Malpractice Claims for Endoscopy

AIM: To summarize the magnitude and time trends of endoscopy-related claims and to compare total malpractice indemnity according to specialty and procedure. METHODS: We obtained data from a comprehensive database of closed claims from a trade association of professional liability insurance carriers, representing over 60% of practicing United States physicians. Total payments by procedure and year were calculated, and were adjusted for inflation (using the Consumer Price Index) to 2008 dollars. Time series analysis was performed to assess changes in the total value of claims for each type of procedure over time. RESULTS: There were 1901 endoscopy-related closed claims against all providers from 1985 to 2008. The specialties include: internal medicine (n = 766), gastroenterology (n = 562), general surgery (n = 231), general and family practice (n = 101), colorectal surgery (n = 87), other specialties (n = 132), and unknown (n = 22). Colonoscopy represented the highest frequencies of closed claims (n = 788) and the highest total indemnities ($54 093 000). In terms of mean claims payment, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) ranked the highest ($374  794) per claim. Internists had the highest number of total claims (n = 766) and total claim payment ($70  730  101). Only total claim payments for colonoscopy and ERCP seem to have increased over time. Indeed, there was an average increase of 15.5% per year for colonoscopy and 21.9% per year for ERCP after adjusting for inflation. CONCLUSION: There appear to be differences in malpractice coverage costs among specialties and the type of endoscopic procedure. There is also evidence for secular trend in total claim payments, with colonoscopy and ERCP costs rising yearly even after adjusting for inflation

Clinical and pathological outcomes of induction chemotherapy before neoadjuvant radiotherapy in locally‐advanced rectal cancer

Background and ObjectivesIn North America, preoperative combination chemoradiation is the most commonly recommended and utilized approach to locally advanced rectal cancer. There is increasing interest in the use of induction chemotherapy (IC) before radiation and surgery in locally advanced rectal cancer. How widely IC is being used and whether it improves pathologic and oncologic outcomes is unknown.MethodsWe evaluated clinical stage 2 or 3 rectal cancer patients in the National Cancer Database between 2006 and 2015. We identified predictors of use of IC with multivariable logistic regression and compared survival between groups using Cox proportional hazards regression.ResultsAmong 36 268 patients, IC use increased significantly over time from 5.5% in 2006 to 15.9% in 2015 (P < 0.001). Treatment at a hospital with a high IC rate was an independent predictor of receipt of IC. IC and traditional therapy yielded similar pathologic complete response rates (32.2% vs 30.5%, P = 0.2) and similar 5‐year survival (82.4% vs 81.4%, 0.71).ConclusionsUse of IC for locally advanced rectal cancer has increased significantly. The choice of IC seems to be driven more by institutional and regional practice patterns than clinical characteristics and is not associated with improved pathologic or oncologic outcomes.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/150518/1/jso25474.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/150518/2/jso25474_am.pd

Robotic proctectomy for rectal cancer: analysis of 71 patients from a single institution

BackgroundDespite increasing use of robotic surgery for rectal cancer, few series have been published from the practice of generalizable US surgeons.MethodsA retrospective chart review was performed for 71 consecutive patients who underwent robotic low anterior resection (LAR) or abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2014.Results46 LARs (65%) and 25 APRs (35%) were identified. Median procedure time was 219 minutes (IQR 184–275) and mean blood loss 164.9 cc (SD 155.9 cc). Radial margin was negative in 70/71 (99%) patients. Total mesorectal excision integrity was complete/near complete in 38/39 (97%) of graded specimens. A mean of 16.8 (SD+/− 8.9) lymph nodes were retrieved. At median follow‐up of 21.9 months, there were no local recurrences.ConclusionsRobotic proctectomy for rectal cancer was introduced into typical colorectal surgery practice by a single surgeon, with a low conversion rate, low complication rate, and satisfactory oncologic outcomes.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139933/1/rcs1841_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139933/2/rcs1841.pd

Surgical management of primary colonic lymphoma: Big data for a rare problem

Background and ObjectivesPrimary colonic lymphoma (PCL) is rare, heterogeneous, and presents a therapeutic challenge for surgeons. Optimal treatment strategies are difficult to standardize, leading to variation in therapy. Our objective was to describe the patient characteristics, short‐term outcomes, and five‐year survival of patients undergoing nonpalliative surgery for PCL.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort analysis in the National Cancer Database. Included patients underwent surgery for PCL between 2004 to 2014. Patients with metastases and palliative operations were excluded. Univariate predictors of overall survival were analyzed using multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis.ResultsWe identified 2153 patients. Median patient age was 68. Diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma accounted for 57% of tumors. 30‐ and 90‐Day mortality were high (5.6% and 11.1%, respectively). Thirty‐nine percent of patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. For patients surviving 90 days, 5‐year survival was 71.8%. Chemotherapy improved survival (surgery+chemo, 75.4% vs surgery, 68.6%; P = .01). Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with overall survival after controlling for age, comorbidity, and lymphoma subtype (HR 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07‐1.51; P = .01).ConclusionsPatients undergoing surgery for PCL have high rates of margin positivity and high short‐term mortality. Chemotherapy improves survival, but <50% receive it. These data suggest the opportunity for improvement of care in patients with PCL.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/150597/1/jso25582_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/150597/2/jso25582.pd

How Low Can We Go?: Comparing Long-term Oncologic Outcomes for APR and LAR in Very Low Rectal Cancer

Management of very low rectal cancer is one of the most challenging issues faced by colorectal surgeons. For tumors in the mid and upper rectum, procedures can be done to resect the cancer while maintaining continence, a major determinant of post-operative quality of life. In the low rectum, however, to optimize oncologic outcomes, many surgeons feel compelled to pursue abdominoperineal (APR) over low anterior resection (LAR), a sphincter-preserving procedure. It was hypothesized that after robust adjustment, procedure choice will not be associated with a difference in disease-free survival in the resection of tumors in the low rectum. To analyze this, the US Rectal Cancer Collaborative Database, a comprehensive, multi-center dataset obtained from six institutions between 2010 and 2016, was queried. Patients undergoing TME resection for Stage I-III very low rectal cancers (involvement) were selected for this study. Patients were categorized by procedure- LAR vs APR. Primary outcome was five-year disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes included overall survival, recurrence, length of stay, and complications. An adjusted analysis was performed to account for all known potential confounders. 431 patients with very low rectal cancer treated by either APR or LAR were identified. 154 (35.7%) underwent APR. The overall recurrence rate was 19.6%. Median follow-up time was 42.5 months. An analysis adjusted for age, gender, BMI, ASA class, and pathologic stage observed no difference in disease free survival between operative types (HR=0.90, 95% CI [0.53-1.52], p=0.70). Similarly, secondary outcomes demonstrated no significant difference between operation types, including length of stay (Beta: 0.04, Std. error = 0.25, p = 0.54), overall survival (HR=1.29, 95% CI [0.71-2.32], p=0.39), or complications (OR = 1.53, 95% CI [0.94 - 2.50], p=0.09). In this analysis, no significant difference in disease-free survival or overall survival was observed between patients undergoing APR or LAR for very low rectal cancer. This comprehensive study supports the treatment of very low rectal cancer, less than 5cm from the anorectal ring with no sphincter involvement, by either abdominal perineal or low anterior resection. Further studies may focus on patient-reported and quality of life outcomes which may influence decision-making

The personal financial burden of complications after colorectal cancer surgery

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/108625/1/cncr28812.pd