Some studies showed that when distant metastasis or locally advanced tumors were observed, the participation of 2 or more operating surgeons (combined surgery) in the operation could improve the prognosis of patients. The multispecialty operative team would perform combined surgery in colon cancer patients with some complications since 2015. The goal of this study is to confirm performing combined surgery would improve the outcomes of colon cancer patients. A retrospective observational study was conducted, which involved all colon cancer patients between November 2015 and December 2019 at one would-be medical center. Patients were divided into 3 cohorts: those with complicated cases and had combined surgery (C_2S), those with complicated cases and had surgery performed by a single surgeon (C_1S), and those with uncomplicated cases and had surgery performed by a single surgeon (NC_1S). Overall survival and disease-free survival were compared among the 3 groups. A total of 296 colon cancer patients during the study period. Among them, 35 were C_2S, 87 were C_1S, and 174 were NC_1S. Patients in the NC_1S group had significantly higher 12-, 24-, and 36-month OS rates compared to those in the C_1S group (P < .01). In contrast, there was no significant difference in overall survival among patients in the NC_1S and C_2S group (P =.15). The quality of surgery must be impact the prognosis, especially in the individual who was complicated case, the survival in patients who had surgery performed by multispecialty operative team would be improved.

Large randomized controlled trials have investigated the oncological value of the laparoscopic approach to colorectal cancer. Mainly, non-inferiority for the laparoscopic approach regarding long-term survival could be shown. Nevertheless, some recent trials revealed inferiority especially due to histopathological quality of specimen or location of the tumor in the rectum. The main objective of this study was to compare two historical patient collectives of specialized centers for either the laparoscopic or the open resection approach, regarding long-term survival and disease progression of rectal cancer according to tumor localization in a retrospective propensity score-matched analysis.

A retrospective analysis, based on two prospectively maintained institutional colorectal cancer databases, was performed. The database of the reference center in Erlangen maintained almost exclusively open operations whereas the database in Lübeck maintained to a vast majority laparoscopic operations. To adjust risk profiles, a 1:1 propensity score matching was performed.

Seven hundred fifty-five patients of both centers (Erlangen, n = 507, Lübeck n = 248) were included. Propensity score matching resulted in two equalized groups with 248 patients. Regarding the postoperative complications, advantages for the open approach were seen. Analyzing the survival data, no differences in disease-free as well as overall survival were shown. Also, no differences in the overall loco-regional recurrence and distant metastasis rate were detected.

In centers with adequate expertise, open and laparoscopic procedures result in equivalent oncologic long-term outcomes. Advantages for the open resected group concerning short-term results and complications were detected, due to remarkably low rates of anastomotic leakage.

The impact of quality of surgery, colorectal surgical specialization, training and expertise has been far greater on survival outcomes than adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies. The review of the evidence by Professor Martling and expert discussion addresses the evidence base and the crucial importance of the surgeon as a prognostic factor, and how this has been relatively neglected in comparison to other resources invested in improving the treatment of colorectal cancer.

The purpose of this study is to provide a web-based calculator predicting complication probabilities of patients undergoing colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery in Germany.

Analyses were based on records of first-time CRC surgery between 2010 and February 2017, documented in the database of the Study, Documentation, and Quality Center (StuDoQ) of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Allgemein- und Viszeralchirurgie (DGAV), a registry of CRC surgery in hospitals throughout Germany, covering demography, medical history, tumor features, comorbidity, behavioral risk factors, surgical procedures, and outcomes. Using logistic ridge regression, separate models were developed in learning samples of 6729 colon and 4381 rectum cancer patients and evaluated in validation samples of sizes 2407 and 1287. Discrimination was assessed using c statistics. Calibration was examined graphically by plotting observed versus predicted complication probabilities and numerically using Brier scores.

We report validation results regarding 15 outcomes such as any major complication, surgical site infection, anastomotic leakage, bladder voiding disturbance after rectal surgery, abdominal wall dehiscence, various internistic complications, 30-day readmission, 30-day reoperation rate, and 30-day mortality. When applied to the validation samples, c statistics ranged between 0.60 for anastomosis leakage and 0.85 for mortality after rectum cancer surgery. Brier scores ranged from 0.003 to 0.127.

While most models showed satisfactory discrimination and calibration, this does not preclude overly optimistic or pessimistic individual predictions. To avoid misinterpretation, one has to understand the basic principles of risk calculation and risk communication. An e-learning tool outlining the appropriate use of the risk calculator is provided.

