Background/Objectives: Recent reports reflect the increased enthusiasm for restorative reconstruction after a proctectomy (LAR) for rectal cancer in appropriate candidates. Despite this, abdominoperineal resection (APR) remains common. We aimed to examine the effect of the colorectal surgeon density in a hospital referral region (HRR) on the rates of LARs and APRs performed. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of Medicare-participating hospitals in the United States for the fiscal year 2014. Our cohort was all Medicare beneficiaries (MBs) with rectal cancer (ICD-9: 154.1) who underwent an intervention of an LAR (CPT: 44145, 44146, 44207, 44298, 45112, 45397) or an APR (CPT: 45110 or 45395). We compared the APR and LAR rates per HRR with the density of board-certified colorectal surgeons per HRR (divided into low-, medium-, and high-density HRRs) using membership and zip code data from the American Board of Colon and Rectal Surgery. Results: A total of 3366 beneficiaries underwent LARs and 1821 beneficiaries underwent APRs for rectal cancer in 2014. The national rates of LARs and APRs were 12.12 and 6.66 per 100,000 MBs, respectively. The individual rates were available for 104 HRRs for the LARs and 46 HRRs for the APRs (those with >10 procedures/year). The median rates of LARs per 100,000 MBs in the low-, medium-, and high-density groups were 12.13, 13.05, and 14.25, respectively. The median rates of APRs per 100,000 MBs in the low-, medium-, and high-density groups were 7.69, 7.29, and 6.23, respectively. Both trends were significant by a test of trend. Conclusions: A higher colorectal surgeon density was associated with increased rates of LARs and decreased rates of APRs for Medicare beneficiaries.

Rectal cancer treatment often encompasses multiple steps and options, with benefits and risks that vary based on the individual. Additionally, patients facing rectal cancer often have preferences regarding overall quality of life, which includes bowel function, sphincter preservation, and ostomies. This article reviews these data in the context of shared decision-making approaches in an effort to better inform patients deliberating treatment options for rectal cancer.

Significant variation in rectal cancer care has been demonstrated in the United States. The National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer was established in 2017 to improve the quality of rectal cancer care through standardization and emphasis on a multidisciplinary approach. The aim of this study was to understand the perceived value and barriers to achieving the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer accreditation.

An electronic survey was developed, piloted, and distributed to rectal cancer programs that had already achieved or were interested in pursuing the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer accreditation. The survey contained 40 questions with a combination of Likert scale, multiple choice, and open-ended questions to provide comments. This was a mixed methods study; descriptive statistics were used to analyze the quantitative data, and thematic analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data.

A total of 85 rectal cancer programs were sent the survey (22 accredited, 63 interested). Responses were received from 14 accredited programs and 41 interested programs. Most respondents were program directors (31%) and program coordinators (40%). The highest-ranked responses regarding the value of the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer accreditation included "improved quality and culture of rectal cancer care," "enhanced program organization and coordination," and "challenges our program to provide optimal, high-quality care." The most frequently cited barriers to the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer accreditation were cost and lack of personnel.

Our survey found significant perceived value in the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer accreditation. Adhering to standards and a multidisciplinary approach to rectal cancer care are critical components of a high-quality care rectal cancer program.

The National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer (NAPRC) was established by the American College of Surgeons with the goal of standardizing care of rectal cancer patients in order to improve outcomes. NAPRC accreditation requires compliance with an established set of standards, many of which are directly related to radiology participation in multidisciplinary conference, rectal MR image acquisition, interpretation and reporting, and radiologist education. This paper outlines the pertinent standards/requirements for radiologists as part of the Rectal Cancer Multidisciplinary Team in the NAPRC guidelines, with proposed methods and tips for implementation of these standards from the perspective of the radiologist.

The quality of care of patients receiving colorectal resections has conventionally relied on individual metrics. When discussing with patients what these outcomes mean, they often find them confusing or overwhelming. Textbook oncological outcome (TOO) is a composite measure that summarises all the 'desirable' or 'ideal' postoperative clinical and oncological outcomes from both a patient's and doctor's point of view. This study aims to evaluate the incidence of TOO in patients receiving robotic colorectal cancer surgery in five robotic colorectal units and understand the risk factors associated with failure to achieve a TOO in these patients.

We present a retrospective, multicentric study with data from a prospectively collected database. All consecutive patients receiving robotic colorectal cancer resections from five centres between 2013 and 2022 were included. Patient characteristics and short-term clinical and oncological data were collected. A TOO was achieved when all components were realized-no conversion to open, no complication with a Clavien-Dindo (CD) ≥ 3, length of hospital stay ≤ 14, no 30-day readmission, no 30-day mortality, and R0 resection. The main outcome measure was a composite measure of "ideal" practice called textbook oncological outcomes.

A total of 501 patients submitted to robotic colorectal cancer resection were included. Of the 501 patients included, 388 (77.4%) achieved a TOO. Four patients were converted to open (0.8%); 55 (11%) had LOS > 14 days; 46 (9.2%) had a CD ≥ 3 complication; 30-day readmission rate was 6% (30); 30-day mortality was 0.2% (1); and 480 (95.8%) had an R0 resection. Abdominoperineal resection was a risk factor for not achieving a TOO.

Robotic colorectal cancer surgery in robotic centres achieves a high TOO rate. Abdominoperineal resection is a risk factor for failure to achieve a TOO. This measure may be used in future audits and to inform patients clearly on success of treatment.

