Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 568

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Surgeon-Related Factors and Outcome in Rectal Cancer

Open access
Porter, Geoffrey A., Soskolne, Colin L., Yakimets, Walter W., Newman, Stephen C.·1998·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To 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 DATA: Variation 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. METHODS: All 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. RESULTS: The study included 683 patients involving 52 surgeons, with > 5-year follow-up obtained on 663 (97%) patients. There were five colorectal-trained surgeons who performed 109 (16%) of the operations. Independent of surgeon training, 323 operations (47%) were done by surgeons performing < 21 rectal cancer resections over the study period. Multivariate analysis showed that the risk of LR was increased in patients of both noncolorectal trained surgeons (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.5, p = 0.001) and those of surgeons performing < 21 resections (HR = 1.8, p < 0.001). Stage (p < 0.001), use of adjuvant therapy (p = 0.002), rectal perforation or tumor spill (p < 0.001), and vascular/neural invasion (p = 0.002) also were significant prognostic factors for LR. Similarly, decreased disease-specific survival was found to be independently associated with noncolorectal-trained surgeons (HR = 1.5, p = 0.03) and surgeons performing < 21 resections (HR = 1.4, p = 0.005). Stage (p < 0.001), grade (p = 0.02), age (p = 0.02), rectal perforation or tumor spill (p < 0.001), and vascular or neural invasion (p < 0.001) were other significant prognostic factors for DSS. CONCLUSION: Outcome is improved with both colorectal surgical subspecialty training and a higher frequency of rectal cancer surgery. Therefore, the surgical treatment of rectal cancer patients should rely exclusively on surgeons with such training or surgeons with more experience.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00000658-199802000-00001

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 568

Metadata

Authors
Porter, G. A., Soskolne, C. L., Yakimets, W. W., & Newman, S. C.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
1998-02
Volume
227
Issue
2
Pages
157-167
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2028415243
Cited by
568
References
0
FWCI
14.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Surgeon-Related Factors and Outcome in Rectal Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00000658-199802000-00001
The paper
Porter, G. A., Soskolne, C. L., Yakimets, W. W., & Newman, S. C. (1998). Surgeon-Related Factors and Outcome in Rectal Cancer. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-199802000-00001

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.