This study aimed to investigate the outcome for stage II and III rectal cancer patients compared to stage II and III colonic cancer patients with regard to 5-year cause-specific survival (CSS), overall survival, and local and combined recurrence rates over time.

This prospective cohort study identified 3,355 consecutive patients with adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum and treated in our colorectal unit between 1981 and 2011, for investigation. The study was restricted to International Union Against Cancer (UICC) stages II and III. Postoperative mortality and histological incomplete resection were excluded, which left 995 patients with colonic cancer and 726 patients with rectal cancer for further analysis.

Five-year CSS rates improved for colonic cancer from 65.0% for patients treated between 1981 and 1986 to 88.1% for patients treated between 2007 and 2011. For rectal cancer patients, the respective 5-year CSS rates improved from 53.4% in the first observation period to 89.8% in the second one. The local recurrence rate for rectal cancer dropped from 34.2% in the years 1981-1986 to 2.1% in the years 2007-2011. In the last decade of observation, prognosis for rectal cancer was equal to that for colon cancer (CSS 88.6 vs. 86.7%, p = 0.409).

Survival of patients with colon and rectal cancer has continued to improve over the last three decades. After major changes in treatment strategy including introduction of total mesorectal excision and neoadjuvant (radio)chemotherapy, prognosis for stage II and III rectal cancer is at least as good as for stage II and III colonic cancer.

No one doubts that lymph node dissection in colon cancer is necessary, it is just the extent of that dissection that is still under debate. As the individual steps of an oncologic operation cannot be separated from each other, analysis of the significance of lymph node dissection alone is difficult. It has been proven that the T category is directly related to the number and central spread of lymph node metastases. Micrometastases and isolated tumor cells may be detected in lymph nodes by using special staining techniques; their presence may worsen prognosis significantly and approximate it to UICC stage III. The numbers of dissected lymph nodes and the ratio of involved versus dissected lymph nodes have been used as markers for quality of surgery and histopathological evaluation. Recent results underscore the importance of technique and extent of dissection. Dissection must be performed along the embryologic planes of the mesocolon and leave them intact. A high vascular tie with preservation of the central hypogastric nerves must be applied in order to achieve the best oncologic results while preserving quality of life. Extended lymphadenectomy is oncologically relevant only when it is combined with removal of the primary tumor with adequate longitudinal clearance, an intact complete mesocolon, and high vascular tie. It is part of a concept in which the tumor-bearing specimen is harvested as an enveloped package to minimize the risk of tumor cell spillage and local recurrence.

For many years, the impact of the surgeon volume on short- and long-term outcome after rectal carcinoma surgery is controversially discussed. Literature and own department data were reviewed in order to clarify the impact of surgeon volume in the current era of total mesorectal excision surgery, multimodal therapy, quality management, and centralization of cancer care.

Uni- and multivariate analysis of data from 1,028 patients with solitary rectal carcinoma, treated between 1995 and 2010 at the Department of Surgery, University Hospital, Erlangen, Germany, was performed. Surgeons were subdivided according to the number of operations/year into high- (at least seven/year), medium- (three to six), and low- (less than three) volume surgeons.

Of 1,028 patients, 800 (77.8 %) were operated by five high-volume surgeons, 193 (18.8 %) by seven medium-volume surgeons, and 35 (3.4 %) by 12 low-volume surgeons. Surgeon volume was significantly associated with postoperative mortality and the rate of positive pathological circumferential resection margin. In risk-adjusted analysis, after primary surgery, surgeon volume had a significant impact on observed overall survival and disease-free survival, but not on locoregional recurrence. After neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy, only observed overall survival was significantly influenced by surgeon volume.

In surgical departments with special interest in rectal carcinoma, surgeon volume has some influence on short- and long-term outcome. Irrespective of this fact, specialization, experience, individual skill, hospital organization, and regular quality assurance are essential prognostic factors ensuring good results in rectal carcinoma surgery.

A large body of research has focused on investigating the effects of healthcare provider volume and specialization on patient outcomes including outcomes of colorectal cancer surgery. However there is conflicting evidence about the role of such healthcare provider characteristics in the management of colorectal cancer.

To examine the available literature for the effects of hospital volume, surgeon caseload and specialization on the outcomes of colorectal, colon and rectal cancer surgery.

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and LILACS using free text search words (as well as MESH-terms). We also searched Medline (January 1990-September 2011), Embase (January 1990-September 2011) and registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.

Non-randomised and observational studies that compared outcomes for colorectal cancer, colon cancer and rectal cancer surgery (overall 5-year survival, five year disease specific survival, operative mortality, 5-year local recurrence rate, anastomotic leak rate, permanent stoma rate and abdominoperineal excision of the rectum rate) between high volume/specialist hospitals and surgeons and low volume/specialist hospitals and surgeons.

Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias in included studies. Results were pooled using the random effects model in unadjusted and case-mix adjusted meta-analyses.

Overall five year survival was significantly improved for patients with colorectal cancer treated in high-volume hospitals (HR=0.90, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.96), by high-volume surgeons (HR=0.88, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.93) and colorectal specialists (HR=0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.94). Operative mortality was significantly better for high-volume surgeons (OR=0.77, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.91) and specialists (OR=0.74, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.91), but there was no significant association with higher hospital caseload (OR=0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.04) when only case-mix adjusted studies were included. There were differences in the effects of caseload depending on the level of case-mix adjustment and also whether the studies originated in the US or in other countries. For rectal cancer, there was a significant association between high-volume hospitals and improved 5-year survival (HR=0.85, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.93), but not with operative mortality (OR=0.97, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.33); surgeon caseload had no significant association with either 5-year survival (HR=0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.14) or operative mortality (OR=0.86, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.19) when case-mix adjusted studies were reviewed. Higher hospital volume was associated with significantly lower rates of permanent stomas (OR=0.64, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.90) and APER (OR=0.55, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.72). High-volume surgeons and specialists also achieved lower rates of permanent stoma formation (0.75, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.88) and (0.70, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.94, respectively).

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.

The influence of surgical principles and neoadjuvant therapy on the frequency of local tumor cell dissemination (LTCD) in rectal carcinoma surgery and its consequences for local recurrence and survival rates were analyzed.

Data from the Erlangen registry for colorectal carcinomas (ERCRC) from 1969-2008 were compared with data from the literature published in 1980-2008.

LTCD was observed in 6.7% in the ERCRC (n=2764) and a frequency of 6.9% was reported in in the literature (n=13,395). In the course of time and especially since the introduction of total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery, the incidence of LTCD has significantly decreased. Neoadjuvant treatment did not influence the frequency of LTCD. Following LTCD the rate of local recurrence significantly increased and the 5 year survival rate significantly decreased. This also applied to patients with neoadjuvant therapy.

Even in the era of TME surgery attention must to be paid to avoidance of LTCD. It is obligatory to document the occurrence of LTCD and it must be taken into consideration in routine quality assurance. In cases of LTCD postoperative chemoradiation is indicated for patients without neoadjuvant irradiation.

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.

Total mesorectal excision (TME) as proposed by R.J. Heald more than 20 years ago, is nowadays accepted worldwide for optimal rectal cancer surgery. This technique is focused on an intact package of the tumour and its main lymphatic drainage. This concept can be translated into colon cancer surgery, as the mesorectum is only part of the mesenteric planes which cover the colon and its lymphatic drainage like envelopes. According to the concept of TME for rectal cancer, we perform a concept of complete mesocolic excision (CME) for colonic cancer. This technique aims at the separation of the mesocolic from the parietal plane and true central ligation of the supplying arteries and draining veins right at their roots.

Prospectively obtained data from 1329 consecutive patients of our department with RO-resection of colon cancer between 1978 and 2002 were analysed. Patient data of three subdivided time periods were compared.

By consequent application of the procedure of CME, we were able to reduce local 5-year recurrence rates in colon cancer from 6.5% in the period from 1978 to 1984 to 3.6% in 1995 to 2002. In the same period, the cancer related 5-year survival rates in patients resected for cure increased from 82.1% to 89.1%.

The technique of CME in colon cancer surgery aims at a specimen with intact layers and a maximum of lymphnode harvest. This is translated into lower local recurrence rates and better overall survival.

Despite many studies of rectal cancer outcomes, no clear relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and patient outcomes has emerged for rectal cancer. We aimed to characterize the effect of hospital and surgical volume on surgery type and surgical outcomes in rectal cancer through a systematic review of the literature. We conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating the association between hospital or surgeon volume and rectal cancer outcomes. We searched PubMed for relevant articles and reviewed 23 articles. We describe each study and report outcomes in terms of the effect of hospital or surgeon volume on the type of surgery performed, surgical complications, postoperative mortality, survival, and recurrence. Hospitals and surgeons with higher caseloads appear to perform more sphincter-preserving surgeries and have lower postoperative mortality rates. Hospital and surgeon volume appear to have no effect or a small beneficial effect on the rate of leaks, complication rates, local recurrence, overall survival, and cancer-specific survival. For rectal cancer, the effects of hospital volume may be stronger for more short-term outcomes. Beyond the immediate recovery period, the effect of hospital and surgeon volume may be minimal. As more technically challenging surgeries, such as total mesorectal resection, become more widespread it will be important to evaluate the impact of hospital and surgeon volume on outcomes.

