Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Authors’ response
  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, Arthington House, Cookridge 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, Arthington House, Cookridge Hospital, Leeds, UK
  4. 4
    National Cancer Services Analysis Team, Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology, Bebington, Wirral, UK
  1. Dr E Morris, NYCRIS, Level 6, Bexley Wing, St James’s Institute of Oncology, St James’s Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK; eva.morris{at}

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.

We thank Murphy et al for their interest in our paper and agree that encouragingly the overall rate of abdominoperineal excision (APE) use for England was 25.5% which is below the level of 30% recommended by several independent professional bodies.1 2 Furthermore, we demonstrated an encouraging decline in APE rates over the 7 year period of our study. Despite this average value, however, striking variations in practice were observed across the country (8.5–52.6% across Hospital Trusts) and, given the potential impact on outcomes these variations could have, we maintain they are worthy of further exploration. As, in the most extreme cases, rates of use of this procedure were significantly above the 30% level recommended by the professional bodies, we believe these variations should not be ignored. We accept it is entirely possible they may …

View Full Text


  • Competing interests: None.

Linked Articles