Comparison of Hospitals Affiliated With PPS-Exempt Cancer Centers, Other Hospitals Affiliated With NCI-Designated Cancer Centers, and Other Hospitals That Provide Cancer Care

Patient Safety and Satisfaction With Fully Remote Management of Radiation Oncology Care

Importance

Patients of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, New York, are now offered a choice of either in-person or remote telehealth visits for radiation oncology care. However, safety and satisfaction among patients receiving treatment with fully remote physician management is unclear.

Objective

To analyze patient safety and satisfaction, financial implications, and environmental consequences associated with fully remote management among a cohort of patients treated with radiotherapy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This single-institution retrospective cohort study was performed at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, with patients treated with radiation who opted for fully remote management between October 1, 2020, and October 31, 2022. Data on patient safety events were prospectively collected with an in-house quality improvement reporting system. Patient satisfaction surveys were distributed electronically before, during, and after treatment. Patient transportation costs and environmental consequences were estimated based on differences in travel distance. Data analysis was performed from March 14 through September 19, 2023.

Exposure

Radiotherapy with fully remote physician management.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Satisfaction rates among patients opting for fully remote management were analyzed via surveys administered electronically after visits with clinicians. Patient safety events, defined as staff-reported actual events and near misses that had the potential to affect patient care, were reviewed. Rates and types of safety events were analyzed and compared with patients treated by onsite clinicians. Distances between patient home zip codes and treatment site locations were compared with estimated cost savings and decreased emissions.

Results

This study included 2817 patients who received radiation oncology care with fully remote physician management. The median age of patients was 65 (range, 9-99) years, and more than half were men (1467 [52.1%]). Of the 764 safety events reported, 763 (99.9%) did not reach patients or caused no harm to patients. Nearly all survey respondents (451 [97.6%]) rated patient satisfaction as good to very good across all domains. For treatment with fully remote physician management, out-of-pocket cost savings totaled $612 912.71 ($466.45 per patient) and decreased carbon dioxide emissions by 174 metric tons.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, radiation oncology care provided by fully remote clinicians was safe and feasible, with no serious patient events. High patient satisfaction, substantial cost savings, and decreased environmental consequences were observed. These findings support the continuation of a fully remote management option for select patients in the post-COVID-19 era.

Access, Outcomes, and Costs Associated with Surgery for Malignancy Among People Experiencing Homelessness

BACKGROUND

Little is known about surgery for malignancy among people experiencing homelessness (PEH). Poor healthcare access may lead to delayed diagnosis and need for unplanned surgery. This study aimed to (1) characterize access to care among PEH, (2) evaluate postoperative outcomes, and (3) assess costs associated with surgery for malignancy among PEH.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients in the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) who underwent surgery in Florida, New York, or Massachusetts for gastrointestinal or lung cancer from 2016 to 2017. PEH were identified using HCUP's "Homeless" variable and ICD-10 code Z59. Multivariable regression models controlling patient and hospital variables evaluated associations between homelessness and postoperative morbidity, length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission, and hospitalization costs.

RESULTS

Of 67,034 patients at 566 hospitals, 98 (0.2%) were PEH. Most PEH (44.9%) underwent surgery for colorectal cancer. PEH more frequently underwent unplanned surgery than housed patients (65.3% vs 23.7%, odds ratio (OR) 5.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.00-8.92) and less often were treated at cancer centers (66.0% vs 76.2%, p=0.02). Morbidity rates were similar between groups (20.4% vs 14.5%, p=0.10). However, PEH demonstrated higher odds of facility discharge (OR 5.89, 95% CI 3.50-9.78) and readmission (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.07-3.05) as well as 67.7% longer adjusted LOS (95% CI 42.0-98.2%). Adjusted costs were 32.7% higher (95% CI 14.5-53.9%) among PEH.

CONCLUSIONS

PEH demonstrated increased odds of unplanned surgery, longer LOS, and increased costs. These results underscore a need for improved access to oncologic care for PEH.