Surgical quality assurance is a central issue in the treatment of rectal cancer and has led to substantial improvements in sphincter preservation, local control, and overall survival. Education or training as well as volume of practice are often cited as the major predictors of quality outcomes. While volume is a simple measure to analyze, it is likely a superficial or surrogate measure of quality surgery. It has been conclusively demonstrated that education, from total mesorectum excision workshops to nation-wide educational initiatives are effective methods of improving quality of care for the rectal cancer patient. New methods of quality assurance and improvement are being developed including prospective quality registers, the synoptic operative report, and pathology audits. It is imperative that improved measures of quality, other than volume, be implemented to audit our own practices, hospitals and regions with the goal of identifying issues that will improve outcomes for rectal cancer patients.

At present, standard adjuvant treatment for patients with stage III colon cancer after surgical resection is represented by 6 months of chemotherapy based on 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin regimens. Even elderly patients enjoy the benefit of chemotherapy in terms of superior overall survival with no detrimental effects on quality of life. More questionable is the role of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II colon cancer patients, the standard of care for whom is surgical resection alone. Although a majority of patients will be cured with resection, a significant minority will ultimately relapse, suggesting the need to identify patients who may benefit from adjuvant therapy. Putative prognostic markers for stage II patients, as well as the state-of-the-art of the adjuvant treatment in this setting, are reviewed in this paper.

Patients who are at high risk of recurrence after undergoing curative (R0) resection for colon carcinoma may benefit most from adjuvant treatment and from intensive follow-up for early detection and treatment of recurrence. However, in light of new clinical evidence, there is a need for continuous improvement in the calculation of the risk of recurrence.

Six hundred forty-one patients with R0-resected colon carcinoma who underwent surgery between January 1, 1984 and December 31, 1996 were recruited from the Erlangen Registry of Colorectal Carcinoma. The study end point was time until first locoregional or distant recurrence. The factors analyzed were: age, gender, site in colon, International Union Against Cancer (UICC) pathologic tumor classification (pT), UICC pathologic lymph node classification, histologic tumor type, malignancy grade, lymphatic invasion, venous invasion, number of examined lymph nodes, number of lymph node metastases, emergency presentation, intraoperative tumor cell spillage, surgeon, and time period. The resulting prognostic tree was evaluated by means of an independent sample using a measure of predictive accuracy based on the Brier score for censored data. Predictive accuracy was compared with several proposed stage groupings.

The prognostic tree contained the following variables: pT, the number of lymph node metastases, venous invasion, and emergency presentation. Predictive accuracy based on the validation sample was 0.230 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.227-0.233) for the prognostic tree and 0.212 (95% CI, 0.209-0.215) for the UICC TNM sixth edition stage grouping.

The prognostic tree showed superior predictive accuracy when it was validated using an independent sample. It is interpreted easily and may be applied under clinical circumstances. Provided that their classification system can be validated successfully in other centers, the authors propose using the prognostic tree as a starting point for studies of adjuvant treatment and follow-up strategies.

Colorectal cancer is an increasingly significant cause of both mortality and morbidity due to wider adoption of the Western lifestyle and a progressively ageing population. Recently steps forward have been made both in surgical and chemoradiotherapeutic management of this disease. Well performed total mesorectal excision surgery has now become the gold standard for rectal cancer resection. Several prognostic markers, both clinicopathological and molecular, have been identified allowing better patient counselling and targeting of treatment. The rationale for patient selection, timing and dose of radiotherapy has been further elucidated. New chemotherapy agents are under trial and predictive factors allowing selection of those patients most likely to respond to them have been identified. Many of these factors will increase in importance as colorectal cancer becomes a chronic disease with lengthening survival times. As we will discuss the pathologist has important roles in all of these developments and at all stages of colorectal cancer management.

National health statistics indicate that blacks have lower survival rates from colorectal cancer than do whites. This disparity has been attributed to differences in stage at diagnosis and other disease features, extent and quality of treatment, and socioeconomic factors. We evaluated outcomes for blacks and whites with rectal cancer who participated in randomized clinical trials of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP). The randomized trial setting enhances uniformity in disease stage and treatment plan among all participants.

