Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Apr 27;9(4):97-102.
doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v9.i4.97.

Trends with neoadjuvant radiotherapy and clinical staging for those with rectal malignancies

Affiliations

Trends with neoadjuvant radiotherapy and clinical staging for those with rectal malignancies

Sanjay S Reddy et al. World J Gastrointest Surg. .

Abstract

Aim: To see how patterns of care changed over time, and how institution type effected these decisions.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed using the National Cancer Database, looking at all patients that were diagnosed with rectal cancer from 1998 to 2011. We tested differences in rates of treatment and stage migration using χ2 tests and logistic regression models.

Results: A review of ninety thousand five hundred and ninety four subjects underwent multimodality therapy for cancer of the rectum. Staging and response to treatment varied greatly between centers. Forty-six percent of the time staging was missing in academic practices, vs fifty-four percent of the time in community centers (P < 0.001). As a result, twenty-percent were down-staged and eight percent up-staged in academia, whereas only fifteen percent were down-staged and 8% up-staged in community practices (P < 0.001). Forty-two percent of individuals underwent radiation before surgery in 1998. Within two years this increased to fifty-three percent. This increased to eighty-six percent by 2011 (P < 0.001). Institution specific treatment varied greatly. Fifty-one percent received therapy before surgery in academic centers in 1998. Thirty-nine percent followed this pattern in the same year in the community (P < 0.001). By 2011, ninety-one percent received radiation before their procedure in academic centers, vs eighty-four percent in the community (P < 0.001). Rates of adoption were better in academia, although an increase was seen in both center types.

Conclusion: From the study dates of 1998 to 2011, preoperative treatment with radiation has been on the rise. There is certainly an increased rate of use of radiation in academia, however, this trend is also seen in the community. Practice patterns have evolved over time, although rates of assigning clinical stage are grossly underreported prior to initiation of preoperative therapy.

Keywords: Academic; Community; Neoadjuvant therapy; Rectal cancer.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors have no financial relationships to disclose.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Trends in the adoption of neoadjuvant therapy. Graphical interpretation of the adoption of neoadjuvant therapy over time when comparing academic and community institutions.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Cass AW, Million RR, Pfaff WW. Patterns of recurrence following surgery alone for adenocarcinoma of the colon and rectum. Cancer. 1976;37:2861–2865. - PubMed
    1. Mendenhall WM, Million RR, Pfaff WW. Patterns of recurrence in adenocarcinoma of the rectum and rectosigmoid treated with surgery alone: implications in treatment planning with adjuvant radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1983;9:977–985. - PubMed
    1. Hoffe SE, Shridhar R, Biagioli MC. Radiation therapy for rectal cancer: current status and future directions. Cancer Control. 2010;17:25–34. - PubMed
    1. Minsky BD, Mies C, Recht A, Rich TA, Chaffey JT. Resectable adenocarcinoma of the rectosigmoid and rectum. I. Patterns of failure and survival. Cancer. 1988;61:1408–1416. - PubMed
    1. Heald RJ, Ryall RD. Recurrence and survival after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet. 1986;1:1479–1482. - PubMed