Strategies to decrease inequalities in cancer therapeutics, care and prevention: Proceedings on a conference organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the European Academy of Cancer Sciences, Vatican City, February 23-24, 2023

Analyses of inequalities related to prevention and cancer therapeutics/care show disparities between countries with different economic standing, and within countries with high Gross Domestic Product. The development of basic technological and biological research provides clinical and prevention opportunities that make their implementation into healthcare systems more complex, mainly due to the growth of Personalized/Precision Cancer Medicine (PCM). Initiatives like the USA-Cancer Moonshot and the EU-Mission on Cancer and Europe's Beating Cancer Plan are initiated to boost cancer prevention and therapeutics/care innovation and to mitigate present inequalities. The conference organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in collaboration with the European Academy of Cancer Sciences discussed the inequality problem, dependent on the economic status of a country, the increasing demands for infrastructure supportive of innovative research and its implementation in healthcare and prevention programs. Establishing translational research defined as a coherent cancer research continuum is still a challenge. Research has to cover the entire continuum from basic to outcomes research for clinical and prevention modalities. Comprehensive Cancer Centres (CCCs) are of critical importance for integrating research innovations to preclinical and clinical research, as for ensuring state-of-the-art patient care within healthcare systems. International collaborative networks between CCCs are necessary to reach the critical mass of infrastructures and patients for PCM research, and for introducing prevention modalities and new treatments effectively. Outcomes and health economics research are required to assess the cost-effectiveness of new interventions, currently a missing element in the research portfolio. Data sharing and critical mass are essential for innovative research to develop PCM. Despite advances in cancer research, cancer incidence and prevalence is growing. Making cancer research infrastructures accessible for all patients, considering the increasing inequalities, requires science policy actions incentivizing research aimed at prevention and cancer therapeutics/care with an increased focus on patients' needs and cost-effective healthcare.

Long-term disease-free survival following comprehensive involved site radiotherapy for oligometastases

Introduction

Despite recent advances in drug development, durable complete remissions with systemic therapy alone for metastatic cancers remain infrequent. With the development of advanced radiation technologies capable of selectively sparing normal tissues, patients with oligometastases are often amenable to comprehensive involved site radiotherapy with curative intent. This study reports the long-term outcomes and patterns of failure for patients treated with total metastatic ablation often in combination with systemic therapy.

Materials and methods

Consecutive adult patients with oligometastases from solid tumor malignancy treated by a single high volume radiation oncologist between 2014 and 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Oligometastases were defined as 5 or fewer metastatic lesions where all sites of active disease are amenable to local treatment. Comprehensive involved site radiotherapy consisted of stereotactic radiotherapy to a median dose of 27 Gy in 3 fractions and intensity modulated radiation therapy to a median dose of 50 Gy in 15 fractions. This study analyzed overall survival, progression-free survival, patterns of failure and toxicity.

Results

A total of 130 patients with 209 treated distant metastases were treated with a median follow-up of 36 months. The 4-year overall survival, progression-free survival, local control and distant control was 41%, 23%, 86% and 29%. Patterns of failure include 23% alive and free of disease (NED), 52% distant failure only, 9% NED but death from comorbid illness, 7% both local and distant failure, 4% NED but lost to follow-up, 4% referred to hospice before restaging, 1% local only failure, 1% alive with second primary cancer. Late grade 3+ toxicities occurred in 4% of patients, most commonly radionecrosis.

Conclusion

Involved site radiotherapy to all areas of known disease can safely achieve durable complete remissions in patients with oligometastases treated in the real world setting. Distant failures account for the majority of treatment failures and isolated local failures are exceedingly uncommon. Oligometastases represents a promising setting to investigate novel therapeutics targeting minimal residual disease.

Organization of Cancer Specialists in US Physician Practices and Health Systems

PURPOSE

To describe the supply of cancer specialists, the organization of cancer care within versus outside of health systems, and the distance to multispecialty cancer centers.

METHODS

Using the 2018 Health Systems and Provider Database from the National Bureau of Economic Research and 2018 Medicare data, we identified 46,341 unique physicians providing cancer care. We stratified physicians by discipline (adult/pediatric medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, surgical/gynecologic oncologists, other surgeons performing cancer surgeries, or palliative care physicians), system type (National Cancer Institute [NCI] Cancer Center system, non-NCI academic system, nonacademic system, or nonsystem/independent practice), practice size, and composition (single disciplinary oncology, multidisciplinary oncology, or multispecialty). We computed the density of cancer specialists by county and calculated distances to the nearest NCI Cancer Center.