Accreditation has played a major role in the evolution of health care quality as well as the structure and organization of American medicine. In its earliest iterations, accreditation aimed to set a minimum standard of care, and now more prominently sets standards for high quality, optimal patient care. There are several institutions that provide accreditations that are relevant to colorectal surgery including the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Commission on Cancer, National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Designation, National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer, and the ACS Geriatrics Verification Program. While each program has unique criteria, the aim of accreditation is to assure high-quality evidenced-based care. In addition to these benchmarks, these programs provide avenues for collaboration and research between centers and programs.

Outcomes of rectal adenocarcinoma vary considerably. Composite "textbook oncologic outcome" (TOO) is a single metric that estimates optimal clinical performance for cancer surgery.

Patients with stage II/III rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent single-agent neoadjuvant chemoradiation and proctectomy within 5-12 weeks were identified in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). TOO was defined as achievement of negative distal and circumferential resection margin (CRM), retrieval of ≥ 12 nodes, no 90-day mortality, and length of stay (LOS) < 75th percentile of corresponding year's range. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of TOO.

Among 318,225 patients, 8869 met selection criteria. Median age was 62 years (IQR 54-71), and 5550 (62.6%) were males. Low anterior resection was the most common procedure (LAR, 6,037 (68.1%) and 3084 (34.8%) were treated at a high-volume center (≥ 20 rectal resections/year). TOO was achieved in 3967 patients (44.7%). Several components of TOO were achieved commonly, including negative CRM (87.4%), no 90-day mortality (98.0%), no readmission (93.0%), and no prolonged hospitalization (78.8%). Logistic regression identified increasing age, non-private insurance, low-volume centers, open approach, Black race, Charlson score ≥ 3, and abdominoperineal resection (APR) as predictors of failure to achieve TOO. Over time, TOOs were attained more commonly which correlated with increased minimally invasive surgery (MIS) adoption. TOO achievement was associated with improved survival.

Rectal adenocarcinoma patients achieve TOO uncommonly. Treatment at high-volume centers and MIS approach were among modifiable factors associated with TOO in this study.

Background  The treatment of rectal cancer has undergone dramatic changes over the past 50 years. It has evolved from a rather morbid disease usually requiring a permanent stoma, almost exclusively managed by surgeons, to one that involves experts across numerous disciplines to provide the best care for the patient. With significant improvements in surgical techniques, the use of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, advanced imaging, and standardization of pathological assessment, the perioperative morbidity and permanent colostomy rates have significantly decreased. We have seen improvements in the quality of the specimen and rates of recurrence as well as disease-free survival. Rectal cancer, as demonstrated in European trials, has now been recognized as a disease best managed by a multidisciplinary team. Objective  The aim of this article is to evaluate the main body of literature leading to the advances made possible by the new American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer. Results  Following the launch of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer, we expect dramatic increases in membership and accreditation, with associated improvement in center performance and, ultimately, in patient outcomes. Limitations  The National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer began in 2017. To date, the only data that have been analyzed are from the preintervention phase. Conclusions  Based on the results of studies within the United States and on the successes demonstrated in Europe, it remains our hope and expectation that the management of rectal cancer in the United States will rapidly improve.

Patients often desire restorative reconstruction following total mesorectal excision. Reconstruction has become synonymous with providing high-quality rectal cancer care. However, the bowel functional outcomes of restoration from presentation are unknown. We aimed to evaluate the bowel functional effects of rectal cancer treatment from presentation through surveillance.

This was a retrospective cohort study from 2014 to 2019 using prospectively collected data. Patients underwent treatment for rectal adenocarcinoma including restorative reconstruction. Patients completed the validated Colorectal Functional Outcome questionnaire during clinic visits (1) at presentation, (2) after neoadjuvant therapy, (3) after restoration of continuity, and (4) at surveillance. Scores range from 0 to 100 with a higher score indicating worse bowel function.

Sixty-eight patients (age: 62 ± 12 years, 40% female) were included. The mean tumor height was 7 ± 4 cm with 85% symptomatic. Bowel function did not worsen from presentation to after neoadjuvant therapy in Total Colorectal Functional Outcome and most domain scores; there was improvement in frequency and stool-related aspects. Bowel function worsened in all scores from after neoadjuvant to restoration of continuity (mean anastomotic height: 5 ± 2 cm); there were similar findings between presentation and restoration of continuity. At surveillance, there was improvement in most domains compared with restoration of continuity. There remained significant worsening of incontinence, social impact, and need for medication scores at surveillance compared with presentation.

Restorative reconstruction after total mesorectal excision is associated with significant bowel dysfunction. For some patients, restorative reconstruction may not be high-quality rectal cancer care.

In 2016, the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons published a rectal cancer surgery checklist composed of the essential elements of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative care for patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery.

The purpose of this study was to assess whether compliance with preoperative checklist elements was associated with improved pathologic and 30-day postoperative outcomes after rectal cancer surgery.

This was a retrospective cohort study.

The study involved North American hospitals contributing to the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program.

Adult patients who underwent elective rectal cancer surgery from 2016 to 2017 were included.

The study encompassed checklist compliance with 6 preoperative elements from the checklist.

Pathologic outcomes (circumferential resection margin status, distal resection margin status, and adequate lymph node harvest ≥12), 30-day surgical morbidity, and length of stay were measured.

