Regionalization of Complex Cancer Surgery: How, When, and Why?

Comparison of Hospital Volume and Risk-Standardized Mortality Rate as a Proxy for Hospital Quality in Complex Oncologic Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery

BACKGROUND

Centralization of hepatopancreatobiliary procedures to more experienced centers has been recommended but remains controversial. Hospital volume and risk-stratified mortality rates (RSMR) are metrics for interhospital comparison. We compared facility operative volume with facility RSMR as a proxy for hospital quality.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent surgery for liver (LC), biliary tract (BTC), and pancreatic (PDAC) cancer were identified in the National Cancer Database (2004-2018). Hierarchical logistic regression was used to create facility-specific models for RSMR. Volume (high versus low) was determined by quintile. Performance (high versus low) was determined by RSMR tercile. Primary outcomes included median facility RSMR and RSMR distributions. Volume- and RSMR-based redistribution was simulated and compared for reductions in 90-day mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 106,217 patients treated at 1282 facilities were included; 17,695 had LC, 23,075 had BTC, and 65,447 had PDAC. High-volume centers (HVC) had lower RSMR compared with medium-volume centers and low-volume centers for LC, BTC, and PDAC (all p < 0.001). High-performance centers (HPC) had lower RSMR compared with medium-performance centers and low-performance centers for LC, BTC, and PDAC (all p < 0.001). Volume-based redistribution required 16.0 patients for LC, 11.2 for BTC, and 14.9 for PDAC reassigned to 15, 22, and 20 centers, respectively, per life saved within each US census region. RSMR-based redistribution required 4.7 patients for LC, 4.2 for BTC, and 4.9 for PDAC reassigned to 316, 403, and 418 centers, respectively, per life saved within each US census region.

CONCLUSIONS

HVC and HPC have the lowest overall and risk-standardized 90-day mortality after oncologic hepatopancreatobiliary procedures, but RSMR may outperform volume as a measure of hospital quality.

Defining Standards for Hepatopancreatobiliary Cancer Surgery in Ontario, Canada: A Population-Based Cohort Study of Clinical Outcomes

BACKGROUND

In 2006, Cancer Care Ontario created Surgical Oncology Standards for the delivery of hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery including hepatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). Our objective was to identify the impact of standardization on outcomes after HPB surgery in Ontario, Canada.

STUDY DESIGN

This study was a population-level analysis of patients undergoing hepatectomy or PD (2003 to 2019). Logistic regression models were used to compare 30- and 90-day mortality and length of stay (LOS) before (2003 to 2006), during (2007 to 2011), and after (2012 to 2019) standardization. Interrupted time series models were used to co-analyze secular trends.

RESULTS

A total of 7,904 hepatectomies and 5,238 PDs were performed. More than 80% of all cases were performed at a designated center (DC) before standardization. This increased to >98% in the poststandardization era. Median volumes at DCs increased from 55 to 67 hepatectomies/year and from 22 to 50 PDs/year over time. In addition, 30-day mortality after hepatectomy was 2.6% before standardization and 2.3% after standardization (p = 0.9); 30-day mortality after PD was 3.6% before standardization and 2.4% after standardization (p = 0.1). Multivariable analyses revealed a significant difference in 90-day mortality following PD poststandardization (4.3% vs 6.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.7; p = 0.03). Median LOS was shorter for hepatectomy (6 days vs 8 days) and PD (9 days vs 14 days; p < 0.0001) after standardization. Immediate and late effects on mortality and LOS were likely attributable to secular trends, which predated standardization.

CONCLUSIONS

Standardization was associated with a higher volume of hepatectomy and PDs with further concentration of care at DCs. Pre-existing quality initiatives may have attenuated the effect of standardization on quality outcomes. Our data highlight the merits of a multifaceted provincial system for enabling consistent access to high quality HPB care throughout a region of 15 million people over a 16-year period.

Urban-Rural Differences in Receipt of Cancer Surgery at High-Volume Hospitals and Sensitivity to Hospital Volume Thresholds

Methods for identifying high-volume hospitals affect conclusions about rural cancer care access.

National Economic Conditions May Impact the Financial Barriers to Travel for Cancer Operations

Background

Better cancer-related outcomes are associated with physicians and hospitals with higher case volume. This serves as an incentive to refer patients requiring complex cancer operations to large referral centers, which may require increased travel for patients. However, barriers exist for patients to travel for cancer care, some of which may be aggravated or alleviated by factors relating to the health of the national economy. This impact may be reflected in variability of travel distances for cancer operations over time particularly for complex operation such as pancreatectomy and esophagectomy compared with less complex resections such as those for breast cancer or melanoma.