RESULTS

More than half of all cancer specialists (57.8%) practiced in health systems, but 55.0% of cancer-related visits occurred in independent practices. Most system-based physicians were in large practices with more than 100 physicians, while those in independent practices were in smaller practices. Practices in NCI Cancer Center systems (95.2%), non-NCI academic systems (95.0%), and nonacademic systems (94.3%) were primarily multispecialty, while fewer independent practices (44.8%) were. Cancer specialist density was sparse in many rural areas, where the median travel distance to an NCI Cancer Center was 98.7 miles. Distances to NCI Cancer Centers were shorter for individuals living in high-income areas than in low-income areas, even for individuals in suburban and urban areas.

CONCLUSION

Although many cancer specialists practiced in multispecialty health systems, many also worked in smaller-sized independent practices where most patients were treated. Access to cancer specialists and cancer centers was limited in many areas, particularly in rural and low-income areas.

Barriers and Facilitators to Implementing Patient-Reported Outcome Monitoring in Gastrointestinal Surgery

INTRODUCTION

More than 30% of patients experience complications after major gastrointestinal (GI) surgery, many of which occur after discharge when patients and families must assume responsibility for monitoring. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been proposed as a tool for remote monitoring to identify deviations in recovery, and recognize and manage complications earlier. This study's objective was to characterize barriers and facilitators to the use of PROs as a patient monitoring tool following GI surgery.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews with GI surgery patients and clinicians (surgeons, nurses, and advanced practitioners). Patients and clinicians were asked to describe their experience using a PRO monitoring system in three surgical oncology clinics. Using a phenomenological approach, research team dyads independently coded the transcripts using an inductively developed codebook and the constant comparative approach with differences reconciled by consensus.

RESULTS

Ten patients and five clinicians participated in the interviews. We identified four overarching themes related to functionality, workflow, meaningfulness, and actionability. Functionality refers to barriers faced by clinicians and patients in using the PRO technology. Workflow represents problematic integration of PROs into the clinical workflow and need for setting expectations with patients. Meaningfulness refers to lack of patient and clinician understanding of the impact of PROs on patient care. Finally, actionability reflects barriers to follow-up and practical use of PRO data.

CONCLUSIONS

While use of PRO systems for postoperative patient monitoring have expanded, significant barriers persist for both patients and clinicians. Implementation enhancements are needed to optimize functionality, workflow, meaningfulness, and actionability.

Hospital Designations and Their Impact on Guideline-Concordant Care and Survival in Pancreatic Cancer. Do They Matter?

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) requires complex multidisciplinary care. European evidence suggests potential benefit from regionalization, however, data characterizing the ideal setting in the United States are sparse. Our study compares the significance of four hospital designations on guideline-concordant care (GCC) and overall survival (OS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The Texas Cancer Registry was queried for 17,071 patients with PDAC treated between 2004 and 2015. Clinical data were correlated with hospital designations: NCI designated (NCI), high volume (HV), safety net (SNH), and American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer accredited (ACS). Univariable (UVA) and multivariable (MVA) logistic regression were used to assess associations with GCC [on the basis of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommendations]. Cox regression analysis assessed survival.

RESULTS

Only 43% of patients received GCC. NCI had the largest associated risk reduction (HR 0.61, CI 0.58-0.65), followed by HV (HR 0.87, CI 0.83-0.90) and ACS (HR 0.91, CI 0.87-0.95). GCC was associated with a survival benefit in the full (HR 0.75, CI 0.69-0.81) and resected cohort (HR 0.74, CI 0.68-0.80). NCI (OR 1.52, CI 1.37-1.70), HV (OR 1.14, CI 1.05-1.23), and SNH (OR 0.78, CI 0.68-0.91) all correlated with receipt of GCC. For resected patients, ACS (OR 0.63, CI 0.50-0.79) and SNH (OR 0.50, CI 0.33-0.75) correlate with GCC.

CONCLUSIONS

A total of 43% of patients received GCC. Treatment at NCI and HV correlated with improved GCC and survival. Including GCC as a metric in accreditation standards could impact survival for patients with PDAC.

Utilization of National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers by Medicare Beneficiaries with Cancer

BACKGROUND

Little is known about which patients use National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers (NCICCs) nationally. This study aimed to identify sociodemographic characteristics associated with decreased NCICC use among Medicare beneficiaries.