The study included black (N = 104) or white (N = 1,070) patients from two serially conducted NSABP randomized trials for operable rectal cancer. Recurrence-free survival and survival were compared using statistical modeling to account for differences in patient and disease characteristics between the groups.

Blacks and whites had largely similar disease features at diagnosis. After adjustment for patient and tumor prognostic covariates, the black/white recurrence hazard ratio (HR) was 1.25 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94 to 1.66). The mortality HR was somewhat larger at 1.45 (95% CI = 1.09 to 1.93). Outcomes were improved for both groups in the more recent trial, which employed systemic adjuvant chemotherapy in all treatment arms.

Recurrence-free survival was modestly less favorable for blacks, whereas overall survival was more disparate. Outcomes between groups were more comparable than those noted in national health statistics surveys and other studies. Adequate treatment access and the identification of new prognostic factors that can identify patients at high risk of recurrence are needed to ensure optimal outcomes for rectal cancer patients of all racial/ethnic backgrounds.

Various aspects of the progression and prognosis of colorectal carcinoma have been investigated in numerous publications during recent years. An exact macroscopic and microscopic examination is still of basic importance but different factors of the molecular pathogenesis of colorectal carcinoma could be described by immunohistochemistry and molecular biology. Furthermore, they have been evaluated regarding their importance for the course of disease and prognosis and in particular, the different pathways of carcinogenesis and microsatellite instability were included. The detection of micrometastasis was investigated applying mostly molecular genetic methods. Numerous oncogenes, tumor suppressor genes and regulators of the cell cycle, markers of proliferation and apoptosis, cell adhesion antigens and angiogenetic factors were characterized with regard to their prognostic potential. In the future, so-called response predictors will presumably gain a certain relevance in the context of neoadjuvant (radiotherapy) chemotherapy. The present review summarizes these results and discusses the future clinical relevance.

The aims were to review the existing methods of quality assurance in surgical oncology and to determine a relationship between surgery-related factors and the variety in outcomes in the treatment of solid cancers.

The literature was reviewed by searching Medline and Cancerlit databases.

Wide variations were found in virtually all tumour types. Clear evidence was found that an improvement in the quality of the surgical procedure could have major implications for the prognosis and quality of life of cancer patients.

These findings emphasize the need for strict quality control procedures in surgical oncology and might imply a considerable change in cancer treatment strategies, because the routine use of adjuvant therapies could be questioned.

Results from specialist centres have shown that total mesorectal excision (TME) produces excellent control of local disease in patients with carcinoma of the rectum.

The results of TME were reviewed in a surgical practice in which patients with rectal cancer comprised 1 per cent of the total caseload and mean case numbers were less than 15 each year.

Eighty-two consecutive patients underwent rectal excision with TME over a 72-month period (68 anterior resection, eight abdominoperineal excision and six Hartmann's procedure). Sixty-nine operations were deemed 'curative' at the time of surgery. Anastomotic leak occurred in two (3 per cent) of 68 patients, both of whom recovered without additional surgery. There were two local recurrences (3 per cent) among 69 patients who underwent 'curative' surgery. At a median follow-up of 190 weeks, the survival rate for Dukes' stage A, B, C and 'D' was 100, 83, 68 and 18 per cent respectively.

Outcome as measured by perioperative morbidity and local disease control achieved in a surgical practice with a broad case mix and relatively low annual case volume was comparable to that from larger centres. Appropriate surgical training and attention to technical detail may be as important as case volume in determining outcome after surgery for rectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer is Europe's second biggest cancer killer. Yet despite advances in knowledge and changes in chemotherapy practice, we have not seen great strides in improved survival. Histopathological staging is at present the most accurate prognostic factor for survival and recurrence. Improvements in staging have led to the recognition of the importance of the circumferential resection margin (CRM) and how the quality of surgery influences local recurrence rates. Further refinements in staging and increasing knowledge of tumour biology will have a large contribution to play in the future.

For cancer patients, prognosis is strongly influenced by the completeness of tumor removal at the time of cancer-directed surgery or disease remission after nonsurgical treatment with curative intent. These parameters define the relative success of definitive treatment and can be codified by an additional subclassification within the TNM system, the residual tumor (R) classification. Despite the importance of residual tumor status in designing clinical management after treatment, misinterpretation and inconsistent application of the R classification frequently occur that diminish or abrogate its clinical utility.

