaesthetist, whereas the intervention group received additional colloid boluses based on Doppler assessment. Primary outcome was length of postoperative hospital stay. Secondary outcomes were morbidity, return of gastrointestinal function and cytokine markers of the systemic inflammatory response. Standard preoperative and postoperative management was used in all patients.
                Demographic and surgical details were similar in the two groups. Aortic flow time, stroke volume, cardiac output and cardiac index during the intraoperative period were higher in the intervention group (P<0.050). The intervention group had a reduced postoperative hospital stay (7 versus 9 days in the control group; P=0.005), fewer intermediate or major postoperative complications (2 versus 15 percent; P=0.043) and tolerated diet earlier (2 versus 4 days; P=0.029). There was a reduced rise in perioperative level of the cytokine interleukin 6 in the intervention group (P=0.039).
                A protocol-based fluid optimization programme using intraoperative oesophageal Doppler monitoring leads to a shorter hospital stay and decreased morbidity in patients undergoing elective colorectal resection.
                Copyright (c) 2006 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. The purpose of this study was to determine whether morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing elective resection of colon cancer are associated with surgeon or hospital volume.
                Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database, we identified all adult patients who underwent elective resection for colon cancer as their primary procedure between 2003 and 2007. Cases were divided into three groups according to the mean number of resections performed annually by each surgeon: low volume (≤4/year), intermediate volume (5-9/year), or high volume (≥10/year). Annual hospital case-load was also categorized as low volume (≤30/year), intermediate volume (31-60/year), and high volume (≥61/year). Multiple logistic regression models were used to identify differences in morbidity and mortality.
                A total of 54,000 patients underwent resection of colon cancer by 7,313 surgeons in 1,398 hospitals. After adjusting for important covariates including hospital volume, colon cancer resection by high-volume surgeons was an independent predictor of decreased morbidity (odds ratio [OR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.97) and mortality (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.86). Mortality was lowest among patients operated on by high-volume surgeons in high-volume hospitals (2.2% vs. 3.9%; OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.46-0.68).
                In patients undergoing elective resection of colon cancer, procedures done by high-volume surgeons are associated with decreased morbidity and mortality. To compare the effect of evidence based information on risk with that of standard information on informed choice in screening for colorectal cancer.
                Randomised controlled trial with 6 months' follow-up.
                German statutory health insurance scheme.
                1577 insured people who were members of the target group for colorectal cancer screening (age 50-75, no history of colorectal cancer).
                Brochure with evidence based risk information on colorectal cancer screening and two optional interactive internet modules on risk and diagnostic tests; official information leaflet of the German colorectal cancer screening programme (control).
                The primary end point was "informed choice," comprising "knowledge," "attitude," and "combination of actual and planned uptake." Secondary outcomes were "knowledge" and "combination of actual and planned uptake." Knowledge and attitude were assessed after 6 weeks and combination of actual and planned uptake of screening after 6 months.
                The response rate for return of both questionnaires was 92.4% (n = 1457). 345/785 (44.0%) participants in the intervention group made an informed choice, compared with 101/792 (12.8%) in the control group (difference 31.2%, 99% confidence interval 25.7% to 36.7%; P < 0.001). More intervention group participants had "good knowledge" (59.6% (n = 468) v 16.2% (128); difference 43.5%, 37.8% to 49.1%; P < 0.001). A "positive attitude" towards colorectal screening prevailed in both groups but was significantly lower in the intervention group (93.4% (733) v 96.5% (764); difference -3.1%, -5.9% to -0.3%; P<0.01). The intervention had no effect on the combination of actual and planned uptake (72.4% (568) v 72.9% (577); P = 0.87).
                Evidence based risk information on colorectal cancer screening increased informed choices and improved knowledge, with little change in attitudes. The intervention did not affect the combination of actual and planned uptake of screening. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN47105521. This study explores the volume-mortality relationship for 3 groups of cancer procedures to determine whether higher-volume hospitals, higher-volume surgeons, or both are associated with lower in-hospital mortality.
                New York's Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System was used to identify more than 32,000 hospital inpatients with a cancer diagnosis who underwent colectomy, lobectomy of the lung, or gastrectomy between January 1, 1994, and December 31, 1997. The association of in-hospital mortality rates with provider (hospital and surgeon) volume was examined after adjusting for differences in age, demographics, organ metastasis, socioeconomic status, and comorbidities.
                For hospital volume for gastrectomy, the highest-volume quartile had an absolute risk-adjusted mortality rate that was 7.1% lower (P <.0001) than the lowest-volume quartile, although the overall mortality rate for the procedure was only 6.2%. For surgeon volume for colectomy, the highest- and lowest- volume quartiles differed by 1.9% (P <.0001), although the procedure mortality rate was only 3.5%. For hospital volume for lung lobectomy, the absolute difference in mortality was 1.7%. Patients undergoing operations performed by high-volume surgeons in high-volume hospitals usually had significantly lower risk-adjusted mortality rates than did patients who had low-volume surgeons or who were in low-volume hospitals, or both.
                For all 3 procedure groups, the risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality is significantly lower when the procedures are performed by high-volume providers. Home visits by health care professionals may constitute a formalized social relationship in which cancer patients can be given emotional and informational support. We aimed at studying the effect of home visits on the well-being of colorectal cancer patients. A total of 249 Danish colorectal cancer patients undergoing abdominal surgery were randomly assigned to a control group or to an intervention group. The intervention group received 10 home visits carried out by a project nurse or a medical doctor during the first 2 years after discharge. Participants were interviewed 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after discharge in order to assess well-being. Using a linear mixed model, we found no overall effect of the intervention on well-being. We recommend that future psychosocial intervention studies include baseline screening for distress and recommend testing the effect of shorter but intensive interventions carried out by trained therapists.
                Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd Uncontrolled studies using laparoscopic techniques in colorectal surgery have not demonstrated clear advantages to these procedures compared with conventional ones, and surgeons are concerned about unusual early recurrences reported after laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.
                We conducted a prospective, randomized trial in one surgical department comparing laparoscopic (LAP) and conventional (CON) techniques in 109 patients undergoing bowel resection for colorectal cancers or polyps. Postoperatively, all patients underwent measurement of pulmonary function tests every 12 hours, and were treated identically on a highly controlled protocol with regard to analgesic administration, feeding, and postoperative care.
                Of the 55 patients assigned to LAP and 54 to the CON group, there were 42 and 38 with cancer, respectively (the other patients had large adenomas). Overall recovery of 80% of forced expiratory volume in 1 second and forced vital capacity was a median of 3 days for LAP and 6.0 days for CON (p = 0.01). LAP patients used significantly less morphine than CON patients up to the second day after surgery (0.78 +/- 0.32 versus 0.92 +/- 0.34 mg/kg per day, p = 0.02). Flatus returned a median of 3.0 days after LAP versus 4.0 days after CON surgery (p = 0.006). Tumor margins were clear in all patients. After a median followup of 1.5 years (LAP) and 1.7 years (CON), there were no port site recurrences in the LAP group. Seven cancer-related deaths have occurred (three in the LAP group, four in the CON group).
                Within this prospective, randomized trial, laparoscopic techniques were as safe as conventional surgical techniques and offered a faster recovery of pulmonary and gastrointestinal function compared with conventional surgery for selected patients undergoing large bowel resection for cancer or polyps. There were no apparent shortterm oncologic disadvantages. Longer followup is needed to fully assess oncologic outcomes. Although multidisciplinary congestive heart failure clinics in the United States appear to be effective in reducing the number of hospital readmissions, it is unclear whether the same benefit is seen in countries such as Canada, where access to both general and specialized medical care is free and unrestricted. We sought to determine the impact of care at a multidisciplinary specialized outpatient congestive heart failure clinic compared with standard care.
                We randomly assigned 230 eligible patients who had experienced an acute episode of congestive heart failure to standard care (n = 115) or follow-up at a multidisciplinary specialized heart failure outpatient clinic (n = 115). The intervention consisted of a structured outpatient clinic environment with complete access to cardiologists and allied health professionals. The primary outcomes were all-cause hospital admission rates and total number of days in hospital at 6 months. The secondary outcomes were total number of emergency department visits, quality of life and total mortality.