METHODS

This study examined a national cohort of 534,008 Medicare beneficiaries with cancer in 2017 using multivariable logistic regressions for NCICC use. The covariates in the study were sex, age, cancer type, race/ethnicity, dual-eligibility status for Medicaid and Medicare, and NCICC presence in the home state.

RESULTS

In 2017, 19.5 % of Medicare beneficiaries with cancer used an NCICC at least once. Dual-eligible beneficiaries had 29 % lower adjusted odds of NCICC use than non-dual-eligible beneficiaries (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.71; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.70-0.73; p < 0.001). American Indian/Alaska Native beneficiaries had 40 % lower odds of NCICC use than non-Hispanic white (NHW) beneficiaries (aOR, 0.60; 95 % CI, 0.53-0.68; p < 0.001). Compared with NHW beneficiaries, the odds of NCICC use were higher for black beneficiaries by 15 % (aOR, 1.15; 95 % CI, 1.12-1.18; p < 0.001), for Hispanic beneficiaries by 31 % (aOR, 1.31; 95 % CI, 1.26-1.35; p < 0.001), and for Asian/Pacific Islander beneficiaries by 126 % (aOR, 2.26; 95 % CI, 2.16-2.36; p < 0.001). Utilization declined steadily in older groups, with beneficiaries older than 95 years showing 73 % lower odds of NCICC use than beneficiaries younger than 65 years (aOR, 0.27; 95 % CI, 0.24-0.29; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Medicaid-eligible, American Indian/Alaska Native, and older patients are substantially less likely to use NCICCs. Future research should focus on defining and addressing the barriers to NCICC access for these populations.

Hospital-Administered Cancer Therapy Prices for Patients With Private Health Insurance

Importance

The federal Hospital Price Transparency final rule, which became effective in 2021, requires hospitals to publicly disclose payer-specific prices for drugs. However, little is known about hospital markup prices for parenterally administered therapies.

Objective

To assess the extent of price markup by hospitals on parenterally administered cancer therapies and price variation among hospitals and between payers at each hospital.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A cross-sectional analysis was conducted of private payer-specific negotiated prices for the top 25 parenteral (eg, injectable or infusible) cancer therapies by Medicare Part B spending in 2019 using publicly available hospital price transparency files. Sixty-one National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers providing clinical care to adults with cancer were included. The study was conducted from April 1 to October 15, 2021.

Exposures

Estimated hospital acquisition costs for each cancer therapy using participation data from the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was hospital price markup for each cancer therapy in excess of estimated acquisition costs. Secondary outcomes were the extent of across-center price ratios, defined as the ratio between the 90th percentile and 10th percentile median prices across centers, and within-center price ratios, defined as the ratio between the 90th percentile and 10th percentile prices between payers at each center.

Results

Of 61 NCI-designated cancer centers, 27 (44.3%) disclosed private payer-specific prices for at least 1 top-selling cancer therapy as required by federal regulations. Median drug price markups across all centers and payers ranged between 118.4% (sipuleucel-T) and 633.6% (leuprolide). Across-center price ratios ranged between 2.2 (pertuzumab) and 15.8 (leuprolide). Negotiated prices also varied considerably between payers at the same center; median within-center price ratios for cancer therapies ranged from 1.8 (brentuximab) to 2.5 (bevacizumab).

Conclusions and Relevance

Most NCI-designated cancer centers did not publicly disclose payer-specific prices for cancer therapies as required by federal regulation. The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that, to reduce the financial burden of cancer treatment for patients, institution of public policies to discourage or prevent excessive hospital price markups on parenteral chemotherapeutics might be beneficial.

Beyond the operating room: do hospital characteristics have an impact on surgical site infections after colorectal surgery? A systematic review

Background

Hospital characteristics have been recognized as potential risk factors for surgical site infection for over 20 years. However, most research has focused on patient and procedural risk factors. Understanding how structural and process variables influence infection is vital to identify targets for effective interventions and to optimize healthcare services. The aim of this study was to systematically review the association between hospital characteristics and surgical site infection in colorectal surgery.

