Response to Demetter et al: Review of the quality of total mesorectal excision does not improve the prediction of outcome.

2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/11287/597118
Title:
Response to Demetter et al: Review of the quality of total mesorectal excision does not improve the prediction of outcome.
Authors:
Noone, Tracy M ( 0000-0002-1204-6781 ) ; Smart, Neil J. ( 0000-0002-3043-8324 ) ; Daniels, Ian R. ( 0000-0002-9114-0812 )
Abstract:
We were impressed by the paper of Demetter et al, which reports the accuracy of local pathologists' assessment of the grade of a rectal cancer specimen compared with a central panel of experts [1]. In the UK, the outcome measure for colorectal cancer used in the public domain is the 30-day and 90-day mortality rate. These figures represent the outcome of the patient following surgery, yet are influenced by the efforts of many members of the multi-disciplinary team and beyond, but identify only the operating surgeon [2]. Over the last decade several pathologists have reported the value of the specimen grade following rectal cancer surgery and this paper confirms the accuracy of the histopathologist in assessing the surgical ability to perform a total mesorectal excision [3]. Yet, this paper reminds us that pathologists have always been able to recognise good surgery as exemplified by the wise words of Cuthbert Dukes who in answer to a question posed at a meeting in New York in 1957 said "I should not chose the operation, but I should choose the surgeon who was to do it, and I should choose him with very great care. Then I should say to him, 'Do the operation just when and where you think is best, but please promise to go to bed the night before and get up in good time and have a good breakfast!' It would be a relief also to be assured that the operation would not be filmed or televised!" [4]. This leads us to the question, whether pathologists have always known who were the best surgeons and if so should they be informing the public? This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Citation:
Response to Demetter et al: Review of the quality of total mesorectal excision does not improve the prediction of outcome. 2016: Colorectal Dis
Publisher:
Wiley
Journal:
Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland
Issue Date:
20-Feb-2016
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/11287/597118
DOI:
10.1111/codi.13302
PubMed ID:
26895814
Additional Links:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/codi.13302
Type:
Letter
Language:
en
ISSN:
1463-1318
Appears in Collections:
Colorectal Surgery; HeSRU publications; 2016 RD&E publications

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorNoone, Tracy Men
dc.contributor.authorSmart, Neil J.en
dc.contributor.authorDaniels, Ian R.en
dc.date.accessioned2016-02-24T12:53:04Zen
dc.date.available2016-02-24T12:53:04Zen
dc.date.issued2016-02-20en
dc.identifier.citationResponse to Demetter et al: Review of the quality of total mesorectal excision does not improve the prediction of outcome. 2016: Colorectal Disen
dc.identifier.issn1463-1318en
dc.identifier.pmid26895814en
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/codi.13302en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11287/597118en
dc.description.abstractWe were impressed by the paper of Demetter et al, which reports the accuracy of local pathologists' assessment of the grade of a rectal cancer specimen compared with a central panel of experts [1]. In the UK, the outcome measure for colorectal cancer used in the public domain is the 30-day and 90-day mortality rate. These figures represent the outcome of the patient following surgery, yet are influenced by the efforts of many members of the multi-disciplinary team and beyond, but identify only the operating surgeon [2]. Over the last decade several pathologists have reported the value of the specimen grade following rectal cancer surgery and this paper confirms the accuracy of the histopathologist in assessing the surgical ability to perform a total mesorectal excision [3]. Yet, this paper reminds us that pathologists have always been able to recognise good surgery as exemplified by the wise words of Cuthbert Dukes who in answer to a question posed at a meeting in New York in 1957 said "I should not chose the operation, but I should choose the surgeon who was to do it, and I should choose him with very great care. Then I should say to him, 'Do the operation just when and where you think is best, but please promise to go to bed the night before and get up in good time and have a good breakfast!' It would be a relief also to be assured that the operation would not be filmed or televised!" [4]. This leads us to the question, whether pathologists have always known who were the best surgeons and if so should they be informing the public? This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.en
dc.languageENGen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherWileyen
dc.relation.urlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/codi.13302en
dc.rightsArchived with thanks to Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Irelanden
dc.subjectWessex Classification Subject Headings::Gastroenterologyen
dc.titleResponse to Demetter et al: Review of the quality of total mesorectal excision does not improve the prediction of outcome.en
dc.typeLetteren
dc.identifier.journalColorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Irelanden
dc.type.versionIn press (epub ahead of print)en

Related articles on PubMed

All Items in RD&E Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.