Methods

We obtained the estimated travel distance for patients undergoing operations for cancer of the pancreas, esophagus, skin (melanoma), and breast from the National Cancer Database from 2004 to 2017 and correlated them with economic factors obtained from public sources. We then examined the impact of unemployment rates, gas prices, and inflation on travel distances regarding disadvantaged groups. Correlations were measured by the (rank-based, nonparametric) Spearman's correlation coefficient, and the corresponding P value is obtained by the asymptotic distribution of the coefficient. A P value of 0.05 equates to an absolute correlation value of 0.532. To adjust for multiple tests, a more restrictive P value of 0.01 was also assessed, which equates to correlation coefficients of absolute value greater than 0.661.

Results

There were 4,222,380 cases in the dataset, of which 1,781,056 remained after exclusion. The economic factors that were associated most strongly with the distance patients traveled for all cancer operation types were the labor force participation rate, personal savings, consumer price index, and changes in gasoline prices. Inflation and rising gasoline prices were often inversely related with travel distance in lower-income and less well-educated regions and African American patients.

Conclusions

Several macroeconomic factors correlate with the travel distance for operations, suggesting that the economic health of the nation may aggravate or alleviate the financial barriers to travel for cancer operations. Financially disadvantaged groups may be particularly vulnerable to changes in gasoline prices and inflation. Organizations serving these populations may need to increase patient support services during times of economic hardship to avoid the exacerbation of health care disparities.

How Far Is Too Far? Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Regionalized Rectal Cancer Surgery

BACKGROUND

Regionalized rectal cancer surgery may decrease postoperative and long-term cancer-related mortality. However, the regionalization of care may be an undue burden on patients.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of regionalized rectal cancer surgery.

DESIGN

Tree-based decision analysis.

PATIENTS

Patients with stage II/III rectal cancer anatomically suitable for low anterior resection were included.

SETTING

Rectal cancer surgery performed at a high-volume regional center rather than the closest hospital available.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental costs ($) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life year) reflected a societal perspective and were time-discounted at 3%. Costs and benefits were combined to produce the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ($ per quality-adjusted life year). Multivariable probabilistic sensitivity analysis modeled uncertainty in probabilities, costs, and effectiveness.

RESULTS

Regionalized surgery economically dominated local surgery. Regionalized rectal cancer surgery was both less expensive on average ($50,406 versus $65,430 in present-day costs) and produced better long-term outcomes (10.36 versus 9.51 quality-adjusted life years). The total costs and inconvenience of traveling to a regional high-volume center would need to exceed $15,024 per patient to achieve economic breakeven alone or $112,476 per patient to satisfy conventional cost-effectiveness standards. These results were robust on sensitivity analysis and maintained in 94.6% of scenario testing.

LIMITATIONS

Decision analysis models are limited to policy level rather than individualized decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

Regionalized rectal cancer surgery improves clinical outcomes and reduces total societal costs compared to local surgical care. Prescriptive measures and patient inducements may be needed to expand the role of regionalized surgery for rectal cancer. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C83 .

QU TAN LEJOS ES DEMASIADO LEJOS ANLISIS DE COSTOEFECTIVIDAD DE LA CIRUGA DE CNCER DE RECTO REGIONALIZADO

ANTECEDENTES:La cirugía de cáncer de recto regionalizado puede disminuir la mortalidad posoperatoria y a largo plazo relacionada con el cáncer. Sin embargo, la regionalización de la atención puede ser una carga indebida para los pacientes.OBJETIVO:Evaluar la rentabilidad de la cirugía oncológica de recto regionalizada.DISEÑO:Análisis de decisiones basado en árboles.PACIENTES:Pacientes con cáncer de recto en estadio II/III anatómicamente aptos para resección anterior baja.AJUSTE:Cirugía de cáncer rectal realizada en un centro regional de alto volumen en lugar del hospital más cercano disponible.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los costos incrementales ($) y la efectividad (años de vida ajustados por calidad) reflejaron una perspectiva social y se descontaron en el tiempo al 3%. Los costos y los beneficios se combinaron para producir la relación costo-efectividad incremental ($ por año de vida ajustado por calidad). El análisis de sensibilidad probabilístico multivariable modeló la incertidumbre en las probabilidades, los costos y la efectividad.RESULTADOS:La cirugía regionalizada predominó económicamente la cirugía local. La cirugía de cáncer de recto regionalizado fue menos costosa en promedio ($50 406 versus $65 430 en costos actuales) y produjo mejores resultados a largo plazo (10,36 versus 9,51 años de vida ajustados por calidad). Los costos totales y la inconveniencia de viajar a un centro regional de alto volumen necesitarían superar los $15,024 por paciente para alcanzar el punto de equilibrio económico o $112,476 por paciente para satisfacer los estándares convencionales de rentabilidad. Estos resultados fueron sólidos en el análisis de sensibilidad y se mantuvieron en el 94,6% de las pruebas de escenarios.LIMITACIONES:Los modelos de análisis de decisiones se limitan al nivel de políticas en lugar de la toma de decisiones individualizada.CONCLUSIONES:La cirugía de cáncer de recto regionalizada mejora los resultados clínicos y reduce los costos sociales totales en comparación con la atención quirúrgica local. Es posible que se necesiten medidas prescriptivas e incentivos para los pacientes a fin de ampliar el papel de la cirugía regionalizada para el cáncer de recto. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C83 . (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon ).