In total, 2217 patients were included in the analysis. Individual compliance with the 6 available preoperative checklist items was variable, including 91.3% for pretreatment documentation of tumor location within the rectum, 86.8% for complete colonoscopy, 84.0% for appropriate preoperative stoma marking, 79.8% for appropriate use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy, 76.6% for locoregional staging, and 70.8% for distant staging. Only 836 patients (37.7%) had all 6 checklist elements complete, whereas 1381 (62.3%) did not. Compared with patients without checklist compliance, patients with checklist compliance were younger (60.0 vs 63.0 y; p < 0.001) but otherwise had similar demographic characteristics. On multivariate regression, checklist compliance was associated with lower odds of circumferential resection margin positivity (OR = 0.47 (95% CI, 0.31-0.71); p < 0.001), higher odds of an adequate lymph node harvest ≥12 (OR = 1.60 (95% CI, 1.29-2.00); p < 0.001), reduced surgical morbidity (OR = 0.78 (95% CI, 0.65-0.95); p = 0.01), and shorter length of stay (β = -0.87 (95% CI, -1.51 to -0.24); p = 0.007). The association between checklist compliance and reduced odds of circumferential resection margin positivity remained on sensitivity analysis (OR = 0.61 (95% CI, 0.42-0.88); p = 0.009) when adjusting for neoadjuvant radiation.

This study was limited by its absence of long-term oncologic data and missing variables.

Compliance with 6 preoperative elements of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons rectal cancer surgery checklist was associated with significantly improved pathologic outcomes and reduced postoperative morbidity. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B80. EL CUMPLIMIENTO CON LOS ELEMENTOS PREOPERATORIOS DE LA LISTA DE VERIFICACIÓN DE CIRUGÍA PARA CÁNCER RECTAL DE LA SOCIEDAD AMERICANA DE CIRUJANOS DE COLON Y RECTO MEJORA LOS RESULTADOS HISTOPATOLÓGICOS Y POSTOPERATORIOS: En 2016, la Sociedad Americana de Cirujanos de Colon y Recto publicó una lista de verificación de cirugía de cáncer de recto que comprende los elementos esenciales de la atención pre, intra y postoperatoria para pacientes sometidos a cirugía de cáncer de recto.Evaluar si el cumplimiento con los elementos preoperatorios de la lista de verificación se asoció con mejores resultados histopatológicos y postoperatorios a 30 días después de la cirugía de cáncer rectal.Estudio de cohorte retrospectiva.Hospitales norteamericanos que contribuyen al Programa Nacional de Mejora de la Calidad Quirúrgica del Colegio Americano de Cirujanos.Pacientes adultos que se sometieron a cirugía electiva de cáncer rectal entre 2016 y 2017.Cumplimiento de la lista de verificación con seis elementos preoperatorios de la lista de verificación.Resultados histopatológicos (estado del margen de resección circunferencial, estado del margen de resección distal, cosecha adecuada de ganglios linfáticos ≥12), morbilidad quirúrgica a 30 días y duración de la estadía.En total, 2,217 pacientes fueron incluidos en el análisis. El cumplimiento individual de los seis ítems disponibles de la lista de verificación preoperatoria fue variable: 91.3% para la documentación previa al tratamiento de la localización del tumor dentro del recto, 86.8% para colonoscopía completa, 84.0% para el marcado preoperatorio apropiado del sitio de estoma, 79.8% para el uso apropiado de radioterapia neoadyuvante, 76.6 % para estadificación locorregional y 70.8% para estadificación distante. Solo 836 (37.7%) pacientes tenían los seis elementos de la lista de verificación completos, mientras que 1,381 (62.3%) no. En comparación con los pacientes sin cumplimiento de la lista de verificación, los pacientes con cumplimiento de la lista de verificación eran más jóvenes (60.0 vs. 63.0 años, p <0.001), pero por lo demás tenían características demográficas similares. En la regresión multivariada, el cumplimiento de la lista de verificación se asoció con menores probabilidades de positividad en el margen de resección circunferencial (OR = 0.47; IC del 95%: 0.31-0.71, p <0.001), mayores probabilidades de una cosecha adecuada de ganglios linfáticos ≥12 (OR = 1.60, IC 95% 1.29-2.00, p <0.001), menor morbilidad quirúrgica (OR = 0.78, IC 95% 0.65-0.95, p = 0.01) y menor duración de estadía (β = -0.87, IC 95% -1.51 - - 0.24, p = 0.007). La asociación entre el cumplimiento de la lista de verificación y las probabilidades reducidas de positividad del margen de resección circunferencial se mantuvo en el análisis de sensibilidad (OR = 0.61; IC del 95%: 0.42-0.88, p = 0.009) al ser ajustado con radiación neoadyuvante.Ausencia de datos oncológicos a largo plazo y variables faltantes.El cumplimiento de seis elementos preoperatorios de la lista de verificación de cirugía de cáncer rectal de la Sociedad Americana de Cirujanos de Colon y Recto se asoció con resultados histopatológicos significativamente mejores y una menor morbilidad postoperatoria. Vea el resumen en video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B80.

Procedural and diagnostic codes may inaccurately identify specific patient populations within administrative datasets.

Measure the accuracy of previously used coding algorithms using administrative data to identify patients with rectal cancer resections (RCR).

Using a previously published coding algorithm, we re-created a RCR cohort within administrative databases, limiting the search to a single institution. The accuracy of this cohort was determined against a gold standard reference population. A systematic review of the literature was then performed to identify studies that use similar coding methods to identify RCR cohorts and whether or not they comment on accuracy.

Over the course of the study period, there were 664,075 hospitalizations at our institution. Previously used coding algorithms identified 1131 RCRs (administrative data incidence 1.70 per 1000 hospitalizations). The gold standard reference population was 821 RCR over the same period (1.24 per 1000 hospitalizations). Administrative data methods yielded a RCR cohort of moderate accuracy (sensitivity 89.5%, specificity 99.9%) and poor positive predictive value (64.9%). Literature search identified 18 studies that utilized similar coding methods to derive a RCR cohort. Only 1/18 (5.6%) reported on the accuracy of their study cohort.

