Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 15, Issue 7, pp 1923–1930 | Cite as

Predictors of Multivisceral Resection in Patients with Locally Advanced Colorectal Cancer

  • Anand Govindarajan
  • Novlette Fraser
  • Vanessa Cranford
  • Debrah Wirtzfeld
  • Steve Gallinger
  • Calvin H. L. Law
  • Andrew J. Smith
  • Anna R. Gagliardi
Gastrointestinal Oncology



Practice guidelines recommend en bloc multivisceral resection (MVR) for all involved organs in patients with locally advanced adherent colorectal cancer (LAACRC) to reduce local recurrence and improve survival. We found that MVR was performed in one-third of eligible American patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results cancer registry but that study could not identify factors amenable to quality improvement. This study was conducted to examine rates, and predictors of MVR among Canadian patients with LAACRC.


Rates of MVR were examined by observational study. Eligible patients were aged 20–74 years who had surgery for nonmetastatic LAACRC from July 1997 to December 2000. Patient, tumor, surgeon, and hospital characteristics were extracted from medical records. Summary statistics were compared by type of surgery (MVR, partial MVR, standard resection). To identify factors associated with MVR we analyzed operative notes and transcripts from interviews with general surgeons using standard qualitative methods.


Factors associated with MVR included fewer years in practice, preoperative treatment planning, involvement of surgical consultants, and access to diagnostic imaging and systems to enable preoperative multidisciplinary planning. Judgments regarding the nature of peritumoral adhesions, resectability, and personal technical skill may mediate decision-making. Many surgeons would prefer to refer patients than undertake complicated, lengthy cases.


Further research is required to validate these findings in larger studies and among patients undergoing surgery for conditions other than LAACRC, and evaluate strategies to improve rates of MVR through enhanced individual awareness and system capacity.

Key Words

Colorectal neoplasms Multivisceral resection Decision-making Practice guideline adherence Continuing education Quality improvement 



This work was supported by a research grant from the National Colorectal Cancer Campaign (now Colon Cancer Canada). This work was made possible through collaboration and cooperative agreements with the Colon Cancer Family Registry and P.I.s. The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating institutions or investigators in the Colon CFR, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the US Government or the Colon CFR. RFA #CA-95-011, ID # C-EX-0506-03.