Medicare Advantage Networks and Access to High-volume Cancer Surgery Hospitals

OBJECTIVE

To determine how Medicare Advantage (MA) health plan networks impact access to high-volume hospitals for cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND

Cancer surgery at high-volume hospitals is associated with better short- and long-term outcomes. In the United States, health insurance is a major detriment to seeking care at high-volume hospitals. A third of older (>65 years) Americans are enrolled in privatized MA health plans. The impact of MA plan networks on access to high-volume surgery hospitals is unknown.

METHODS

We analyzed in-network hospitals for MA plans offered in Los Angeles county during open enrollment of 2015. For the purposes of this analysis, MA network data from provider directories were linked to hospital volume data from California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. Volume thresholds were based on published literature.

RESULTS

A total of 34 MA plans enrolled 554,754 beneficiaries in Los Angeles county during 2014 open enrollment for coverage starting in 2015 (MA penetration ∼43%). The proportion of MA plans that included high-volume cancer surgery hospital varied by the type of cancer surgery. While most plans (>71%) included at least one high-volume hospital for colon, rectum, lung, and stomach; 59% to 82% of MA plans did not include any high-volume hospitals for liver, esophagus, or pancreatic surgery. A significant proportion of beneficiaries in MA plans did not have access to high-volume hospitals for esophagus (93%), stomach (44%), liver (39%), or pancreas (70%) surgery. In contrast, nearly all MA beneficiaries had access to at least one high-volume hospital for lung (93%), colon (100%), or rectal (100%) surgery. Overall, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services plan rating or plan popularity were not correlated with access to high-volume hospital (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The study identifies lack of high-volume hospital coverage in MA health plans as a major detriment in regionalization of cancer surgery impacting at least a third of older Americans.

National disparities in use of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer in older adults

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is safe and improves outcomes in older persons with rectal cancer but may be underutilized. As older persons are the largest surgical population, investigation of the current use and factors impacting MIS use is warranted. Our goal is to investigate the trends and disparities that affect utilization of MIS in older persons with rectal cancer.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was reviewed for persons 65 years and older who underwent curative resection for rectal adenocarcinoma from 2010 to 2017. Cases were stratified by surgical approach (open or MIS [laparoscopic or robotic]). Univariate analysis compared patient and provider demographics across approaches. Multivariate analysis investigated variables associated with MIS use. Main outcome measures were trends and factors associated with MIS use in older persons.

RESULTS

Of 31,910 patients analyzed, 51.9% (n = 16,555) were open and 48.1% (n = 15,355) MIS. The MIS cohort was 66.7% (n = 10,236) laparoscopic and 33.3% (n = 5119) robotic. MIS increased from 29% in 2010 (n = 1197; 25% laparoscopic, 4% robotic) to 65% in 2017 (n = 2382; 35% laparoscopic, 30% robotic), likely from annual increases in robotics (OR 1.24/year, p < 0.0001). In the unadjusted analysis, there were significant differences in MIS use by age, race, comorbidity, socioeconomic status, and facility type. In multivariate analysis, patients with advancing age (OR 0.93, p < 0.001), major comorbidity (OR 0.75, p < 0.001), total proctectomy (OR0.78, p < 0.001), and advanced pathologic stage (OR 0.51, p < 0.001) were less likely to undergo MIS.

CONCLUSION

Nationwide, less than half of rectal cancer cases in older persons were performed with MIS, despite steady robotic growth. Patient and facility factors impacted MIS use. Further work on regionalizing rectal cancer care and ensuring equitable MIS access and training could improve utilization.