Main body

A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases until the 31st of May, 2021. The search strategy followed the Participants, Exposure/Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes and Study design. The primary outcome of interest was surgical site infection rate after colorectal surgery. Studies were grouped into nine risk factor typologies: hospital size, ownership affiliation, being an oncological hospital, safety-net burden, hospital volume, surgeon caseload, discharge destination and time since implementation of surveillance. The STROBE statement was used for evaluating the methodological quality.

A total of 4703 records were identified, of which 172 were reviewed and 16 were included. Studies were published between 2008 and 2021, and referred to data collected between 1996 and 2016. Surgical site infection incidence ranged from 3.2 to 27.6%. Two out of five studies evaluating hospital size adjusted the analysis to patient and procedure-related risk factors, and showed that larger hospitals were either positively associated or had no association with SSI. Public hospitals did not present significantly different infection rates than private or non-profit ones. Medical school affiliation and higher safety-net burden were associated with higher surgical site infection (crude estimates), while oncological hospitals were associated with higher incidence independently of other variables. Hospital caseload showed mixed results, while surgeon caseload and surveillance time since implementation appear to be associated with fewer infections.

Conclusions

Although there are few studies addressing hospital-level factors on surgical site infection, surgeon experience and the implementation of a surveillance system appear to be associated with better outcomes. For hospitals and services to be efficiently optimized, more studies addressing these variables are needed that take into account the confounding effect of patient case mix.

Differences in Cancer Care Expenditures and Utilization for Surgery by Hospital Type Among Patients With Private Insurance

IMPORTANCE

With rising expenditures on cancer care outpacing other sectors of the US health system, national attention has focused on insurer spending, particularly for patients with private insurance, for whom price transparency has historically been lacking. The type of hospital at which cancer care is delivered may be an important factor associated with insurer spending for patients with private insurance.

OBJECTIVE

To examine differences in spending and utilization for patients with private insurance undergoing common cancer surgery at National Cancer Institute (NCI) centers vs community hospitals.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cross-sectional study included adult patients with an incident diagnosis of breast, colon, or lung cancer who underwent cancer-directed surgery from 2011 to 2014. Mean risk-adjusted spending and utilization outcomes were examined for each hospital type using multilevel generalized linear mixed-effects models, adjusting for patient, hospital, and region characteristics. Data were collected from the Health Care Cost Institute's national multipayer commercial claims data set, which encompasses claims paid by 3 of the 5 largest commercial health insurers in the United States (ie, Aetna, Humana, and UnitedHealthcare). Data analyses were conducted from February 2018 to February 2019.

EXPOSURES

Hospital type at which cancer surgery was performed: NCI, non-NCI academic, or community.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Spending outcomes were surgery-specific insurer prices paid and 90-day postdischarge payments. Utilization outcomes were length of stay (LOS), emergency department (ED) use, and hospital readmission within 90 days of discharge.

RESULTS

The study included 66 878 patients (51 569 [77.1%] women; 31 585 [47.2%] aged ≥65 years) with incident breast (35 788 [53.5%]), colon (21 378 [32.0%]), or lung (9712 [14.5%]) cancer undergoing cancer surgery at 2995 hospitals (5522 [8.3%] at NCI centers; 10 917 [16.3%] at non-NCI academic hospitals; 50 439 [75.4%] at community hospitals). Treatment at NCI centers was associated with higher surgery-specific insurer prices paid compared with community hospitals ($18 526 [95% CI, $16 650-$20 403] vs $14 772 [95% CI, $14 339-$15 204]; difference, $3755 [95% CI, $1661-$5849]; P < .001) and 90-day postdischarge payments ($47 035 [95% CI, $43 289-$50 781] vs $41 291 [95% CI, $40 350-$42 231]; difference, $5744 [95% CI, $1659-9829]; P = .006). There were no significant differences in LOS, ED use, or hospital readmission within 90 days of discharge.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional study, surgery at NCI centers vs community hospitals was associated with higher insurer spending for a surgical episode without differences in care utilization among patients with private insurance undergoing cancer surgery. A better understanding of the factors associated with prices and spending at NCI cancer centers is needed.

What Is the Value of Undergoing Surgery for Spinal Metastases at Dedicated Cancer Centers?

