Background: The timing and degree of implementation of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for colorectal cancer vary among countries. Insights in national differences regarding implementation of new... Show moreBackground: The timing and degree of implementation of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for colorectal cancer vary among countries. Insights in national differences regarding implementation of new surgical techniques and the effect on postoperative outcomes are important for quality assurance, can show potential areas for country-specific improvement, and might be illustrative and supportive for similar implementation programs in other countries. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate differences in patient selection, applied techniques, and results of minimal invasive surgery for colorectal cancer between the Netherlands and Sweden. Methods: Patients who underwent elective minimally invasive surgery for T1-3 colon or rectal cancer (2012-2018) registered in the Dutch ColoRectal Audit or Swedish ColoRectal Cancer Registry were included. Time trends in the application of MIS were determined. Outcomes were compared for time periods with a similar level of MIS implementation (Netherlands 2012-2013 versus Sweden 2017-2018). Multilevel analyses were performed to identify factors associated with adverse short-term outcomes.Results: A total of 46,095 Dutch and 8,819 Swedish patients undergoing MIS for colorectal cancer were included. In Sweden, MIS implementation was approximately 5 years later than in the Netherlands, with more robotic surgery and lower volumes per hospital. Although conversion rates were higher in Sweden, oncological and surgical outcomes were comparable. MIS in the Netherlands for the years 2012- 2013 resulted in a higher reoperation rate for colon cancer and a higher readmission rate but lower non- surgical complication rates for rectal cancer if compared with MIS in Sweden during 2017-2018.Conclusion: This study showed that the implementation of MIS for colorectal cancer occurred later in Sweden than the Netherlands, with comparable outcomes despite lower volumes. Our study demonstrates that new surgical techniques can be implemented at a national level in a controlled and safe way, with thorough quality assurance. Show less
Aim This study aimed to determine predictive factors for the circumferential resection margin (CRM) within two northern European countries with supposed similarity in providing rectal cancer care.... Show moreAim This study aimed to determine predictive factors for the circumferential resection margin (CRM) within two northern European countries with supposed similarity in providing rectal cancer care. Method Data for all patients undergoing rectal resection for clinical tumour node metastasis (TNM) stage I-III rectal cancer were extracted from the Swedish ColoRectal Cancer Registry and the Dutch ColoRectal Audit (2011-2015). Separate analyses were performed for cT1-3 and cT4 stage. Predictive factors for the CRM were determined using univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses. Results A total of 6444 Swedish and 12 089 Dutch patients were analysed. Over time the number of hospitals treating rectal cancer decreased from 52 to 42 in Sweden, and 82 to 79 in the Netherlands. In the Swedish population, proportions of cT4 stage (17% vs 8%), multivisceral resection (14% vs 7%) and abdominoperineal excision (APR) (37% vs 31%) were higher. The overall proportion of patients with a positive CRM (CRM+) was 7.8% in Sweden and 5.4% in the Netherlands. In both populations with cT1-3 stage disease, common independent risk factors for CRM+ were cT3, APR and multivisceral resection. No common risk factors for CRM+ in cT4 stage disease were found. An independent impact of hospital volume on CRM+ could be demonstrated for the cT1-3 Dutch population. Conclusion Within two northern European countries with implemented clinical auditing, rectal cancer care might potentially be improved by further optimizing the treatment of distal and locally advanced rectal cancer. Show less
