Cargando…

Violation of treatment guidelines — hazard for rectal cancer patients

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate temporal trends in treatment and outcome in rectal cancer diagnosed during 1980–2004 at Levanger Hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A protocol for prospective registration of rectal cancer treated with total mesorectal excision including operative strategy, r...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jullumstrø, Eivind, Wibe, Arne, Lydersen, Stian, Edna, Tom-Harald
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer-Verlag 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3249175/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21861073
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00384-011-1283-8
_version_ 1782220303728902144
author Jullumstrø, Eivind
Wibe, Arne
Lydersen, Stian
Edna, Tom-Harald
author_facet Jullumstrø, Eivind
Wibe, Arne
Lydersen, Stian
Edna, Tom-Harald
author_sort Jullumstrø, Eivind
collection PubMed
description AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate temporal trends in treatment and outcome in rectal cancer diagnosed during 1980–2004 at Levanger Hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A protocol for prospective registration of rectal cancer treated with total mesorectal excision including operative strategy, radiotherapy and surveillance was established at Levanger Hospital in 1980. In this study, all rectal cancer patients treated during 1980–2004 were included. RESULTS: More patients received preoperative radiotherapy during 2000–2004, but otherwise there were no significant differences in presentation or treatment during 1980–2004. The 5-year local recurrence rate after resection with curative intent was 4.5% (0–9.7), 18.7% (10.3–27.1) and 2.2% (0–6.7) in 1980–1989, 1990–1999 and 2000–2004 (p = 0.006), respectively. Out of a total of 23 cases of local recurrence, treatment guidelines, mainly with regard to radiotherapy, were violated in 19 cases. The 5-year overall survival after resection with curative intent was 65% (95% confidence interval [CI] 55–76) during 1980–1989, 58% (49–68) in 1990–1999 and 71% (59–83) in 2000–2004 (n.s). The 5-year relative survival was 83% (95% CI 69–95) during 1980–1989, 71% (59–81) in 1990–1999 and 84% (69–98) in 2000–2004 (n.s). CONCLUSION: Rectal cancer patients experienced excellent outcomes in the period 1980–1989 and 2000–2004. Due to violations of treatment guidelines, the rate of local recurrence was much too high in the period 1990–1999. This article illustrates the importance of continuous quality assurance in the treatment of rectal cancer to maintain optimized outcomes for the patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3249175
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Springer-Verlag
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-32491752012-01-11 Violation of treatment guidelines — hazard for rectal cancer patients Jullumstrø, Eivind Wibe, Arne Lydersen, Stian Edna, Tom-Harald Int J Colorectal Dis Original Article AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate temporal trends in treatment and outcome in rectal cancer diagnosed during 1980–2004 at Levanger Hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A protocol for prospective registration of rectal cancer treated with total mesorectal excision including operative strategy, radiotherapy and surveillance was established at Levanger Hospital in 1980. In this study, all rectal cancer patients treated during 1980–2004 were included. RESULTS: More patients received preoperative radiotherapy during 2000–2004, but otherwise there were no significant differences in presentation or treatment during 1980–2004. The 5-year local recurrence rate after resection with curative intent was 4.5% (0–9.7), 18.7% (10.3–27.1) and 2.2% (0–6.7) in 1980–1989, 1990–1999 and 2000–2004 (p = 0.006), respectively. Out of a total of 23 cases of local recurrence, treatment guidelines, mainly with regard to radiotherapy, were violated in 19 cases. The 5-year overall survival after resection with curative intent was 65% (95% confidence interval [CI] 55–76) during 1980–1989, 58% (49–68) in 1990–1999 and 71% (59–83) in 2000–2004 (n.s). The 5-year relative survival was 83% (95% CI 69–95) during 1980–1989, 71% (59–81) in 1990–1999 and 84% (69–98) in 2000–2004 (n.s). CONCLUSION: Rectal cancer patients experienced excellent outcomes in the period 1980–1989 and 2000–2004. Due to violations of treatment guidelines, the rate of local recurrence was much too high in the period 1990–1999. This article illustrates the importance of continuous quality assurance in the treatment of rectal cancer to maintain optimized outcomes for the patients. Springer-Verlag 2011-08-23 2012 /pmc/articles/PMC3249175/ /pubmed/21861073 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00384-011-1283-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2011 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Jullumstrø, Eivind
Wibe, Arne
Lydersen, Stian
Edna, Tom-Harald
Violation of treatment guidelines — hazard for rectal cancer patients
title Violation of treatment guidelines — hazard for rectal cancer patients
title_full Violation of treatment guidelines — hazard for rectal cancer patients
title_fullStr Violation of treatment guidelines — hazard for rectal cancer patients
title_full_unstemmed Violation of treatment guidelines — hazard for rectal cancer patients
title_short Violation of treatment guidelines — hazard for rectal cancer patients
title_sort violation of treatment guidelines — hazard for rectal cancer patients
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3249175/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21861073
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00384-011-1283-8
work_keys_str_mv AT jullumstrøeivind violationoftreatmentguidelineshazardforrectalcancerpatients
AT wibearne violationoftreatmentguidelineshazardforrectalcancerpatients
AT lydersenstian violationoftreatmentguidelineshazardforrectalcancerpatients
AT ednatomharald violationoftreatmentguidelineshazardforrectalcancerpatients