An analysis of the relevant literature regarding the use and prognostic importance of the R classification was undertaken.

In the current study, the prognostic importance of the R classification for different kinds of tumors is discussed. Problems that arise in using the R classification are described. Special issues regarding the use of the R classification are addressed.

The R classification is a strong indicator of prognosis and facilitates the comparison of treatment results if applied in a consistent manner. Uniform use and interpretation of this classification is essential for the standardization of posttreatment data collection.

One of the main problems in the treatment of rectal cancer is the development of local recurrences. In the last decades, major improvements have been realized in the surgical treatment of rectal cancer. The introduction of TME-surgery has led to a large reduction in local recurrence rates and improved survival. TME-based operations are now established as the standard of care for rectal cancer, and should form the basis for trials concerning the role of (neo)adjuvant therapy. However, training and quality control are prerequisites to obtain good results in all surgeons' hands. Furthermore, standardization in the description of operations and reporting of pathology specimens should be implemented as important features of quality control. In general, it is thought that high volume and specialist care produces superior results to low volume and non-specialist care, especially for those less frequent forms of cancer and in technically difficult operations, like those for rectal cancer. However, limiting the performance of rectal cancer surgery to highly specialized surgeons or to only those general surgeons who perform more than a certain volume is impractical in view of the prevalence of rectal cancer. This article reviews developments in the treatment of especially mobile rectal cancer and pays attention to variability in outcomes and quality assurance of surgery.

Quality assessment and assurance are important issues in modern health care. For the evaluation of surgical procedures, there are indirect parameters such as complication, recurrence, and survival rates. These parameters are of limited value for the individual surgeon, and there is an obvious need for direct parameters. We have evaluated criteria by which pathologists can judge the quality or completeness of the resection specimen in a randomized trial for rectal cancer.

The pathology reports of all patients entered onto a Dutch multicenter randomized trial were reviewed. All participating pathologists had been instructed by workshops and videos in order to obtain standardized pathology work-up. A three-tiered classification was applied to assess completeness of the total mesorectal excision (TME). Prognostic value of this classification was tested using log-rank analysis of Kaplan-Meier survival curves using the data of all patients who did not receive any adjuvant treatment.

Included were 180 patients. In 24% (n = 43), the mesorectum was incomplete. Patients in this group had an increased risk for local and distant recurrence, 36.1% v. 20.3% recurrence in the group with a complete mesorectum (P =.02). Follow-up is too short to observe an effect on survival rates.

A patient's prognosis is predicted by applying a classification of macroscopic completeness on a rectal resection specimen. We conclude that pathologists are able to judge the quality of TME for rectal cancer. With this direct interdisciplinary assessment instrument, we establish a new role of the pathologist in quality control.

To review a single-center experience with 201 multivisceral resections for primary colorectal cancer to determine the accuracy of intraoperative prediction of potential curability, to identify prognostic factors, and to examine the effect of surgical experience on immediate outcome and long-term results.

Locally advanced colorectal cancer may require an intraoperative decision for en bloc resection of surrounding organs or structures to achieve complete tumor removal. This decision must weigh the risk of complications and death of multivisceral resection against a potential survival benefit. Little is known about prognostic factors and the influence of surgical experience on the outcome of multivisceral resection for colorectal cancer.

Patients undergoing multivisceral resection for primary colon or rectal cancer between 1982 and 1998 were identified from a prospective database. Patients were followed up according to a standard protocol.

Multivisceral resection was performed in 201 of 2,712 patients with a median age of 64 years. Postoperative rates of complications and death in 201 patients were 33% and 7.5%, respectively. A potentially curative resection was possible in 130 of 201 patients (65%) and histologic tumor infiltration was shown in 44% of patients with curative resection. Intraoperative assessment of curability was unreliable. After curative resection, the local recurrence rate was 11% and the overall 5-year survival rate was 51%. Multivariate analysis identified intraoperative blood loss (relative risk 1.7-6.4, P <.001), age 64 years or older (RR 3.7; P <.001), and UICC stage as independent prognostic factors (RR 2.0; P =.009). No prognostic significance was found for histologic tumor infiltration, the number of resected organs, or surgical experience.

Multivisceral resection is safe, and long-term survival after curative resection is similar to that after standard resection. Because palliative resections cannot be predicted accurately at the time of surgery, every effort should be made to achieve complete tumor resection. Major blood loss but not surgical experience per se is an independent prognostic factor.