The use of diagnostic and procedure codes to identify RCR within administrative datasets may be subject to misclassification bias because of low PPV. This underscores the importance of reporting on the accuracy of RCR cohorts derived within population-based datasets.

Previous studies have shown that sphincter-preserving surgery is associated with better quality of life in postsurgical rectal cancer patients. However, the factors predicting the likelihood of undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery have not been well-described. The aim of this study was to report the factors that determined the likelihood of undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery.

Characteristics of 24,018 rectal cancer patients undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery and abdominoperineal resection diagnosed from 2008 to 2012 from the National Cancer Database were investigated retrospectively for rate, pattern, and differences in mortality. Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate hazard ratios for assessing mortality. Odds ratios were calculated using logistic regressions models for outcome sphincter-preserving surgery.

Eighteen thousand four hundred fifty-two (77%) patients had sphincter-preserving surgery. Majority of sphincter-preserving surgery patients were aged < 70 (74%), had private insurance (52%), and got treatment at a comprehensive community cancer program (54%). Multivariable analysis showed that patients with age ≥ 70 (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80-0.95), male gender (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84-0.96), having Medicare (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.76-0.90), Medicaid (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63-0.81), and poorly differentiated grade (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.71-0.85) were less likely to undergo sphincter-preserving surgery. Multivariable analysis showed that patients having abdominoperineal resection have higher likelihood of mortality than sphincter-preserving surgery (HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.16-1.36).

We were able to identify several patient and tumor-related factors impacting the likelihood of undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery. Patients undergoing non-sphincter sparing surgery had a higher mortality that sphincter preservation.

There is a growing population of cancer survivors at risk of treatment-related morbidity. This study investigated how potentially curative rectal cancer treatment influences subsequent function and health-related quality of life using data from a large-scale survey of patient-reported outcomes.

All individuals 12 to 36 months after receiving a diagnosis of colorectal cancer in England were sent a survey in January 2013. The survey responses were linked with cancer registration, hospital admissions, and radiation therapy data through the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service. Outcome measures were cancer specific (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy and Social Difficulties Inventory items related to fecal incontinence, urinary incontinence, and sexual difficulties) and generic (EuroQol EQ-5D).

Surveys were returned by 6713 (64.2%) of 10,452 patients with rectal cancer. Of these, 3998 patients were in remission after a major resection and formed the final analysis sample. Compared with those who had surgery alone, patients who received preoperative radiation therapy had higher odds of reporting poor bowel control (43.6% vs 33.0%; odds ratio [OR] = 1.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-1.91), severe urinary leakage (7.2% vs 3.5%; OR = 1.69; 95% CI, 1.18-2.43), and severe sexual difficulties (34.4% vs 18.3%; OR = 1.73; 95% CI, 1.43-2.11). Patients who received long-course chemoradiotherapy reported significantly better bowel control than those who had short-course radiation therapy, with no difference for other outcomes. Respondents with a stoma present reported significantly higher levels of severe sexual difficulties and worse health-related quality of life than those who had never had a stoma or had undergone stoma reversal.

This study demonstrated the feasibility of a large-scale assessment of patient-reported outcomes and provided "real-world" data regarding the effect of rectal cancer treatment. The results show that patients who receive preoperative radiation therapy reported poorer outcomes, particularly for bowel and sexual function, and highlighted the negative impact of a stoma. We hope that our experience will encourage researchers to perform similar studies in other healthcare systems.

Over many decades, advances in surgical technology, such as the use of the electrocautery Bovie, development of minimally invasive and advanced endoscopic platforms and the ability to create and maintain pneumorectum have propelled surgical techniques forward to today, with development of the transanal total mesorectal excision TME (taTME) for en bloc resection of rectal cancers. The transanal platform offers, for now, a viable alternative to perform safe and oncologically sound TME, especially favorable in cases of low rectal lesions in a narrow pelvis post neoadjuvant treatment. The aspiration of the colorectal community remains to continue to push the operative boundaries whilst maintaining safe oncological principals with the best possible functional outcomes for patients. In this article we review this evolving technique and focus on future directions.

The process of determining the best treatments that should be offered to patients with newly diagnosed colon and rectal cancer remains highly variable around the world. The aim of this expert review was to agree the key elements of good quality preoperative treatment decision making.

In 2012, the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons published the Rectal Cancer Surgery Checklist, a consensus document listing 25 essential elements of care for all patients undergoing radical surgery for rectal cancer. The authors herein examine checklist adherence in a mature, multisurgeon specialty academic practice.

A retrospective medical record review of patients undergoing elective radical resection for rectal adenocarcinoma over a 23-mo period was conducted. Checklists were completed post hoc for each patient, and these results were tabulated to determine levels of compliance. Subgroup analyses by compliance and experience levels of the treating surgeon were performed.

A total of 161 patients underwent resection, demonstrating a median completion rate of 84% per patient. Poor compliance was noted consistently in documenting baseline sexual function (0%), multidisciplinary discussion of treatment plans (16.8%), pelvic nerve identification (8.7%) and leak testing (52.9%), and radial margin status reporting (57.5%). Junior surgeons achieved higher rates of compliance and were more likely to restage after neoadjuvant therapy (67.9% versus 29.4%, P < 0.001), discuss patients at tumor board (31.3% versus 13.2%, P = 0.014), and document leak testing (86.7% versus 47.2%, P = 0.005) compared with senior surgeons.

