直肠癌国家认证计划指南对手术切缘状态的影响

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY Surgical Oncology-Oxford Pub Date : 2023-12-01 DOI:10.1016/j.suronc.2023.101921
Kevin R. Arndt, Gabrielle E. Dombek, Benjamin G. Allar, Alessandra Storino, Aaron Fleishman, Jeanne Quinn, Anne Fabrizio, Thomas E. Cataldo, Evangelos Messaris
{"title":"直肠癌国家认证计划指南对手术切缘状态的影响","authors":"Kevin R. Arndt,&nbsp;Gabrielle E. Dombek,&nbsp;Benjamin G. Allar,&nbsp;Alessandra Storino,&nbsp;Aaron Fleishman,&nbsp;Jeanne Quinn,&nbsp;Anne Fabrizio,&nbsp;Thomas E. Cataldo,&nbsp;Evangelos Messaris","doi":"10.1016/j.suronc.2023.101921","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The American College of Surgeons established the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer (NAPRC) to standardize rectal cancer care. We sought to assess the impact of NAPRC guidelines at a tertiary care center on surgical margin status.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>The Institutional NSQIP database was queried for patients with rectal adenocarcinoma undergoing surgery for curative intent two years prior to and following implementation of NAPRC guidelines. Primary outcome was surgical margin status before (pre-NAPRC) versus after (post-NAPRC) implementation of NAPRC guidelines.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Surgical pathology in five (5%) pre-NAPRC and seven (8%) post-NAPRC patients had positive radial margins (p = 0.59); distal margins were positive in three (3%) post-NAPRC and six (7%) post-NAPRC patients (p = 0.37). Local recurrence was observed in seven (6%) pre-NAPRC patients, there were no recurrences to date in post-NAPRC patients (p = 0.15). Metastasis was observed in 18 (17%) pre-NAPRC patients and four (4%) post-NAPRC patients (p = 0.55).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>NAPRC implementation was not associated with a change in surgical margin status for rectal cancer at our institution. However, the NAPRC guidelines formalize evidence-based rectal cancer care and we anticipate that improvements will be greatest in low-volume hospitals which may not utilize multidisciplinary collaboration.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51185,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Oncology-Oxford","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer guidelines on surgical margin status\",\"authors\":\"Kevin R. Arndt,&nbsp;Gabrielle E. Dombek,&nbsp;Benjamin G. Allar,&nbsp;Alessandra Storino,&nbsp;Aaron Fleishman,&nbsp;Jeanne Quinn,&nbsp;Anne Fabrizio,&nbsp;Thomas E. Cataldo,&nbsp;Evangelos Messaris\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.suronc.2023.101921\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The American College of Surgeons established the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer (NAPRC) to standardize rectal cancer care. We sought to assess the impact of NAPRC guidelines at a tertiary care center on surgical margin status.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>The Institutional NSQIP database was queried for patients with rectal adenocarcinoma undergoing surgery for curative intent two years prior to and following implementation of NAPRC guidelines. Primary outcome was surgical margin status before (pre-NAPRC) versus after (post-NAPRC) implementation of NAPRC guidelines.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Surgical pathology in five (5%) pre-NAPRC and seven (8%) post-NAPRC patients had positive radial margins (p = 0.59); distal margins were positive in three (3%) post-NAPRC and six (7%) post-NAPRC patients (p = 0.37). Local recurrence was observed in seven (6%) pre-NAPRC patients, there were no recurrences to date in post-NAPRC patients (p = 0.15). Metastasis was observed in 18 (17%) pre-NAPRC patients and four (4%) post-NAPRC patients (p = 0.55).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>NAPRC implementation was not associated with a change in surgical margin status for rectal cancer at our institution. However, the NAPRC guidelines formalize evidence-based rectal cancer care and we anticipate that improvements will be greatest in low-volume hospitals which may not utilize multidisciplinary collaboration.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51185,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgical Oncology-Oxford\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgical Oncology-Oxford\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096074042300021X\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Oncology-Oxford","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096074042300021X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

背景:美国外科医师学会建立了国家直肠癌认证计划(NAPRC)来规范直肠癌治疗。我们试图评估NAPRC指南在三级保健中心对手术切缘状态的影响。材料和方法在实施NAPRC指南前后两年,查询机构NSQIP数据库中接受直肠腺癌手术治疗意图的患者。主要结局是手术切缘在实施NAPRC指南之前(pre-NAPRC)和之后(后NAPRC)的状态。结果5例(5%)naprc术前和7例(8%)naprc术后手术病理桡骨缘阳性(p = 0.59);3例(3%)naprc术后患者远端缘阳性,6例(7%)naprc术后患者远端缘阳性(p = 0.37)。7例(6%)naprc前患者局部复发,naprc后患者无复发(p = 0.15)。18例(17%)naprc前患者和4例(4%)naprc后患者出现转移(p = 0.55)。结论naprc的实施与我院直肠癌手术切缘状况的改变无关。然而,NAPRC指南正式化了基于证据的直肠癌治疗,我们预计在可能不利用多学科合作的小容量医院中,改善将是最大的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Impact of National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer guidelines on surgical margin status

Background

The American College of Surgeons established the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer (NAPRC) to standardize rectal cancer care. We sought to assess the impact of NAPRC guidelines at a tertiary care center on surgical margin status.

Materials and methods

The Institutional NSQIP database was queried for patients with rectal adenocarcinoma undergoing surgery for curative intent two years prior to and following implementation of NAPRC guidelines. Primary outcome was surgical margin status before (pre-NAPRC) versus after (post-NAPRC) implementation of NAPRC guidelines.

Results

Surgical pathology in five (5%) pre-NAPRC and seven (8%) post-NAPRC patients had positive radial margins (p = 0.59); distal margins were positive in three (3%) post-NAPRC and six (7%) post-NAPRC patients (p = 0.37). Local recurrence was observed in seven (6%) pre-NAPRC patients, there were no recurrences to date in post-NAPRC patients (p = 0.15). Metastasis was observed in 18 (17%) pre-NAPRC patients and four (4%) post-NAPRC patients (p = 0.55).

Conclusion

NAPRC implementation was not associated with a change in surgical margin status for rectal cancer at our institution. However, the NAPRC guidelines formalize evidence-based rectal cancer care and we anticipate that improvements will be greatest in low-volume hospitals which may not utilize multidisciplinary collaboration.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Surgical Oncology-Oxford
Surgical Oncology-Oxford 医学-外科
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
169
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: Surgical Oncology is a peer reviewed journal publishing review articles that contribute to the advancement of knowledge in surgical oncology and related fields of interest. Articles represent a spectrum of current technology in oncology research as well as those concerning clinical trials, surgical technique, methods of investigation and patient evaluation. Surgical Oncology publishes comprehensive Reviews that examine individual topics in considerable detail, in addition to editorials and commentaries which focus on selected papers. The journal also publishes special issues which explore topics of interest to surgical oncologists in great detail - outlining recent advancements and providing readers with the most up to date information.
期刊最新文献
Advances in the management of regionally metastatic melanoma Safe and beneficial outcomes of pancreaticogastrostomy with endoscopic transgastric drainage for pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy “Prepectoral tissue expanders without mesh as a bridge to delayed autologous breast reconstruction: Experience at a single academic center” Editorial Board Oncologic and functional outcomes following robot assisted radical prostatectomy: 15-Year experience in a Latin American referral center
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1