BACKGROUND

The Alliance of Dedicated Cancer Centers is an organization of 11 leading cancer institutions and affiliated hospitals that are exempt from the Medicare prospective system hospital reimbursement policies. Because of their focus on cancer care and participation in innovative cancer treatment methods and protocols, these hospitals are reimbursed based on their actual billings. The perceived lack of incentive to meet a predetermined target price and reduce costs has spurred criticism of the value of cancer care at these institutions. The rationale of our study was to better understand whether dedicated cancer centers (DCCs) deliver high-value care for patients undergoing surgical treatment of spinal metastases.

QUESTION/PURPOSE

Is there a difference in 90-day complications and reimbursements between patients undergoing surgical treatment (decompression or fusion) for spinal metastases at DCCs and those treated at nonDCC hospitals?

METHODS

The 2005 to 2014 100% Medicare Standard Analytical Files database was queried using ICD-9 procedure and diagnosis codes to identify patients undergoing decompression (03.0, 03.09, and 03.4) and/or fusion (81.0X) for spinal metastases (198.5). The database does not allow us to exclude the possibility that some patients were treated with fusion for stabilization of the spine without decompression, although this is likely an uncommon event. Patients undergoing vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty for metastatic disease were excluded. The Medicare hospital provider identification numbers were used to identify the 11 DCCs. The study cohort was categorized into two groups: DCCs and nonDCCs. Although spinal metastases are known to occur among nonMedicare and younger patients, the payment policies of these DCCs are only applicable to Medicare beneficiaries. Therefore, to keep the study objective relevant to current policy and value-based discussions, we performed the analysis using the Medicare dataset. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included 17,776 patients in the study, 6% (1138 of 17,776) of whom underwent surgery at one of the 11 DCCs. Compared with the nonDCC group, DCC group hospitals operated on a younger patient population and on more patients with primary renal cancers. In addition, DCCs were more likely to be high-volume facilities with National Cancer Institute designations and have a voluntary or government ownership model. Patients undergoing surgery for spinal metastases at DCCs were more likely to have spinal decompression with fusion than those at nonDCCs (40% versus 22%; p < 0.001) and had a greater length and extent of fusion (at least four levels of fusion; 34% versus 29%; p = 0.001). Patients at DCCs were also more likely than those at nonDCCs to receive postoperative adjunct treatments such as radiation (16% versus 13.5%; p = 0.008) and chemotherapy (17% versus 9%; p < 0.001), although this difference is small and we do not know if this meets a minimum clinically important difference. To account for differences in patients presenting at both types of facilities, multivariate logistic regression mixed-model analyses were used to compare rates of 90-day complications and 90-day mortality between DCC and nonDCC hospitals. Controls were implemented for baseline clinical characteristics, procedural factors, and hospital-level factors (such as random effects). Generalized linear regression mixed-modeling was used to evaluate differences in total 90-day reimbursements between DCCs and nonDCCs.

RESULTS

After adjusting for differences in baseline demographics, procedural factors, and hospital-level factors, patients undergoing surgery at DCCs had lower odds of experiencing sepsis (6.5% versus 10%; odds ratio 0.54 [95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.74]; p < 0.001), urinary tract infections (19% versus 28%; OR 0.61 [95% CI 0.50 to 0.74]; p < 0.001), renal complications (9% versus 13%; OR 0.55 [95% CI 0.42 to 0.72]; p < 0.001), emergency department visits (27% versus 31%; OR 0.78 [95% CI 0.64 to 0.93]; p = 0.01), and mortality (39% versus 49%; OR 0.75 [95% CI 0.62 to 0.89]; p = 0.001) within 90 days of the procedure compared with patients treated at nonDCCs. Undergoing surgery at a DCC (90-day reimbursement of USD 54,588 ± USD 42,914) compared with nonDCCs (90-day reimbursement of USD 49,454 ± USD 38,174) was also associated with reduced 90-day risk-adjusted reimbursements (USD -14,802 [standard error 1362] ; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Based on our findings, it appears that DCCs offer high-value care, as evidenced by lower complication rates and reduced reimbursements after surgery for spinal metastases. A better understanding of the processes of care adopted at these institutions is needed so that additional cancer centers may also be able to deliver similar care for patients with metastatic spine disease.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Analysing the attributes of Comprehensive Cancer Centres and Cancer Centres across Europe to identify key hallmarks

