Outcomes of rectal cancer treatment in rural Australia and New Zealand: analysis of the bowel cancer outcomes registry

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundThe demographics and geography of Australia and New Zealand (ANZ), with few metropolitan centres and vast, sparsely populated rural areas, represent a challenge to providing equal care to all patients. This study aimed to compare rectal cancer care at rural and urban hospitals in ANZ.MethodsFrom the Bowel Cancer Outcomes Registry (BCOR, formerly known as the Bi‐National Colorectal Cancer Audit; BCCA), rectal cancer patients treated between 2007 and 2020 were compared based on hospital location (urban versus rural). Propensity‐score matching was performed to correct for differences in baseline characteristics between groups.ResultsA total of 9385 rectal cancer patients were identified from the BCOR: 1329 (14.2%) were treated at rural hospitals and 8056 (85.8%) at urban hospitals. Propensity‐score matching resulted in 889 patients in each group, matched for age, ASA score, hospital type (public/private), tumour height from the anal verge, and pre‐treatment cT‐ and cAJCC‐stage. Rural patients had fewer pre‐treatment MRIs (67.9% versus 74.7%; P = 0.002), and underwent less neoadjuvant therapy (44.7% versus 50.9%; P = 0.01). Rural patients underwent fewer ULARs (39.4% versus 45.6%; P = 0.03), and fewer anastomoses were formed (67.9% versus 74.4%; P = 0.05). CRM rates and postoperative AJCC stages (P = 0.19) were similar between groups (P = 0.87). Fewer rural patients received adjuvant chemotherapy (37.8% versus 43.3%; P = 0.02).ConclusionThere are significant differences in pre‐treatment MRI rates, (neo)adjuvant treatment rates and surgical procedures performed between rectal cancer patients treated at rural and urban hospitals in ANZ, while CRM rates and postoperative AJCC stages are similar.