首页> 外文期刊>Annals of Surgery >Standardization or Centralization: Can One Have One Without the Other? Circumferential Resection Margins and Rectal Cancer
【24h】

Standardization or Centralization: Can One Have One Without the Other? Circumferential Resection Margins and Rectal Cancer

机译:标准化还是集中化:一个人可以没有另一个吗?环周切除切缘和直肠癌

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Dr. Rickles and his colleagues1 from the Consortium for the Optimization of Surgical Treatment of Rectal Cancer (OSTRiCh) present an interesting paper describing the incidence of positive circumferential resection margins (CRMs) following curative resection for rectal cancer using 2010 to 2011 data from the U.S. National Cancer Database. They show a relationship between positive CRM and patient, hospital, tumor, and treatment-related characteristics on both bivariate and multivariate analyses. Facility location, clinical T and N stage, histological type, histological grade, the presence of lymphovascular invasion, the presence of perineural invasion, and the type of operation and operative approach were all variably predictive of a positive CRM on multivariate analysis. It is essential to first define exactly what data are contained within the National Cancer Database (NCDB).2 Approximately 1500 hospitals report their cases to the NCDB; it therefore represents approximately one-third of inpatient hospitalizations in the United States, and approximately 76% rectal cancers are estimated to be reported to this database. The hospitals participating in the National Cancer Database include roughly 20% research and teaching hospitals, 39% comprehensive community cancer centers, 35% community cancer centers, and 6% "other" cancer centers (including Veterans Affairs Medical Centers). In this study, 2859 (17.2%) of 16,619 patients had a positive CRM. The authors found that patients undergoing laparoscopic resection had a 22% lower incidence of a positive CRM, while those undergoing a total proctectomy (ie, abdomino-perineal rectal resection) had a 30% increased risk of a positive CRM. Both of these factors are likely to be surrogates of more expert care. For example, laparoscopic treatment and sphincter-sparing surgery are likely more apt to be performed at larger centers than at smaller hospitals, and also more likely to be performed by surgeons with specialty training.
机译:来自直肠癌手术治疗优化联合会(OSTRiCh)的Rickles博士及其同事1提出了一篇有趣的论文,该论文使用美国2010年至2011年的数据描述了直肠癌根治性切除术后正向圆周切除余量(CRM)的发生率国家癌症数据库。他们在双变量和多变量分析中均显示阳性CRM与患者,医院,肿瘤和治疗相关特征之间的关系。设施的位置,临床T和N分期,组织学类型,组织学等级,淋巴管浸润,神经周围浸润的存在以及手术和手术方式的类型均在多变量分析中可变地预测了阳性CRM。首先必须准确定义国家癌症数据库(NCDB)中包含的数据。2大约有1500家医院向NCDB报告其病例。因此,它约占美国住院患者住院人数的三分之一,据估计该数据库将报告约76%的直肠癌。参加国家癌症数据库的医院包括大约20%的研究和教学医院,39%的综合社区癌症中心,35%的社区癌症中心和6%的“其他”癌症中心(包括退伍军人事务医疗中心)。在这项研究中,在16619名患者中,有2859名(17.2%)的CRM阳性。作者发现,接受腹腔镜切除术的患者CRM阳性的发生率降低了22%,而接受了全直肠切除术(即腹膜-会阴直肠切除术)的患者CRM阳性的风险增加了30%。这两个因素都可能替代了更多专家的护理。例如,与较小的医院相比,腹腔镜治疗和括约肌保留手术更可能在较大的中心进行,并且更可能由接受过专业培训的外科医生进行。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号