Reporting of Circumferential Resection Margin in Rectal Cancer Surgery

Circumferential resection margin (CRM) in rectal cancer surgery is a major prognostic indicator associated with local recurrence and overall survival. Facility rates of CRM positivity have recently been established as a new quality measure by the Commission on Cancer (CoC); however, the completeness of CRM status reporting is not well characterized.To describe the changes in CRM reporting and factors associated with low rates of reporting.A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from the National Cancer Database between January 2010 and December 2019. Data were analyzed between October 1, 2021, and February 1, 2022. Data from the National Cancer Database included patients diagnosed with nonmetastatic rectal adenocarcinoma receiving surgical treatment at CoC-accredited facilities throughout the US.Patient, tumor, and facility-level factors. Facilities were divided by surgical volume, safety-net status, and CoC facility type.Circumferential resection margin missingness rates.A total of 110 571 patients (59.3% men) with rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent curative-intent surgery at 1307 CoC-accredited hospitals were included for analysis. Reporting of CRM improved over the study period, with a mean (SE) missing 12.0% (0.32%) decreased from 16.3% (0.36%). Academic facilities had a higher missingness than other facility types (14.3% vs 10.5%-12.7%; P < .001). Mean (SE) rates of missingness were similar between hospitals of varying volume (lowest quartile: 12.2% [0.93%] vs highest quartile: 12.4% [0.53%]; P = .96). Cases in which fewer than 12 lymph nodes were removed had higher rates of missingness (18.1% vs 11.4%; P < .001). Increased odds of CRM missingness were noted with T category (odds ratio [OR], 1.50; 95% CI, 1.35-1.65) and N category (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.82-2.20). Black race was associated with missingness (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.06-1.14).Although CRM positivity reporting has improved over the last decade, the findings of this study suggest there is substantial room for improvement as it becomes a quality standard. Missingness appears to be associated with poor performance on other quality metrics and facility type. This measure appears to be ideal for targeted institution-level feedback to improve quality of care nationally.