There is a persistent variation in cancer outcomes among and within European countries suggesting (among other causes) inequalities in access to or delivery of high‐quality cancer care. European policy (EU Cancer Mission and Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan) is currently moving towards a mission‐oriented approach addressing these inequalities. In this study, we used the quantitative and qualitative data of the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes’ Accreditation and Designation Programme, relating to 40 large European cancer centres, to describe their current compliance with quality standards, to identify the hallmarks common to all centres and to show the distinctive features of Comprehensive Cancer Centres. All Comprehensive Cancer Centres and Cancer Centres accredited by the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes show good compliance with quality standards related to care, multidisciplinarity and patient centredness. However, Comprehensive Cancer Centres on average showed significantly better scores on indicators related to the volume, quality and integration of translational research, such as high‐impact publications, clinical trial activity (especially in phase I and phase IIa trials) and filing more patents as early indicators of innovation. However, irrespective of their size, centres show significant variability regarding effective governance when functioning as entities within larger hospitals.

Hospital clinical staging accuracy for upper gastrointestinal malignancy

BACKGROUND

Decisions about multimodality treatment for upper gastrointestinal malignancies are largely predicted on clinical staging information. However, hospital-level accuracy of clinical staging is currently unknown.

METHODS

A national cohort study of patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, stomach, or pancreas in the NCDB (2006-2015) who were treated with upfront resection. Hospital-level staging accuracy (ascertained by comparing clinical stage to pathologic stage) was calculated. Within hospital correlation of staging accuracy across disease sites was evaluated using risk and reliability adjustment.

RESULTS

Overall, 1246 hospitals were evaluated. Median hospital T-staging accuracy was 77.5%, 73.7%, and 60.8% for esophageal, gastric, and pancreatic cancer, respectively. Median hospital N-staging accuracy was 80.2%, 72.9%, and 61.8%, respectively. For T-stage, over-staging was most frequently observed in esophageal patients (11.2%) while under-staging was most frequent in pancreatic patients (36.1%). For N-stage, over-staging was infrequent for all three, while under-staging was most common in pancreatic patients (37.4%). Correlation across disease sites was weak for both T- (best observed, r = .34) and N-stages (r = .30). When high volume hospitals were evaluated, correlation improved but accuracy rates were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the importance of clinical staging in multimodality treatment planning, hospitals inaccurately stage 20-40% of patients, with low correlation across disease sites.

Dedicated Cancer Centers are More Likely to Achieve a Textbook Outcome Following Hepatopancreatic Surgery

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the current study is to assess rates of textbook outcome (TO) among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing hepatopancreatic (HP) surgery for cancer at dedicated cancer centers (DCCs) and National Cancer Institute affiliated cancer centers (NCI-CCs) versus non-DCC non-NCI hospitals.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Medicare Inpatient Standard Analytic Files were utilized to identify patients undergoing HP surgery between 2013 and 2017. TO was defined as no postoperative surgical complications, no 90-day mortality, no prolonged length of hospital stay, and no 90-day readmission after discharge.

RESULTS

Among 21,234 Medicare patients, 8.2% patients underwent surgery at DCCs whereas 32.1% underwent surgery at NCI-CCs and 59.7% underwent an operation at neither DCCs nor NCI-CCs. Although DCCs more often cared for patients with severe comorbidities [Charlson score > 5: DCCs, 1195 (68.9%), NCI-CCs, 3687 (54.1%), others, 3970 (31.3%); p < 0.001], DCCs achieved higher rates of TO compared with NCI-CCs and other US hospitals. Interestingly, DCCs were more likely to perform surgery with a minimally invasive approach versus NCI-CCs and other US hospitals (17.0%, n = 295, vs. 12.6%, n = 856 vs. 11.9%, n = 1504, p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, patients undergoing liver surgery at DCCs had 31% and 36% higher odds of achieving TO compared with NCI-CCs and other US hospitals, respectively. Medicare expenditure was substantially lower for patients achieving TO at DCCs compared with patients who achieved a TO at NCI-CCs.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though DCCs more frequently took care of patients with high comorbidity burden, the likelihood of achieving TO for HP surgery at DCCs was higher compared with NCI-CCs and other US hospitals. The data suggest that DCCs provide higher-value surgical care for patients with HP malignancies.