Checklist compliance within a high-volume, specialty academic practice remains varied. Only surgeon experience level was significantly associated with high checklist compliance. Junior surgeons achieved greater compliance with certain items, particularly those that reinforce decision-making. Further efforts to standardize rectal cancer care should focus on checklist implementation, targeted surgeon outreach, and assessment of checklist compliance correlation to clinical outcomes.

Low rectal tumors are often treated with sphincter-preserving resection followed by coloanal anastomosis.

The purpose of this study was to compare the short-term complications following straight coloanal anastomosis vs colonic J-pouch anal anastomosis.

Patients were identified who underwent proctectomy for rectal neoplasia followed by coloanal anastomosis in the 2008 to 2013 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Demographic characteristics and 30-day postoperative complications were compared between groups.

A national sample was extracted from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database.

Inpatients following proctectomy and coloanal anastomosis for rectal cancer were selected.

Demographic characteristics and 30-day postoperative complications were compared between the 2 groups.

One thousand three hundred seventy patients were included, 624 in the straight anastomosis group and 746 in the colonic J-pouch group. Preoperative characteristics were similar between groups, with the exception of preoperative radiation therapy (straight anastomosis 35% vs colonic J-pouch 48%, p = 0.0004). Univariate analysis demonstrated that deep surgical site infection (3.7% vs 1.4%, p = 0.01), septic shock (2.25% vs 0.8%, p = 0.04), and return to the operating room (8.8% vs 5.0%, p = 0.0006) were more frequent in the straight anastomosis group vs the colonic J-pouch group. Major complications were also higher (23% vs 14%, p = 0.0001) and length of stay was longer in the straight anastomosis group vs the colonic J-pouch group (8.9 days vs 8.1 days, p = 0.02). After adjusting for covariates, major complications were less following colonic J-pouch vs straight anastomosis (OR, 0.57; CI, 0.38-0.84; p = 0.005). Subgroup analysis of patients who received preoperative radiation therapy demonstrated no difference in major complications between groups.

This study had those limitations inherent to a retrospective study using an inpatient database.

Postoperative complications were less following colonic J-pouch anastomosis vs straight anastomosis. Patients who received preoperative radiation had similar rates of complications, regardless of the reconstructive technique used following low anterior resection. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A468.

The treatment of rectal cancer has greatly evolved because of numerous diagnostic and therapeutic advances. More accurate staging by MRI has allowed more appropriate use of neoadjuvant therapy as well as more standardized high-quality total mesorectal excision. Lower rates of perioperative morbidity, permanent colostomy creation, and improved rates of oncologically acceptable rectal excision have led to lower recurrence and greater disease-free survival rates. The recognition of the need for pathologic assessment of the quality of total mesorectal excision, the status of the circumferential resection margins, and the finding of a minimum of 12 lymph nodes as well as identification of extramural vascular invasion has improved staging. These evolutions in imaging, surgical management, and pathologic specimen assessment are interdependent and have been repeatedly shown on national levels to be best operationalized in a multidisciplinary team environment.

The aim of this article is to evaluate the evidence leading to these important changes, including the imminent launch of the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer.

Based on the myriad confirmatory experiences in Europe and in the United Kingdom, a multidisciplinary team rectal cancer program was designed by the Consortium for Optimizing Surgical Treatment of Rectal Cancer and subsequently endorsed and accepted by the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer.

The primary outcome measured is the adherence to the new program standards.

Surgical treatment of rectal cancer consortium membership rapidly increased from 14 centers in August 2011 to more than 350 centers in April 2017.

The multidisciplinary team rectal cancer program has not yet launched; thus, its impact cannot yet be assessed.

It is our hope and expectation that the outstanding improvement in quality outcomes repeatedly demonstrated within Europe, and extensively shown as much needed in the United States, will be rapidly achieved.

Background. Abdominoperineal resection (APR) has been associated with impaired survival in nonmetastatic rectal cancer patients. It is unclear whether this adverse outcome is due to the surgical procedure itself or is a consequence of tumor-related characteristics. Study Design. Patients were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. The impact of APR compared to coloanal anastomosis (CAA) on survival was assessed by Cox regression and propensity-score matching. Results. In 36,488 patients with rectal cancer resection, the APR rate declined from 31.8% in 1998 to 19.2% in 2011, with a significant trend change in 2004 at 21.6% (P < 0.001). To minimize a potential time-trend bias, survival analysis was limited to patients diagnosed after 2004. APR was associated with an increased risk of cancer-specific mortality after unadjusted analysis (HR = 1.61, 95% CI: 1.28-2.03, P < 0.01) and multivariable adjustment (HR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.10-1.76, P < 0.01). After optimal adjustment of highly biased patient characteristics by propensity-score matching, APR was not identified as a risk factor for cancer-specific mortality (HR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.56-1.29, P = 0.456). Conclusions. The current propensity score-adjusted analysis provides evidence that worse oncological outcomes in patients undergoing APR compared to CAA are caused by different patient characteristics and not by the surgical procedure itself.

Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) has always made more sense in the colorectal field where the target organ for entry houses the pathology. To address the question whether an adequate total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer can be performed from a transanal bottoms-up approach, we performed a case-matched study.

Starting in 2009, transanal TME (taTME) surgery was selectively used for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy and prospectively entered into a database. Between March 2012 and February 2014, 17 consecutive taTME rectal cancer patients were identified and case-matched to multiport laparoscopic TME (MP TME) based on age, body mass index, uT stage, radiation dose, level in the rectum, and procedure. Perioperative outcomes, morbidity, mortality, local recurrence, completeness of TME, and radial and distal margins were analyzed. Statistically significant differences were identified using Student's t test.

