Survival after non-resection of colorectal cancer: the argument for including non-operatives in consultant outcome reporting in the UK

Abstract

Introduction Although the mainstay of colorectal cancer treatment remains operative, a significant proportion of patients end up without surgery. This is because they are either deemed to have no oncological benefit from the resection (too much disease) or to be unfit for major surgery (too frail). The aim of this study was to assess the proportion and survival of these two groups among the totality of practice in a tertiary unit and to discuss the implications on the conceptual understanding of outcome measures. Methods Data was collected over two study periods with the total duration of four years. Patient demographics, comorbidities, cancer staging and management pathways were all recorded. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Results The total of 909 patients were examined. In the 29% who did not undergo resectional surgery, 6.5% had too little disease, 13.8% had too much disease, while 8.7% were deemed too frail. The highest two-year mortality was observed in the too much (83.2%) and too frail (75.9%) groups, whereas in patients with too little cancer the rate was 5.1%, and in those undergoing a resection it was 19.2% (P < 0.001). Conclusions The study has expectedly shown poor survival in the too much and too frail groups. We believe that understanding the prognosis in these subgroups is vital, as it informs complex decisions on whether to operate. Moreover, an overall reporting taking into account the proportion of these groups in an multidisciplinary team practice (the non-surgical index) is proposed to render individual surgeon's mortality results meaningful as a comparative measure.