Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Unacceptable variation in abdominoperineal excision rates for rectal cancer: time to intervene?
  1. E Morris1,2,
  2. P Quirke2,
  3. J D Thomas1,2,
  4. L Fairley3,
  5. B Cottier4,
  6. D Forman1,3
  1. 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. 2
    Pathology & Tumour Biology, Leeds Institute for Molecular Medicine, University of Leeds, St James’s University Hospital, Leeds, UK
  3. 3
    Northern & Yorkshire Cancer Registry and Information Service, St James’s Institute of Oncology, St James’s Hospital, Leeds, UK
  4. 4
    National Cancer Services Analysis Team, Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology, Bebington, UK
  1. 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}


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.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • See Commentary, p 1643

  • Funding: Whilst undertaking this work EM was supported by the Pelican Cancer Foundation and PQ by Yorkshire Cancer Research.

  • Competing interests: None.

Linked Articles