There were 12 transanal abdominal transanal (TATA)/5 abdominoperineal resection procedures in each group. Data regarding overall/taTME/MP TME are as follows: % positive-circumferential margin: 2.9/0/5.9 % (p = 0.32). Distal margin: 0/0/0 %. Complete or near-complete TME: 97.1/100/94.1 % (p = 0.32). Incomplete TME 2.9/0/5.9 % (p = 0.32). Local recurrence: 2.9/5.9/0 % (p = 0.32). There were no perioperative mortalities. Morbidity in each group: 26.4/23.5/29.4 % (p = 0.79). There were no differences in perioperative or postoperative outcomes except days to clear liquids (1/2 days, p = 0.03) and largest incision length (1.3/2.6 cm, p = 0.05).

We demonstrated no differences in perioperative/postoperative outcomes or pathologic TME outcomes of transanal or bottoms-up TME compared to standard laparoscopic TME. TaTME is a promising progressive approach to NOTES and deserves additional evaluation.

Due to selection bias, the oncologic outcomes of APR and ISR have not been compared in an interpretable manner, especially in patients treated with preoperative CRT. To assess factors influencing oncologic outcomes in patients with locally advanced low rectal cancer treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by abdominoperineal resection (APR) or intersphincteric resection (ISR).Between 2006 and 2011, 202 consecutive patients who underwent APR or ISR after preoperative CRT for locally advanced rectal cancer were enrolled in this study. The median follow-up period was 45.3 months (range: 5-85.2 months). Multivariate and propensity score matching (PSM) analyses were performed to reduce selection bias.Of the 202 patients, 40 patients (19.8%) underwent APR and 162 (80.2%) required ISR. In unadjusted analysis, patients undergoing APR had a higher 5-year local recurrence (P < 0.001) and distant metastasis rate (P = 0.01), respectively. However, the higher local recurrence rate for APR persisted even after PSM, and these findings were verified in the multivariate analyses. Moreover, patients with advanced tumors, as assessed by restaging magnetic resonance imaging and luminal circumferential involvement, had a significantly higher local recurrence rate after APR compared with ISR.This is the first PSM based analysis providing evidence of a worse oncologic outcome after APR compared with ISR. In addition, the results of the subgroup analysis suggest that a more radical modification of the current APR is required in cases of advanced cancer.

Oncologic and functional outcomes were compared between transanal and transabdominal specimen extraction after laparoscopic coloanal anastomosis for rectal cancer.

Laparoscopic coloanal anastomosis is an attractive new surgical option in patients with low rectal cancer because laparotomy is not necessary due to transanal specimen extraction. Risks of tumor spillage and fecal incontinence induced by transanal extraction are not known.

Between 2000 and 2010, 220 patients with low rectal cancer underwent laparoscopic rectal excision with hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis. The rectal specimen was extracted transanally in 122 patients and transabdominally in 98 patients. End points were circumferential resection margin, mesorectal grade, local recurrence, survival, and functional outcome.

The mortality rate was 0.5% and surgical morbidity rate was 17%. The rate of positive circumferential resection margin was 9% and the mesorectum was graded complete in 79%, subcomplete in 12%, and incomplete in 9%. After a follow-up of 51 months (range, 1-151), the local recurrence rate was 4% and overall survival and disease-free survival rates were 83% and 70% at 5 years, respectively. The continence score was 6 (range, 0-20). There was no difference of mortality rate, morbidity rate, circumferential resection margin, mesorectal grade, local recurrence (4% vs 5%, P = 0.98), and disease-free survival rate (72% vs 68%, P = 0.63) between transanal and transabdominal extraction groups. Continence score was also similar (6 vs 6, P = 0.92).

Transanal extraction of the rectal specimen did not compromise oncologic and functional outcome after laparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancer and seems as a safe option to preserve the abdominal wall.

Non-inferiority of laparoscopic treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) has been demonstrated in randomized controlled trials although operative and perioperative management varies widely among centers. Literature data in English language published up to April 15, 2014 were analyzed in order to give an up to date analysis that would highlights the key aspects of a modern and factual minimally invasive treatment of CRC. Laparoscopic resection is the first choice treatment of colon cancer. Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer should be considered an investigational procedure to be performed in high volume centers with special interest in laparoscopy and colorectal surgery. Less invasive approaches should be taken into account with the aim of reducing surgical stress. The adoption of ERAS programs has demonstrated to optimize short-term results. Future research should be directed to prove possible long-term advantages, in terms of overall and disease-free survival, of minimally invasive treatment of CRC.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in the United States and Canada. Given the high incidence and increased survival of colorectal cancer patients, prevalence is increasing over time in both countries. Using MEDLINE, we conducted a systematic review of the literature published between 2000 and 2010 to describe patterns of colorectal cancer care. Specifically we examined data sources used to obtain treatment information and compared patterns of cancer-directed initial care, post-diagnostic surveillance care, and end-of-life care among colorectal cancer patients diagnosed in the United States and Canada. Receipt of initial treatment for colorectal cancer was associated with the anatomical position of the tumor and extent of disease at diagnosis, in accordance with consensus-based guidelines. Overall, care trends were similar between the United States and Canada; however, we observed differences with respect to data sources used to measure treatment receipt. Differences were also present between study populations within country, further limiting direct comparisons. Findings from this review will allow researchers, clinicians, and policy makers to evaluate treatment receipt by patient, clinical, or system characteristics and identify emerging trends over time. Furthermore, comparisons between health-care systems in the United States and Canada can identify disparities in care, allow the evaluation of different models of care, and highlight issues regarding the utility of existing data sources to estimate national patterns of care.

Disparity exists in outcomes for rectal cancer patients in the US. Similar problems in several European countries have been addressed by the creation of national networks of rectal cancer centers of excellence (CoEs) that follow evidence-based care pathways and specified protocols of care and process and are certified by regular external validation.

This paper reviews the current status of rectal cancer care in the U.S. and examines the evidence for multidisciplinary rectal cancer management. A U.S. rectal cancer CoE system based on the existing U.K. model is proposed.

A literature search was performed for publications related to US rectal cancer outcomes, multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer, and European rectal cancer programs.

U.S. rectal cancer outcomes are highly variable. The majority of US rectal cancer patients are treated by generalists in low-volume hospitals. Current evidence supports five main principles of rectal cancer care that have been incorporated into European rectal cancer CoE programs. These programs have dramatically improved rectal cancer outcomes in Scandanavian countries and the U.K.

A similar CoE program should be established in the U.S. to improve the outcomes of rectal cancer patients.

Treatment of rectal cancer in North America has been associated with lower rates of sphincter-preserving surgery in comparison with other regions. It is unclear if these lower rates are due to patient, tumor, or treatment factors; thus, the potential to increase the use of sphincter-preserving surgery is unknown.

The aim of this study is to identify the factors associated with the use of sphincter-preserving surgery and to quantify the potential for an increase in sphincter preservation.

This population-based retrospective cohort study used patient-level data collected through a comprehensive, standardized review of hospital inpatient and outpatient medical records and cancer center charts.

This study was conducted in all hospitals providing rectal cancer surgery in a Canadian province.

All patients with a new diagnosis of rectal cancer from July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2006 who underwent potentially curative radical surgery were included.

Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with receiving a permanent colostomy. Patients were categorized as having received an appropriate or potentially inappropriate colostomy based on a priori determined patient, tumor, operative, and pathologic criteria.

Of 466 patients who underwent radical surgery, 48% received a permanent colostomy. There was significant variation in the rate of sphincter-preserving surgery among the 10 hospitals that provided rectal cancer care (12%-73%, p = 0.0001). On multivariate analysis, male sex, low tumor height, and increasing tumor stage were associated with the receipt of a permanent colostomy. Among patients who received a permanent stoma, 65 of 224 (29%) patients received a potentially inappropriate stoma. On multivariate analysis, male sex and treatment in a medium- or low-volume hospital was associated with the receipt of a potentially inappropriate colostomy.

This study was limited by its retrospective design.

These data suggest that the receipt of a permanent colostomy by many patients with rectal cancer may be inappropriate, and there is potential to increase the use of sphincter-preserving surgery in patients with rectal cancer.

Surgical treatment of low rectal cancer is controversial, and one of the reasons is the lack of definition and standardization of surgery in low rectal cancer.

We classified low rectal cancers in 4 groups with the aim of demonstrating that most patients with low rectal cancer can receive conservative surgery without compromising oncologic outcome.

Patients with low rectal cancer <6 cm from anal verge were defined in 4 groups: type I (supra-anal tumors: >1 cm from anal ring) had coloanal anastomosis, type II (juxta-anal tumors: <1 cm from anal ring) had partial intersphincteric resection, type III (intra-anal tumors: internal anal sphincter invasion) had total intersphincteric resection, and type IV (transanal tumors: external anal sphincter invasion) had abdominoperineal resection. Patients with ultra-low sphincter-preserving surgery (types II-III) were compared with those with conventional sphincter-preserving surgery (type I).

Postoperative mortality, morbidity, surgical margins, local and distant recurrence, and survival were analyzed.

Of 404 patients with low rectal cancer, 135 were type I, 131 type II, 55 type III, and 83 type IV. There was no difference in local recurrence (5% to 9% vs 6%), distant recurrence (23% vs 23%), and disease-free survival (70%-73% vs 68%) at 5 years between ultra-low (types II-III) and conventional (type I) sphincter-preserving surgery. Predictive factors of survival were tumor stage and R1 resection but not the type of tumor or type of surgery.

This study is limited by the retrospective analysis of a database, obtained from a single institution and covering a 16-year period.

Classification of low rectal cancers and standardization of surgery permitted sphincter-preserving surgery in 79% of patients with low rectal cancer without compromising oncologic outcome. This new surgical classification should be used to standardize surgery and increase sphincter-preserving surgery in low rectal cancer.

As the population ages, an increasing number of elderly persons will undergo surgery for rectal cancer. The use of sphincter-sparing surgery in frail older adults is controversial.

The aim of this study was to examine mortality and bowel function after proctectomy in nursing home residents.

This is a retrospective cohort study.

This investigation was conducted in nursing homes in the United States contracted with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Nursing home residents age 65 and older undergoing proctectomy for rectal cancer (2000-2005) were included.

The primary outcomes measured were fecal incontinence and the 1-year mortality rate.

Operative mortality was 18% after proctectomy with permanent colostomy and 13% after sphincter-sparing proctectomy (adjusted relative risk, 1.25 (95% CI 0.90-1.73), p = 0.188). One-year mortality was high: 40% after sphincter-sparing proctectomy and 51% after proctectomy with permanent colostomy (adjusted hazard ratio 1.32 (95% CI 1.09-1.60), p = 0.004). After sphincter-sparing proctectomy, 37% of residents were incontinent of feces. Residents with the poorest functional status (Minimum Data Set-Activities of Daily Living quartile 4) were significantly more likely to be incontinent of feces than residents with the best functional status (Minimum Data Set-Activities of Daily Living quartile 1) (76% vs 13%, adjusted relative risk 3.28 (95% CI 1.74- 6.18), p= 0.0002). Fecal incontinence was also associated with dementia (adjusted relative risk 1.55 (95% CI 1.15-2.09), p = 0.004) and renal failure (adjusted relative risk 1.93 (95% CI 1.10-3.38), p = 0.022).