Does the Volume-Outcome Association in Pancreas Cancer Surgery Justify Regionalization of Care? A Review of Current Controversies

INTRODUCTION

Increasing hospital or surgeon volume is associated with improved outcomes among patients with pancreatic cancer. Promotion of regionalized care is based on this volume-outcome association. However, other research has exposed nuances and complexities inherent to this association that should be considered when promoting regionalized care models. We herein provide a critical review of the literature on the volume-outcome association and a discussion of areas of ongoing controversy.

METHODS

A PubMed literature search was conducted for the years 1995-2020. Peer reviewed original research studies were selected for critical review based on study design, potential to draw meaningful conclusions from the data, and discussion of current knowledge gaps.

RESULTS

Based on the cumulative published literature, hospital/surgeon volume and patient mortality are inversely related. However, it remains unclear whether volume is a proxy for other more causative variables inherent in high-volume centers. Interpretation of the volume-outcome association is made more difficult to interpret due to the large variation in the definition of high volume, difficulty in isolating the individual impact of surgeon versus hospital volume, challenges in quantifying health system processes related to volume, and the fact that some low-volume centers consistently achieve excellent clinical results. Implementation of true regionalized care models has been rare, likely reflecting both health system and patient level challenges.

CONCLUSION

The volume-outcome association has been consistently demonstrated to be important to the care of patients with pancreas cancer. The underlying mechanism of this association to explain the overall benefit is likely multifactorial. Better understanding of what drives the volume-outcome association may increase access to optimized care for a broader range of hospital systems and patients.

Association of Teaching Status and Mortality After Cancer Surgery

OBJECTIVE

To examine patient outcomes for nine cancer-specific procedures performed in teaching versus non-teaching hospitals.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Few contemporary studies have evaluated patient outcomes in teaching versus non-teaching hospitals across a comprehensive set of cancer-specific procedures.

METHODS

Use of national Medicare data to compare 30-, 60-, and 90-day mortality rates in teaching and non-teaching hospitals for cancer-specific procedures. Risk-adjusted 30-day, all-cause, postoperative mortality overall and for each specific surgery, as well as overall 60- and 90-day mortality rates, were assessed.

RESULTS

The sample consisted of 159,421 total cancer surgeries at 3,151 hospitals. Overall thirty-day mortality rates, adjusted for procedure type, state, and invasiveness of procedure were 1.3% lower at major teaching hospitals (95%CI=-1.6% to -1.1%; p<0.001) relative to non-teaching hospitals. After accounting for patient characteristics, major teaching hospitals continued to demonstrate lower mortality rates compared with non-teaching hospitals (-1.0% difference [95%CI -1.2% to -0.7%]; p<0.001). Further adjustment for surgical volume as a mediator reduced the difference to -0.7% (95%CI -0.9% to -0.4%, p<0.001). Cancer surgeries for four of the nine disease sites (bladder, lung, colorectal and ovarian) followed this overall trend. Sixty- and ninety-day overall mortality rates, adjusted for procedure type, state, and invasiveness of procedure showed that major teaching hospitals had a 1.7% (95%CI -2.1% to -1.4%; p<0.001) and 2.0% (95%CI -2.4 to -1.6%, p<0.001) lower mortality relative to non-teaching hospitals. These trends persisted after adjusting for patient characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Among cancer-specific procedures for Medicare beneficiaries, major teaching hospital status was associated with lower 30-, 60-, and 90-day mortality rates overall and across four of the nine cancer types.

Collaborative Review: Factors Influencing Treatment Decisions for Patients with a Localized Solid Renal Mass

CONTEXT

With the addition of active surveillance and thermal ablation (TA) to the urologist's established repertoire of partial (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN) as first-line management options for localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC), appropriate treatment decision-making has become increasingly nuanced.

OBJECTIVE

To critically review the treatment options for localized, nonrecurrent RCC; to highlight the patient, renal function, tumor, and provider factors that influence treatment decisions; and to provide a framework to conceptualize that decision-making process.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A collaborative critical review of the medical literature was conducted.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We identify three key decision points when managing localized RCC: (1) decision for surveillance versus treatment, (2) decision regarding treatment modality (TA, PN, or RN), and (3) decision on surgical approach (open vs minimally invasive). In evaluating factors that influence these treatment decisions, we elaborate on patient, renal function, tumor, and provider factors that either directly or indirectly impact each decision point. As current nomograms, based on preselected patient datasets, perform poorly in prospective settings, these tools should be used with caution. Patient decision aids are an underutilized tool in decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

Localized RCC requires highly nuanced treatment decision-making, balancing patient- and tumor-specific clinical variables against indirect structural influences to provide optimal patient care.

PATIENT SUMMARY

With expanding treatment options for localized kidney cancer, treatment decision is highly nuanced and requires shared decision-making. Patient decision aids may be helpful in the treatment discussion.