  1. 1.
    Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2006. CA Cancer J Clin 2006; 56:106–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Canadian Cancer Society/National Cancer Institute of Canada (2006) Canadian Cancer Statistics. Available: [accessed June 8, 2007]
  3. 3.
    Lehnert T, Methner M, Pollok A, et al. Multivisceral resection for locally advanced primary colon and rectal cancer: an analysis of prognostic factors in 201 patients. Ann Surg 2002; 235:217–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lopez MJ. Multivisceral resections for colorectal cancer. J Surg Oncol 2001; 76:1–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hunter JA, Ryan JA Jr, Schultz P. En bloc resection of colon cancer adherent to other organs. Am J Surg 1987; 154:67–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gall FP, Tonak J, Altendorf A. Multivisceral resections in colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 1987; 30:337–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Visokai V, Lipska L, Bergmann P, et al. Multiorgan resections for advanced colorectal cancer. Anticancer Res 2006; 26:3183–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gebhardt C, Meyer W, Ruckriegel S, et al. Multivisceral resection of advanced colorectal carcinoma. Langenbecks Arch Surg 1999; 384:194–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Izbicki JR, Hosch SB, Knoefel WT, et al. Extended resections are beneficial for patients with locally advanced colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 1995; 38:1251–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eisenberg SB, Kraybill WG, Lopez MJ. Long-term results of surgical resection of locally advanced colorectal carcinoma. Surgery 1990; 108:779–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nelson H, Petrelli N, Carlin A, et al. Guidelines 2000 for colon and rectal cancer surgery. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001; 93:583–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Otchy D, Hyman NH, Simmang C, et al. Practice parameters for colon cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2004; 47:1269–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tjandra JJ, Kilkenny JW, Buie WD, et al. Practice parameters for the management of rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2005; 48:411–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Govindarajan A, Coburn NG, Kiss A, et al. Population-based assessment of the surgical management of locally advanced colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98:1474–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Davis DA, Taylor-Vaisey A. Translating guidelines into practice. A systematic review of theoretic concepts, practical experience and research evidence in the adoption of clinical practice guidelines. Can Med Assoc J 1997; 157:408–16.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oxman AD, Thomson MA, Davis DA, et al. No magic bullets: a systematic review of 102 trials of interventions to improve professional practice. Can Med Assoc J 1995; 153:1423–31.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Walker A, et al. Changing the behavior of healthcare professionals: the use of theory in promoting the uptake of research findings. J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58:107–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lingard L, Espin S, Whyte S, et al. Communication failures in the operating room: an observational classification of recurrent types and effects. Qual Saf Health Care 2004; 13:330–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gibbs VC. Patients safety practices in the operating room: correct-site surgery and nothing left behind. Surg Clin North Am 2005; 85:1307–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yule S, Flin R, Paterson-Brown S, et al. Non-technical skills for surgeons in the operating room: a review of the literature. Surgery 2006; 139:140–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cotterchio M, McKeown-Eyssen G, Sutherland H, et al. Ontario familial colon cancer registry: methods and first-year response rates. Chronic Dis Can 2000; 21:81–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Novitsky YW, Sing RF, Kercher KW, et al. Prospective, blinded evaluation of accuracy of operative reports dictated by surgical residents. Am Surg 2005; 71:627–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Greene FL. Dictation of the operative note – a forgotten art form. Gen Surg News 2004; 31:1–6.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures, techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Flanagan JC. The critical incident technique. Psychol Bull 1954; 51:327–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Analysing qualitative data. Br Med J 2000; 320:114–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Auerbach CF, Silverstein LB. Qualitative data: an introduction to coding and analysis. New York: New York University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Samet J, Hunt WC, Key C, et al. Choice of cancer therapy varies with age of patient. J Am Med Assoc 1986; 255:3385–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Greenfield S, Blanco DM, Elashoff RM, et al. Patterns of care related to age of breast cancer patients. J Am Med Assoc 1987; 257:2766–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Townsley C, Pond GR, Peloza B, et al. Analysis of treatment practices for elderly cancer patients in Ontario, Canada. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:3802–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Luo R, Giordano SH, Zhang DD, et al. The role of the surgeon in whether patients with lymph node positive colon cancer see a medical oncologist. Cancer 2007; 109:975–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wright FC, DeVito C, Langer B, et al. and the Expert Panel on Multidisciplinary Cancer Conference Standards. A systematic review and development of practice standards. Eur J Cancer 2007; 43:1002–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Abraham NS, Gossey JT, Davila JA, et al. Receipt of recommended therapy by patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101:1320–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Newman EA, Guest AS, Helvie MA, et al. Changes in surgical management resulting from case review at breast cancer multidisciplinary tumor board. Cancer 2006; 107:2346–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Haward R, Amir Z, Borrill C, et al. Breast cancer teams: the impact of constitution, new cancer workload, and method of operation on their effectiveness. Br J Can 2003; 89:15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Blazeby JM, Wilson L, Metcalfe C, et al. Analysis of clinical decision-making in multi-disciplinary cancer teams. Ann Oncol 2006; 17:457–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chang JH, Vines E, Bertsch H, et al. The impact of a multidisciplinary breast cancer center on recommendations for patient management: the University of Pennsylvania experience. Cancer 2001; 91:1231–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gagliardi AR, Wright FC, Anderson MAB, et al. The role of collegial interaction in continuing professional development. J Cont Ed Health Prof 2007; 27:214–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gagnon MP, Duplantie J, Fortin JP, et al. Implementing telehealth to support medical practice in rural/remote regions: what are the conditions for success? Implement Sci 2006; 24:18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Davis DA, Mazmanian PE, Fordis M, et al. Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence: a systematic review. J Am Med Assoc 2006; 296:1094–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mann K, Gordon J, MacLeod A. Reflection and reflective practice in health professions education: a systematic review. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2007; Nov 27 (epub)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT, et al. Does telling people what they have been doing change what they do? A systematic review of the effects of audit and feedback. Qual Saf Health Care 2006; 15:433–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anand Govindarajan
    • 1
  • Novlette Fraser
    • 1
  • Vanessa Cranford
    • 2
  • Debrah Wirtzfeld
    • 2
  • Steve Gallinger
    • 3
  • Calvin H. L. Law
    • 1
  • Andrew J. Smith
    • 1
  • Anna R. Gagliardi
    • 1
  1. 1.Sunnybrook Health Sciences CentreTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Memorial University Health Sciences CentreSt. John’sCanada
  3. 3.Mount Sinai HospitalTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations