Diseases of the Colon & Rectum Journal Impact Factor & Information

Publisher: American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons; American Proctologic Society, Springer Verlag

Journal description

Diseases of the Colon and Rectum is published monthly for the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. It is designed for the publication of original papers that constitute significant contributions to the advancement of knowledge within the special field designated by the name of this journal. Discontinued in 2004.

Current impact factor: 3.75

Impact Factor Rankings

2015 Impact Factor Available summer 2016
2014 Impact Factor 3.749
2013 Impact Factor 3.198
2012 Impact Factor 3.336
2011 Impact Factor 3.132
2010 Impact Factor 2.819
2009 Impact Factor 2.536
2008 Impact Factor 2.615
2007 Impact Factor 2.621
2006 Impact Factor 2.442
2005 Impact Factor 2.264
2004 Impact Factor 2.343
2003 Impact Factor 2.343
2002 Impact Factor 2.308
2001 Impact Factor 2.142
2000 Impact Factor 1.69
1999 Impact Factor 1.926
1998 Impact Factor 2.138
1997 Impact Factor 1.728
1996 Impact Factor 2.1
1995 Impact Factor 1.45
1994 Impact Factor 1.739
1993 Impact Factor 1.375
1992 Impact Factor 1.133

Impact factor over time

Impact factor

Additional details

5-year impact 3.69
Cited half-life 9.80
Immediacy index 0.48
Eigenfactor 0.02
Article influence 1.17
Website Diseases of the Colon & Rectum website
Other titles Diseases of the colon & rectum, Diseases of the colon and rectum
ISSN 0012-3706
OCLC 1566768
Material type Periodical, Internet resource
Document type Journal / Magazine / Newspaper, Internet Resource

Publisher details

Springer Verlag

  • Pre-print
    • Author can archive a pre-print version
  • Post-print
    • Author can archive a post-print version
  • Conditions
    • Author's pre-print on pre-print servers such as arXiv.org
    • Author's post-print on author's personal website immediately
    • Author's post-print on any open access repository after 12 months after publication
    • Publisher's version/PDF cannot be used
    • Published source must be acknowledged
    • Must link to publisher version
    • Set phrase to accompany link to published version (see policy)
    • Articles in some journals can be made Open Access on payment of additional charge
  • Classification
    ​ green

Publications in this journal

  • Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 10/2015; 58(10):1019. DOI:10.1097/DCR.0000000000000457
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The treatment of colorectal cancer in young patients involves both management of the incident cancer and consideration of the possibility of Lynch syndrome and the development of metachronous colorectal cancers. This study aims to assess the prognostic role of DNA mismatch repair deficiency and extended colorectal resection for metachronous colorectal neoplasia risk in young patients with colorectal cancer. This is a retrospective review of 285 patients identified in our GI cancer registry with colorectal cancer diagnosed at 35 years or younger in the absence of polyposis. Using univariate and multivariate analysis, we assessed the prognostic role of mismatch repair deficiency and standard clinicopathologic characteristics, including the extent of resection, on the rate of developing metachronous colorectal neoplasia requiring resection. Mismatch repair deficiency was identified in biospecimens from 44% of patients and was significantly associated with an increased risk for metachronous colorectal neoplasia requiring resection (10-year cumulative risk, 13.5% ± 4.2%) compared with 56% of patients with mismatch repair-intact colorectal cancer (10-year cumulative risk, 5.8% ± 3.3%; p = 0.011). In multivariate analysis, mismatch repair deficiency was associated with a HR of 3.65 (95% CI, 1.44-9.21; p = 0.006) for metachronous colorectal neoplasia, whereas extended resection with ileorectal or ileosigmoid anastomosis significantly decreased the risk of metachronous colorectal neoplasia (HR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.05-0.90; p = 0.036). This study had a retrospective design, and, therefore, recommendations for colorectal cancer surgery and screening were not fully standardized. Quality of life after colorectal cancer surgery was not assessed. Young patients with colorectal cancer with molecular hallmarks of Lynch syndrome were at significantly higher risk for the development of subsequent colorectal neoplasia. This risk was significantly reduced in those who underwent extended resection compared with segmental resection.
    Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 07/2015; 58(7):645-652. DOI:10.1097/DCR.0000000000000391
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Intersphincteric resection during total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer can be performed through a primary abdominal or a primary perineal approach. The purpose of this study was to compare the results of a primary perineal approach with those of a primary abdominal approach in patients undergoing laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer. This was a case-matched retrospective study from a prospectively maintained database. The study was conducted at a tertiary colorectal surgery referral center. From 2005 to 2013, among 138 patients with low rectal cancer who underwent total mesorectal excision with intersphincteric resection, 34 patients with a primary abdominal approach (abdominal group) were matched with 51 identical patients with a primary perineal approach (6-cm perineal dissection along the mesorectal plane; perineal group), according to TNM stage, sex, BMI, and age. Postoperative morbidity, oncologic outcomes, and 3-year overall and disease-free survivals were measured. The operative time was significantly shorter in the perineal group (269 minutes in perineal vs 240 minutes in abdominal group; p = 0.01). Overall morbidity (47% vs 47%; p = 1.00), severe morbidity (16% vs 15%; p = 0.90), and clinical anastomotic leakage (24% vs 12%; p = 0.17) rates showed no differences when comparing the 2 groups. The overall R1 resection rate was similar in the 2 groups (16% vs 9%; p = 0.36), including a 10% vs 9% positive circumferential margin (p = 0.88) and a 8% vs 0% positive distal margin (p = 0.15). After a median follow-up of 39 months, 3-year overall (100% vs 93% (95% CI, 88%-98%); p = 0.26) and disease-free (63% (95% CI, 56%-71%) vs 62% (95% CI, 53%-71%); p = 0.58) survival rates showed no differences between the 2 groups. The study was limited by its nonrandomized nature and limited sample size. In cases of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer, the primary perineal approach appears to reduce operative time and is associated with similar short- and long-term outcomes as compared with the primary abdominal approach. The primary perineal approach should thus be considered as the standard strategy.
    Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 07/2015; 58(7):637-644. DOI:10.1097/DCR.0000000000000396
  • Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 07/2015; 58(7):623-636. DOI:10.1097/DCR.0000000000000397
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Total or tumor-specific mesorectal excision can preserve pelvic autonomic nerves during rectal cancer surgery and minimize urinary dysfunction. However, urinary catheterization several days in duration is a common practice after total or tumor-specific mesorectal excision. This study aimed to evaluate the optimal duration of urinary catheterization after total or tumor-specific mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. This is a retrospective review of patients who underwent total or tumor-specific mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. This study was performed in the colorectal division of a university-affiliated hospital. Between March 2009 and February 2013, 236 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Patients who underwent combined pelvic surgery and those who had postoperative complications with a Dindo grade III or more and a known urinary disease were excluded; the remaining 189 patients were evaluated. The primary outcome measure of this study was the incidence of postoperative urinary retention. The incidence of acute urinary retention was 4.8%. Urinary retention was not associated with the postoperative urinary catheterization duration (p = 0.99). Patients were assigned to 2 groups according to urinary catheterization duration (1 vs ≥2 days). No significant differences were observed between the 2 groups regarding urinary retention (4.8% for 1 day vs 4.7% for ≥2 days; p = 1.0). In a logistic regression analysis, age, sex, ASA classification, surgical procedure, surgical approach, stage, distance from the anal verge, rate of preoperative radiotherapy, duration of urinary catheterization, and time period of surgery were not associated with urinary retention. This was a retrospective, single-center study. There is potential for selection bias. Our study showed that the urinary catheter could be safely removed on the first postoperative day after total or tumor-specific mesorectal excision.
    Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 07/2015; 58(7):686-691. DOI:10.1097/DCR.0000000000000386
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Oral mechanical bowel preparation is often used before elective colorectal surgery to reduce postoperative complications. The purpose of this study was to synthesize the evidence on the comparative effectiveness and safety of oral mechanical bowel preparation versus no preparation or enema. We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and CINAHL without any language restrictions (last search on September 6, 2013). We also searched the US Food and Drug Administration Web site and ClinicalTrials.gov and supplemented our searches by asking technical experts and perusing reference lists. We included English-language, full-text reports of randomized clinical trials and nonrandomized comparative studies of patients undergoing elective colon or rectal surgery. For adverse events we also included single-group cohort studies of at least 200 participants. Interventions included oral mechanical bowel preparation, oral mechanical bowel preparation plus enema, enema only, and no oral mechanical bowel preparation or enema. Anastomotic leakage, all-cause mortality, wound infection, peritonitis/intra-abdominal abscess, reoperation, surgical site infection, quality of life, length of stay, and adverse events were measured. We synthesized results across studies qualitatively and with Bayesian random-effects meta-analyses. A total of 18 randomized clinical trials, 7 nonrandomized comparative studies, and 6 single-group cohorts were included. In meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials, the credibility intervals of the summary OR included the null value of 1.0 for comparisons of oral mechanical bowel preparation and either no oral preparation or enema for overall mortality, anastomotic leakage, wound infection, peritonitis, surgical site infection, and reoperation. These results were robust to extensive sensitivity analyses. Evidence on adverse events was sparse. The study was limited by weaknesses in the underlying evidence, such as incomplete reporting of relevant information, exclusion of non-English and relevant unpublished studies, and possible missed indexing of nonrandomized studies. Our results could not exclude modest beneficial or harmful effects of oral mechanical bowel preparation compared with no preparation or enema.
    Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 07/2015; 58(7):698-707. DOI:10.1097/DCR.0000000000000375
  • Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 07/2015; 58(7):621-622. DOI:10.1097/DCR.0000000000000395
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although multidisciplinary cancer conferences have been reported to lead to improved patient outcomes, few studies have reported results of these for rectal cancer. The purpose of this work was to assess the quality of multidisciplinary cancer conferences, the effect of the conference on the initial treatment plan, compliance with the conference treatment recommendations, and clinical outcomes for rectal cancer. This was a prospective, longitudinal study. The study was conducted at a tertiary care academic hospital. Patients with primary rectal cancer were included in this study. The intervention was a rectal cancer-specific multidisciplinary cancer conference. The quality of the multidisciplinary cancer conference was assessed using the Cancer Care Ontario Multidisciplinary Cancer Conference standards score. A change in treatment plan was defined as a change from the initial treatment plan selected by the treating physician to an alternate treatment