ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: To answer the question whether minimum caseloads need to be stipulated in the German S3 (or any other) guidelines for colorectal cancer, we analyzed the current representative literature. The question is important regarding medical quality as well as health economics and policy. METHODS: A literature research was conducted in PubMed for papers concerning 'colon cancer' (CC), 'rectal cancer' (RC), and 'colorectal cancer' (CRC), with 'results', 'quality', and 'mortality' between the years 2000 and 2016 being relevant factors. We graded the recommendations as 'pro', 'maybe', or 'contra' in terms of a significant correlation between hospital volume (HV) or surgeon volume (SV) and treatment quality. We also listed the recommended numbers suggested for HV or SV as minimum caseloads and calculated and discussed the socio-economic impact of setting minimum caseloads for CRC. RESULTS: The correlations of caseloads of hospitals or surgeons turned out to be highly controversial concerning the influence of HV or SV on short- and long-term surgical treatment quality of CRC. Specialized statisticians made the point that the reports in the literature might not use the optimal biometrical analytical/reporting methods. A Dutch analysis showed that if a decision towards minimum caseloads, e.g. >50 for CRC resections, would be made, this would exclude a lot of hospitals with proven good treatment quality and include hospitals with a treatment quality below average. Our economic analysis envisioned that a yearly loss of EUR <830,000 might ensue for hospitals with volumes <50 per year. CONCLUSIONS: Caseload (HV, SV) definitely is an inconsistent surrogate parameter for treatment quality in the surgery of CC, RC, or CRC. If used at all, the lowest tolerable numbers but the highest demands for structural, process and result quality in the surgical/interdisciplinary treatment of CC and RC must be imposed and independently controlled. Hospitals fulfilling these demands should be medically and socio-economically preferred concerning the treatment of CC and RC patients.
ABSTRACT
Peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) arising from colorectal cancer (CRC) is generally considered a terminal condition with no treatment options. However novel treatment strategies have emerged combining cytoreductive surgery (CRS), including peritonectomy procedures, with intraperitoneal chemotherapy. The intraoperative application of cytotoxic drugs combined with hyperthermia (hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy [HIPEC]) has been considered to deliver cytotoxicity most effectively to peritoneal tumor implants. In selected groups of patients with no remaining macroscopic tumor manifestations on peritoneal surfaces after CRS and HIPEC, median survival times may reach 5 years, with a 5 year overall survival rate of 50%. HIPEC has been performed with different cytotoxic drugs, in combination with early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (EPIC), and embedded into various systemic perioperative and/or postoperative chemotherapeutic regimens. Prognosis largely depends on the intraabdominal tumor burden, which can be assessed by the peritoneal cancer index (PCI), and the completeness of cytoreduction. In this review we discuss the most relevant prognostic parameters, the outcome of patients with PC from CRC treated with CRS and HIPEC, and the impact of different chemotherapeutic variations used during HIPEC. From this analysis it can be concluded that CRS and HIPEC offers a chance for long-term survival in selected patients with PC of colorectal origin.
