No abstract

ObjectiveTo determine whether surgical subspecialty training in colorectal surgery or frequency of rectal cancer resection by the surgeon are independent prognostic factors for local recurrence (LR) and survival. Summary Background DataVariation in patient outcome in rectal cancer has been shown among centers and among individual surgeons. However, the prognostic importance of surgeon-related factors is largely unknown. MethodsAll patients undergoing potentially curative low anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection for primary adenocarcinoma of the rectum between 1983 and 1990 at the five Edmonton general hospitals were reviewed in a historic-prospective study design. Preoperative, intraoperative, pathologic, adjuvant therapy, and outcome variables were obtained. Outcomes of interest included LR and disease-specific survival (DSS). To determine survival rates and to control both confounding and interaction, multivariate analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazards regression. ResultsThe study included 683 patients involving 52 surgeons, with >5-year follow-up obtained on 663 (97%) patients.

We studied the reasons surgical principal investigators chose not to enter patients in a large, multicenter trial sponsored by a cooperative group. In 1976 the National Surgical Adjuvant Project for Breast and Bowel Cancers (NSABP) initiated a clinical trial to compare segmental mastectomy and postoperative radiation, or segmental mastectomy alone, with total mastectomy. Because the low rates of accrual were threatening to close the trial prematurely, we mailed a questionnaire to the 94 NSABP principal investigators, asking why they were not entering eligible patients in the trial. A response rate of 97 per cent was achieved. Physicians who did not enter all eligible patients offered the following explanations: (1) concern that the doctor-patient relationship would be affected by a randomized clinical trial (73 per cent), (2) difficulty with informed consent (38 per cent), (3) dislike of open discussions involving uncertainty (22 per cent), (4) perceived conflict between the roles of scientist and clinician (18 per cent), (5) practical difficulties in following procedures (9 per cent), and (6) feelings of personal responsibility if the treatments were found to be unequal (8 per cent). Further investigation into the behavioral aspects of the investigator-patient relationship is particularly pressing, since fear of change in this relationship was the most common reason given for not entering eligible patients in the trial.

Cognitive impairment, older age, and gender were associated with increased risk of poor outcome following hip fracture. The socioeconomic variables--social support and health perception--did not contribute significant additional information in explaining mortality or institutionalization risk. While demographic factors cannot be modified, physical function 3 months postfracture may be amenable to intervention and may reduce the risk of institutionalization. Intervening to increase postfracture physical function may be particularly beneficial to older patients, or to those who are cognitively impaired.