Measures of fecal incontinence in nursing home registries are not as well studied as those commonly used in clinical practice.

Sphincter-sparing proctectomy in nursing home residents is frequently associated with postoperative fecal incontinence and should be considered only for continent patients with good functional status.

Local excision, alone or in combination with chemoradiation, is increasingly considered for rectal cancer. Higher risks of disease recurrence have been demonstrated after local excision.

The aim of this study was to examine the outcomes of current-era multimodality salvage for recurrent rectal cancer after local excision.

This was a single-institutional retrospective study.

This study was conducted at a tertiary-referral cancer center between 1993 and 2011.

Forty-six patients with recurrent rectal cancer after initial local excision were included.

Multimodality salvage treatment was performed as appropriate.

The primary outcomes measured were the pattern of disease recurrence, salvage treatments, and resultant overall and re-recurrence-free survival.

After the initial local excision, recurrent disease was diagnosed after a median interval of 1.9 years: local/regionally in 67%, distantly in 18%, and both in 15%. Four patients (9%) had recurrence that was unsalvageable, 2 (4%) declined treatment, and 40 (87%) underwent surgical salvage. Preoperative chemoradiation was given in 30 (75%) patients. The R0 resection rate was 80%, requiring multivisceral resection (33%), total pelvic exenteration (5%), and metastasectomy (25%). The rate of sphincter preservation was 33%, and perioperative morbidity was 50%. The first site of failure after salvage was distant in 38% and was local only in 10%. The 5-year overall and 3-year re-recurrence-free survival were 63% and 43%. Pathologic stage at initial local excision, receipt of neoadjuvant chemoradiation before local excision, recurrence pattern after local excision, pathologic stage at salvage, and R0 resection at salvage influenced re-recurrence-free survival.

This study was limited by the referral and selection biases inherent in a small study cohort.

Failure after local excision for rectal cancer may not be salvageable. When feasible, multimodality treatment, including multivisceral resection, pelvic irradiation, and chemotherapy, was associated with potentially lasting treatment-related morbidities and only modest success in long-term disease control. These findings should be compared with the expected stage-specific outcomes of standard proctectomy for early-stage rectal cancer, when local excision is being considered.

There is wide variation in surgical care for rectal cancer in the United States.

This study aimed to assess the differences in individual surgeon procedural profiles that might explain variations in the rates of restorative vs nonrestorative proctectomy for rectal cancer.

This study was a retrospective examination of a cohort derived from trackable state hospital discharge data from 11 states.

We identified all patients with rectal cancer that underwent restorative proctectomy (sphincter-sparing surgery) vs nonrestorative proctectomy (colostomy formation) over a 24-month study period (January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2004).

We developed an inpatient procedural profile of each treating surgeon's practice across general surgery procedure codes and summed the number of restorative vs nonrestorative proctectomies for rectal cancer by surgeon.

The primary outcome measures were nonrestorative proctectomy, mortality, and length of stay.

A total of 7519 proctectomies were performed for rectal cancer by 2588 surgeons. During the 24-month study period, 1003 (38.8%) surgeons performed only nonrestorative procedures for rectal cancer. On multivariate analysis, the likelihood that a surgeon performed only nonrestorative procedures was increased if that surgeon performed more integumentary procedures and decreased if the surgeon performed at least one ileoanal pouch procedure or more anorectal procedures. Patients who underwent proctectomy by surgeons who performed only nonrestorative procedures had significantly higher mortality (2.5 ± 0.7%) and longer length of stay (11.3 ± 8.8 days) in comparison with those patients treated by surgeons who performed both restorative and nonrestorative procedures (1.3 ± 0.3% mortality and 9.2 ± 6.9 days, P < .001 for both analyses). The volume of proctectomy performed significantly affected all analyses.

: The retrospective design introduces potential selection bias.

Over a 24-month period, 38.8% of surgeons performed only nonrestorative procedures for rectal cancer. These surgeons did not regularly perform anorectal or ileoanal pouch procedures, suggesting that they may not have a focus on colorectal disease in their practice; they had significantly higher mortality and length of stay for their patients who underwent proctectomy for rectal cancer.

Geographic variability in the use of restorative proctectomy for rectal cancer has been described throughout the United States. We examined factors associated with high rates of colostomy formation after proctectomy for rectal cancer across US counties.

We used state hospital discharge data from 21 states to determine county rates of restorative proctectomy vs nonrestorative proctectomy (ie, colostomy) for rectal cancer. We merged the county-level data with 1) tumor characteristics from Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data; 2) number of specialty surgeons in the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and Society of Surgical Oncology; 3) county socioeconomic variables from census data; 4) colorectal cancer-screening rates from Medicare; and 5) hospital characteristics from the American Hospital Association. We then determined factors associated with high rates of colostomy formation (> 60%) after proctectomy for rectal cancer across counties.

From January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2004, a total of 19,912 proctectomies were performed for cancer in 1050 counties, of which 489 had adequate sample size for evaluation. Based on county of residence information, nonrestorative proctectomy with colostomy was performed in greater than 60% of all patients with rectal cancer in 26% (n = 125) of counties. On multivariate analysis, more specialty surgeons (OR = 0.70; CI = 0.51-0.96) were protective against colostomy formation at the county level.

The use of restorative techniques in rectal cancer surgery varies based on access to specialty colorectal cancer surgeons. Population-based directives are needed to standardize care for rectal cancer across the United States.