Table 3 Action plan results: outcomes in diagnostic phase
Total patients | Centre A | Centre B | Centre C | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ACOR-1 (N = 120) | ACOR-2 (N = 120) | p-value | ACOR-1 (N = 40) | ACOR-2 (N = 40) | p-value | ACOR-1 (N = 40) | ACOR-2 (N = 40) | p-value | ACOR-1 (N = 40) | ACOR-2 (N = 40) | p-value | |
Was the patient diagnosed outside of ICO-ICS? | ||||||||||||
Yes | 71 (59.2%) | 100 (83.3%) | < 0.001‡ | 10 (25%) | 29 (72.5%) | < 0.001‡ | 30 (75%) | 37 (92.5%) | 0.069* | 31 (77.5%) | 34 (85%) | 0.57 |
No | 49 (40.8%) | 20 (16.7%) | 30 (75%) | 11 (27.5%) | 10 (25%) | 3 (7.5%) | 9 (22.5%) | 6 (15%) | ||||
In patients diagnosed in ICO-ICS, did a tumour board review the case? | ||||||||||||
Yes | 39 (88.6%) | 20 (100%) | 0.29 | 25 (86.2%) | 11 (100%) | 0.48 | 10 (100%) | 3 (100%) | 0.052 | 4 (80%) | 6 (100%) | 0.92 |
No | 5 (11.4%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (13.8%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (20%) | 0 (0%) | ||||
In patients diagnosed outside of ICO-ICS, did a tumour board review the case? | ||||||||||||
Yes | 34 (47.9%) | 68 (68%) | 0.019* | 3 (30%) | 17 (58.6%) | 0.23 | 18 (60%) | 35 (94.6%) | 0.002 | 13 (41.9%) | 16 (47.1%) | 0.55 |
No | 36 (50.7%) | 32 (32%) | 7 (70%) | 12 (41.4%) | 12 (40%) | 2 (5.4%) | 17 (54.8%) | 18 (52.9%) | ||||
NR | 1 (1.4%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3.2%) | 0 (0%) | ||||
Was the biopsy report in the medical history? | ||||||||||||
Yes | 110 (91.7%) | 120 (100%) | 0.004† | 37 (92.5%) | 40 (100%) | 0.24 | 37 (92.5%) | 40 (100%) | 0.24 | 36 (90%) | 40 (100%) | 0.12 |
No | 10 (8.3%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (7.5%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (7.5%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (10%) | 0 (0%) | ||||
Was the pelvic MRI recorded in the diagnostic report? | ||||||||||||
Yes | 114 (95%) | 119 (99.2%) | 0.13 | 38 (95%) | 40 (100%) | 0.47 | 40 (100%) | 40 (100%) | > 0.99 | 36 (90%) | 39 (97.5%) | 0.36 |
No | 6 (5%) | 1 (0.8%) | 2 (5%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (10%) | 1 (2.5%) | ||||
Did the MRI report include information on the distance to the anal verge or to the anorectal union**? | ||||||||||||
Yes | 82 (68.3%) | 116 (96.7%) | < 0.001‡ | 9 (22.5%) | 38 (95%) | 0.001‡ | 39 (97.5%) | 39 (97.5%) | > 0.99 | 34 (85%) | 39 (97.5%) | 0.12 |
No | 38 (31.7%) | 4 (3.3%) | 31 (77.5%) | 2 (5%) | 1 (2.5%) | 1 (2.5%) | 6 (15%) | 1 (2.5%) | ||||
Did the MRI report include information on the distance to the mesorectal fascia? | ||||||||||||
Yes | 74 (61.7%) | 99 (82.5%) | < 0.001‡ | 23 (57.5%) | 30 (75%) | 0.16 | 33 (82.5%) | 39 (97.5%) | 0.062 | 18 (45%) | 30 (75%) | 0.012* |
No | 46 (38.3%) | 21 (17.5%) | 17 (42.5%) | 10 (25%) | 7 (17.5%) | 1 (2.5%) | 22 (55%) | 10 (25%) | ||||
Did the MRI report include enough information to assign a ‘T’ value? | ||||||||||||
Yes | 112 (93.3%) | 117 (98.3%) | 0.11 | 37 (92.5%) | 39 (97.5%) | 0.61 | 39 (97.5%) | 40 (100%) | > 0.99 | 36 (90%) | 38 (97.4%) | 0.37 |
No | 8 (6.7%) | 2 (1.7%) | 3 (7.5%) | 1 (2.5%) | 1 (2.5%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (10%) | 1 (2.6%) | ||||
Did the MRI report include enough information to assign an ‘N’ value? | ||||||||||||
Yes | 120 (100%) | 118 (99.2%) | > 0.99 | 40 (100%) | 39 (97.5%) | > 0.99 | 40 (100%) | 40 (100%) | > 0.99 | 40 (100%) | 39 (100%) | 0.91 |
No | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.5%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | ||||
Did the MRI report meet Mercury Study Group criteria? | ||||||||||||
Yes | 54 (45%) | 93 (77.5%) | < 0.001‡ | 5 (12.5%) | 27 (67.5%) | < 0.001‡ | 33 (82.5%) | 38 (95%) | 0.16 | 16 (40%) | 28 (70%) | 0.013* |
No | 66 (55%) | 27 (22.5%) | 35 (87.5%) | 13 (32.5%) | 7 (17.5%) | 2 (5%) | 24 (60%) | 12 (30%) | ||||