Gut 2008;57:1690-1697
Colorectal cancer
Unacceptable variation in abdominoperineal excision rates for rectal cancer: time to intervene?
1 Cancer Epidemiology Group, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Leeds, St James’s Institute of Oncology, St James’s Hospital, Leeds, UK
2 Pathology & Tumour Biology, Leeds Institute for Molecular Medicine, University of Leeds, St James’s University Hospital, Leeds, UK
3 Northern & Yorkshire Cancer Registry and Information Service, St James’s Institute of Oncology, St James’s Hospital, Leeds, UK
4 National Cancer Services Analysis Team, Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology, Bebington, UK
Dr Eva Morris, NYCRIS, Level 6, Bexley Wing, St James’s Institute of Oncology, St James’s Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK; eva.morris{at}nycris.leedsth.nhs.uk
Objective: To determine the variation in the rates of use of abdominoperineal excision (APE) by cancer network, hospital trust and surgeon across England between 1998 and 2004 and determine if any variation could be explained by differences in patient characteristics such as stage of disease, age, gender or socioeconomic deprivation.
Design: Retrospective study of a population-based dataset comprised of cancer registry and hospital episode statistics data.
Setting: All NHS providers of rectal cancer surgery within England.
Patients: 31 223 patients diagnosed with rectal cancer and receiving a major abdominal procedure within the NHS in England between 1998 and 2004.
Main outcome measure: Rates and odds of use of APE were determined in relation to patient case-mix and each patient’s managing surgeon, trust and cancer network.
Results: The rate of use of APE decreased from 30.5% in 1998 to 23.0% in 2004. Males, the economically deprived and those managed by surgeons operating on fewer than seven rectal cancer cases per year were all significantly more likely to receive an APE. There were also significant variations in the odds of receiving an APE over time and between individual surgeons and hospital trusts independently of patient case-mix.
Conclusions: Over the study period the use of APE decreased but statistically significant variation was observed in its application independently of case mix. Reducing this variation will remove inequalities, reduce colostomy rates, and improve outcomes in rectal cancer. Rates of APE use could be a national performance measure.
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
Relevant Articles
- Unacceptable variation in abdominoperineal excision rates for rectal cancer
- O Faiz, J Smith, and S Clark
Gut 2009 58: 150.[Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]
- Doing our best: surgery for rectal cancer
- Monica M Bertagnolli
Gut 2008 57: 1643-1645.[Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Bertagnolli, M. M
(2008). Doing our best: surgery for rectal cancer. Gut
57: 1643-1645
[Full Text]
- Full Text
- Full Text (PDF)
-
All Versions of this Article:
gut.2007.137877v1
57/12/1690 most recent - Alert me when this article is cited
- Alert me if a correction is posted
- Citation Map
Services
- Email this link to a friend
- Similar articles in this journal
- Similar articles in PubMed
- Add article to my folders
- Download to citation manager
- Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Google Scholar
PubMed
Topic Collections
Bookmark with
Register for free content
The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.
Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.