Measures are designed to evaluate the processes and outcomes of care associated with the delivery of clinical (and non-clinical) services. They allow for intra- and interorganizational comparison to be used continuously to improve patient health outcomes. The use of performance measures always means to abstract the complex reality (medical scenarios and procedures) in order to provide an understandable and comparable output. Measures can focus on global performance. The more detailed data are available the more specific judgements with respect to the appropriateness of clinical decision-making and implementation of evidence are feasible. Externally reported measures are intended both to inform and lead to action. By providing this information, deficiencies in patient care and unnecessary variations in the care process can be uncovered. Such variations have contributed to disparities in morbidity and mortality. The developments in information technology, especially world-wide interconnectivity, standards for electronic data exchange and facilities to store and manage large amounts of data, offer the opportunity to analyse health-relevant information in order to make the delivery of healthcare services more transparent for consumers and providers. Global performance measures, such as the overall life expectancy (mortality) in a country, can give a rough orientation of how well health systems perform but they do not offer general solutions nor specific insights into care processes that have to be improved. In contrast to population-based measures, case-based performance measures use a defined group of patients depending on specific patient characteristics and features of disease. By means of these measures we are able to compare the number of patients that receive a necessary medical procedure against those patients who do not. The use of case-based measures is a bottom-up approach to improve the overall performance in the long run. They are not only a tool for global orientation but can offer a straightforward link to the areas of deficient care and the underlying procedures. Performance measures are relevant to providers as well as consumers, from their own individual perspective. Cased-based measures focus on the management of individual patient. This approach to performance measurement can inform physicians in a meaningful and constructive way by monitoring their individual performance and by pointing out possible areas of improvement.

Neoadjuvant radiotherapy is a common treatment modality for patients with Stage II and III rectal carcinoma but, after surgery, often is complicated by local infections. To define a possible influence of radiotherapy on neutrophilic granulocytes in the neighborhood of tumor cells, the authors investigated their function in vitro.

Density gradient-purified granulocytes from healthy donors were used for all tests. These cells were cocultured with the colon carcinoma cell line HRT-18 and irradiated. Their function was assessed by measuring luminol-enhanced chemiluminescence and migration against the chemoattractant formyl-methionyl-leucine-phenylalanine.

Although irradiation decreased, the addition of tumor cells increased reactive-oxygen species release in granulocytes, which was enhanced further by phorbol myristate acid (PMA), even after several hours. All contacts with tumor cells, however, caused immediate radical release that was inversely proportional to the radiation dose. Naïve and irradiated cells were stimulated further by PMA. Migration of granulocytes clearly was inhibited by tumor cells and irradiation, whereas the depth of invasion was enhanced by higher doses of radiation.

The current data show clearly that the influence of radiotherapy on local defense against colorectal carcinoma is limited and cannot explain the increased rate of infectious complications.

The aim of the study was to investigate the impact of hospital caseload on the short-term postoperative outcome of patients with rectal carcinoma.

A multicentre study involving 75 German hospitals was carried out between January and December 1999. Some 1463 patients with rectal carcinoma were studied.

The hospitals were divided into three groups by annual caseload as follows: less than 20 (group 1), 20-40 (group 2) and more than 40 (group 3). The groups were identical in terms of age, gender, height, weight, tumour stage, risk factors and American Society of Anesthesiologists classification. Postoperative morbidity was less in hospitals with a case volume of more than 20 patients per year (41.7 per cent in group 2 versus 49.9 per cent in group 1). The proportion of patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection with a permanent stoma was less in hospitals with a case volume of more than 40 patients per year (26.4 per cent in group 3 versus 34.0 per cent in group 2).

A large caseload in rectal surgery results in a significant reduction in permanent stoma formation and postoperative morbidity.

It is unclear whether patients with Stage II colon carcinoma should be offered adjuvant chemotherapy. Therefore, the authors analyzed the risk factors of these patients to identify high-risk subgroups who may benefit from such treatment.

The data from 305 patients with Stage II colon carcinoma documented in the Erlangen Registry of Colorectal Carcinoma were analyzed to identify risk factors for distant metastasis and disease-related survival. The patients were divided into two subgroups: those in a low-risk group and those in a high-risk group. The data were then compared with those from 306 patients with Stage II colon carcinoma from the German Study Group for Colorectal Carcinoma (SGCRC).

Emergency presentation, a primary tumor site in the left colon, pT3 tumors with a depth of invasion of > 15 mm beyond the outer border of the muscularis propria, and pT4 lesions were identified as the major risk factors for Stage II colon carcinoma. On dividing patients into subgroups according to these risk factors, it was found that patients in the high-risk group had a significantly higher risk of distant metastases and a significantly lower disease-related survival rate compared with patients in the low-risk group. On analyzing the SGCRC data, the authors also found a significantly higher rate of distant metastases in the high-risk group, but the disease-related survival rate differed only marginally.

Among patients with Stage II colon carcinoma, it is possible to identify a high-risk group of patients who may be candidates for adjuvant chemotherapy. Stratification by the risk factors emergency presentation, tumor site, depth of tumor invasion, and surgical department should be employed in further clinical studies.

Anastomotic leakage is a serious complication after anterior resection for rectal carcinoma. It is controversial whether anastomotic leakage influences the rate of locoregional recurrence and therefore survival.

The data of 940 patients with invasive rectal carcinoma stage I-III treated by curative anterior resection from 1978 to 1996 at the Department of Surgery of the University of Erlangen were analysed. Patients who received neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment were excluded as well as patients who died postoperatively. 89 out of 814 patients (10.9%) developed an anastomotic leakage after anterior resection.

The rate of locoregional recurrence during the first five postoperative years of all patients was 13.6%. In patients with anastomotic leakage the rate of locoregional recurrence was 22.0%, significantly higher than in patients without anastomotic leakage which was 12.5%, (P=0.018). On multivariate Cox regression analysis anastomotic leakage was shown to be an independent risk factor for locoregional recurrence (relative risk: 1.7, CI 95%: 1.02-2.75, P=0.042). Also cancer-related survival was influenced significantly by anastomotic leakage in univariate analysis as well as in multivariate analysis (relative risk: 1.6, CI 95%: 1.1-2.2, P=0.017).

Anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal carcinoma is a risk factor for locoregional recurrence and decreases cancer-related survival.

While the management and prognosis of colorectal cancer are largely dependent on clinical features such as tumor stage, there is considerable variation in treatment and outcome not explained by traditional prognostic factors. To guide efforts by researchers and health-care providers to improve quality of care, we review studies of variation in treatment and outcome by patient and provider characteristics. Surgeon expertise and case volume are associated with improved tumor control, although surgeon and hospital factors are not associated consistently with perioperative mortality or long-term survival. Some studies indicate that patients are less likely to undergo permanent colostomy if they are treated by high-volume surgeons and hospitals. Differences in treatment and outcome of patients managed by health maintenance organizations or fee-for-service providers have not generally been found. Older patients are less likely to receive adjuvant therapy after surgery, even after adjustment for comorbid illness. In the United States, black patients with colorectal cancer receive less aggressive therapy and are more likely to die of this disease than white patients, but cancer-specific survival differences are reduced or eliminated when black patients receive comparable treatment. Patients of low socioeconomic status (SES) have worse survival than those of higher SES, although the reasons for this discrepancy are not well understood. Variations in treatment may arise from inadequate physician knowledge of practice guidelines, treatment decisions based on unmeasured clinical factors, or patient preferences. To improve quality of care for colorectal cancer, a better understanding of mechanisms underlying associations between patient and provider characteristics and outcomes is required.

Increasingly, data are being accumulated on the influence of intersurgeon variability on outcome after curative surgical treatment of rectal carcinoma. Thus, today the individual surgeon has to be considered as an independent factor influencing locoregional recurrence, as well as survival rates. In general, higher local control and survival can be expected for specialized colorectal surgeons. There are no clear correlations between surgical volume and outcome. Interinstitutional variability in treatment results reflects intersurgeon variability, but analysis is generally more difficult because of a lack of homogeneity with respect to different confounding factors. There are several factors in surgical technique that are important for long-term outcome. Of greatest apparent importance is the adequacy of mesorectal excision (for carcinomas of the middle and lower third, total mesorectal excision; for carcinomas of the upper third, mesorectal excision down to a mesorectal plane 5 cm distal to the gross tumor margin detected by the surgeon in situ). Furthermore, intraoperative local tumor spillage (tumor perforation during mobilization, incision into the tumor), en bloc resection technique, skill, and the extent of regional lymphadenectomy may influence outcome. For quality assurance, detailed operative reports are required, as well as histopathology examinations concerning indicators of surgical oncologic quality discernable from the resection specimens. In future clinical trials of multimodal treatment of rectal cancer, quality assurance of surgery and pathology is necessary for consideration of the surgeon and surgical technique prognostic factors.