                At 6 months, fewer patients in the intervention group had required readmission to hospital than patients in the control group (45 [39%] v. 66 [57%], crude hazard ratio [HR] 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-0.92. Patients in the intervention group stayed in hospital for 514 days compared with 815 days required by patients in the control group (adjusted HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.35-0.89). The number of patients seen in the emergency department and the total number of emergency department visits were similar in the intervention and control groups. At 6 months, quality of life, which was self-assessed using the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire, was unchanged in the control group but improved in the intervention group (p < 0.001). No difference in mortality was observed, with 19 deaths in the control group and 12 in the intervention group (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.24-1.54).
                Compared with usual care, care at a multidisciplinary specialized congestive heart failure outpatient clinic reduced the number of hospital readmissions and hospital days and improved quality of life. When our results are integrated with those from other, similar trials, multidisciplinary disease management strategies for congestive heart failure are associated with clinically worthwhile improvements in survival. The aim of this study was to quantify factors related to operative mortality after colorectal resection in the Netherlands.
                Multilevel logistic regression modelling was used. Institutional effects were calculated with and without adjustment for specific patient (age, sex, urgency of operation) and hospital (number of procedures, type of hospital) characteristics. All adult Dutch patients who underwent primary colorectal resection between 1994 and 1999 were included, except those who had (sub)total colectomy or local rectal resection.
                A total of 67 594 patients underwent colorectal resection. The in-hospital mortality rate was 7.0 per cent (elective 3.9 per cent, acute 14.3 per cent). Acute operation (odds ratio 3.89) and age (odds ratios 2.63, 5.23 and 10.13 for patients aged 50-69, 70-79 and 80 or more years respectively compared with those aged less than 50 years) had the strongest effects, followed by male sex (odds ratio 1.48) and type of hospital. There was no difference in operative mortality rate between low-, medium- and high-volume hospitals.
                In the Netherlands, advanced age and acute operation are by far the most important factors related to operative mortality after colorectal resection. Male sex and type of hospital have only a modest effect, and there is no discernible effect of hospital volume.
                Copyright (c) 2005 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. This study was designed to investigate, in a population-based setting, the surgical outcome in patients with rectal cancer according to the hospital volume.
                Since 1995 all patients with rectal cancer have been registered in the Swedish Rectal Cancer Registry. Hospitals were classified, according to number treated per year, as low-volume, intermediate-volume, or high-volume hospitals (<11, 11-25, or >25 procedures per year). Postoperative mortality, reoperation rate within 30 days, local recurrence rate, and overall five-year survival were studied. For postoperative morbidity and mortality the whole cohort from 1995 to 2003 (n = 10,425) was used. For cancer-related outcome only, those with five-year follow-ups, from 1995 to 1998, were used (n = 4,355).
                In this registry setting the postoperative mortality rate was 3.6% in low-volume hospitals, and 2.2% in intermediate-volume and high-volume hospitals (P = 0.002). The reoperation rate was 10%, with no differences according to volume. The overall local recurrence rates were 9.4%, 9.3%, and 7.5%, respectively (P = 0.06). Significant difference was found among the nonirradiated patients (P = 0.004), but not among the irradiated patients (P = 0.45). No differences were found according to volume in the absolute five-year survival.
                Postoperative mortality and local recurrence in nonirradiated patients were lower in high-volume hospitals. No difference was seen between volumes in reoperation rates, overall local recurrence, or absolute five-year survival.
The results confirm clearly the presence of a volume-outcome relationship in colorectal cancer surgery, based on hospital and surgeon caseload, and specialisation. The volume-outcome relationship appears somewhat stronger for the individual surgeon than for the hospital; particularly for overall 5-year survival and operative mortality, there were differences between US and non-US data, suggesting provider variability at hospital level between different countries, making it imperative that every country or healthcare system must establish audit systems to guide changes in the service provision based on local data, and facilitate centralisation of services as required. Overall quality of the evidence was low as all included studies were observational by design. In addition there were discrepancies in the definitions of caseload and colorectal specialist. However ethical challenges associated with the conception of randomised controlled trials addressing the volume outcome relationship makes this the best available evidence.