plan recommended at the conference. Twenty-five multidisciplinary cancer conferences were conducted over a 10-month study period. The Cancer Care Ontario Multidisciplinary Cancer Conference standards score was 7 (from a maximum score of 9). Forty-two patients with primary rectal cancer were presented, and there was a 29% (12/42) change in the initial treatment plan. A total of 42% (5/12) of these changes were attributed to reinterpretation of the MRI findings. There was 100% compliance with the conference treatment recommendations. The circumferential resection margin was positive in 5.5% (2/36). Selection bias may have led to an overestimate of effect, and there is no control group for comparison of clinical outcomes. A high-quality rectal cancer-specific multidisciplinary cancer conference led to a 29% change in the treatment plan for patients with primary rectal cancer, with almost half of these changes attributed to reinterpretation of the magnetic resonance images.
    Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 07/2015; 58(7):653-658. DOI:10.1097/DCR.0000000000000390
  • Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 07/2015; 58(7):708-709. DOI:10.1097/DCR.0000000000000377
  • Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 07/2015; 58(7):e402-e403. DOI:10.1097/DCR.0000000000000382
  • Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 07/2015; 58(7):e404-e405. DOI:10.1097/DCR.0000000000000383
  • Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 07/2015; 58(7):e405. DOI:10.1097/DCR.0000000000000394
  • Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 07/2015; 58(7):710-711. DOI:10.1097/DCR.0000000000000376
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The necessity for routine histopathologic evaluation of hemorrhoidectomy specimens considered free of suspicious areas after careful visual and manual inspection remains controversial. The purpose of this work was to prospectively study the prevalence of anal intraepithelial neoplasia in macroscopically normal operative specimens. From October 2005 to September 2010, all hemorrhoidectomy and fissurectomy specimens were sent for routine histopathologic analysis. This study was conducted at a tertiary referral center. The primary outcome measured was the histopathologic examination of surgical samples. Among the specimens from 2997 procedures, routine histopathologic evaluation found anal intraepithelial neoplasia in 97 patients (3.2%), despite the fact that visual and manual inspection had determined that the specimens were free of any suspected anal intraepithelial neoplasia or human papillomavirus-related lesion. The pathological diagnoses for these macroscopically normal specimens were AIN1 in 22 (23%) patients, AIN2 in 48 (49%) patients and AIN3 in 27 (28%) patients, making the prevalence of high-grade and low-grade disease 2.5% (anal intraepithelial neoplasia 2/3) and 0.7% (anal intraepithelial neoplasia 1). This study was limited by being a single-center study. This prospective single-center study demonstrated that the prevalence of infraclinical anal intraepithelial neoplasia in macroscopically normal hemorrhoidectomy and fissurectomy specimens is not negligible (3.2% with 2.5% high-grade disease).
    Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 07/2015; 58(7):692-697. DOI:10.1097/DCR.0000000000000387
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The importance of the circumferential resection margin has been demonstrated in primary rectal cancer, but the role of the minimal tumor-free resection margin in locally recurrent rectal cancer is unknown. The purpose of this work was to evaluate the prognostic importance of a minimal tumor-free resection margin in locally recurrent rectal cancer. This was a single-institution, retrospective study. This study was conducted in a tertiary referral hospital. Based on the final pathology report, surgically treated patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer between 1990 and 2013 were divided into 4 groups: 1) tumor-free margins of >2 mm, 2) tumor-free margins of >0 to 2 mm, 3) microscopically involved margins, and 4) macroscopically involved margins. Local control and overall survival were the main outcome measures. A total of 174 patients with a median follow-up of 27 months (range, 0-144 months) were eligible for analysis. There was a significant difference in 5-year local re-recurrence-free survival in favor of 41 patients with tumor-free margins of >2 mm compared with 34 patients with tumor-free margins of >0 to 2 mm (80% vs 62%; p = 0.03) and a significant difference in 5-year overall survival (60% vs 37%; p = 0.01). The 5-year local re-recurrence-free and overall survival rates for 55 patients with microscopically involved margins were 28% and 16%, and for 20 patients with macroscopically involved margins the rates were 0% and 5%. On multivariable analysis, tumor-free margins of >0 to 2 mm were independently associated with higher re-recurrence rates (HR, 2.76 (95% CI, 1.06-7.16)) and poorer overall survival (HR, 2.57 (95% CI, 1.27-5.21)) compared with tumor-free margins of >2 mm. This study was limited by its retrospective nature. Resection margin status is an independent prognostic factor for re-recurrence rate and overall survival in surgically treated, locally recurrent rectal cancer. In complete resections, patients with tumor-free resection margins of >0 to 2 mm have a higher re-recurrence rate and a poorer overall survival than patients with tumor-free resection margins of >2 mm.
    Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 07/2015; 58(7):677-685. DOI:10.1097/DCR.0000000000000388
  • Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 07/2015; 58(6).
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Comorbidity has a negative influence on the long-term prognosis in patients with colorectal cancer, whereas its impact on the postoperative course is less clear. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of comorbidity on anastomotic leak and short-term outcomes after resection for colonic cancer. This is a retrospective nationwide cohort study : Data were obtained from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group and the National Patient Registry. Patients with colonic cancer undergoing elective resection between 2001 and 2008 were selected. The primary outcome was the ability of comorbidity to predict anastomotic leak. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality and length of stay. Comorbidity was assessed by the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Multivariable logistic regression and receiver operating characteristics curves were used to adjust for confounding. The rate of anastomotic leak was 535/8597 (6.2%). The mean (95% CI) Charlson score was 0.83 (0.72-0.94) and 0.63 (0.61-0.66) for patients with and without anastomotic leak, p < 0.001. The Charlson score, as assessed in the multivariable analysis (adjusted OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.99-1.15; p = 0.077) and by receiver operating characteristics curves (area under the curve = 0.548), failed to predict anastomotic leak. Thirty-day mortality was 425/8587 (4.9%). In patients with anastomotic leakage, a Charlson score of ≥2 was associated with increased mortality in comparison with a Charlson score of <2 (adjusted HR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.00-2.51; p = 0.047). Mean length of stay was 8.7 days (95% CI, 8.4-9.2 days) for patients without an anastomotic leak in comparison with 23.3 days (95% CI, 21.5-25.1 days) for patients with anastomotic leak and 25.5 days (95% CI, 21.7-29.3 days) in patients with anastomotic leak and a Charlson score of >2, p < 0.001. This study is limited by the accuracy of the coding used to generate the Charlson Comorbidity Index and the retrospective study design. Comorbidity failed to predict anastomotic leak, but it was associated with an inferior short-term outcome in patients with this surgical complication.
    Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 07/2015; 58(7):668-676. DOI:10.1097/DCR.0000000000000392
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery is challenging and technically difficult. Robotic technology offers a stable surgical platform with magnified 3-dimensional vision and endowristed instruments, which may facilitate the minimally invasive procedure. Data on short-term and long-term outcomes indicate results comparable to laparoscopic and open surgery. We assessed the perioperative, clinicopathologic, and oncologic outcomes of robotic surgery for rectal cancer. This study was a review of a prospective database of patients over a 7-year period. Procedures took place in the colorectal division at a tertiary hospital. From August 2005 to October 2012, 101 patients with rectal cancer were operated on using the robotic approach. Rectal cancers were defined as tumors within 15 cm from the anal verge. Patients received either a totally robotic or a hybrid laparoscopic-robotic operation with rectal dissection performed robotically. Operative and perioperative data, pathologic outcomes, and disease-free and overall survival were examined. There were 63 men (62.4%) and 38 women (37.6%) in the study; the mean age was 61.5 years. Mid rectal and low rectal cancers composed 74.2% of cases. Preoperative chemoradiation was given to 74.3% of patients. Four conversions to open surgery occurred. Circumferential margin positivity was 5%, and median lymph node yield was 15. At a mean follow-up of 34.9 months, the disease-free survival was 79.2% and overall survival 90.1%. The mean cost of robotic surgery was $22,640 versus $18,330 for the hand-assisted laparoscopic approach (p = 0.005). This was a single-institution study with no head-to-head comparative group. Robotic surgery for rectal cancer extirpation is safe and feasible. It has a low conversion rate, satisfies all measures of pathologic adequacy, and offers acceptable oncologic outcomes. Robotic surgery is significantly more expensive than hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery. The absence of randomized data limits recommending it as the standard of care at present.
    Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 06/2015; 58(7):659-667. DOI:10.1097/DCR.000000000000386
  • NA
    Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 06/2015; 58(6):e396-e397. DOI:10.1097/DCR.0000000000000384
  • Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 06/2015; 58(6):619. DOI:10.1097/DCR.0000000000000372