Differential Safety Between Top-Ranked Cancer Hospitals and Their Affiliates for Complex Cancer Surgery

Health-care organization characteristics in cancer care delivery: an integrated conceptual framework with content validation

Context can influence cancer-related outcomes. For example, health-care organization characteristics, including ownership, leadership, and culture, can affect care access, communication, and patient outcomes. Health-care organization characteristics and other contextual factors can also influence whether and how clinical discoveries reduce cancer incidence, morbidity, and mortality. Importantly, policy, market, and technology changes are transforming health-care organization design, culture, and operations across the cancer continuum. Consequently, research is essential to examine when, for whom, and how organizational characteristics influence person-level, organization-level, and population-level cancer outcomes. Understanding organizational characteristics-the structures, processes, and other features of entities involved in health care delivery-and their dynamics is an important yet understudied area of care delivery research across the cancer continuum. Research incorporating organizational characteristics is critical to address health inequities, test care delivery models, adapt interventions, and strengthen implementation. The field lacks conceptual grounding, however, to help researchers identify germane organizational characteristics. We propose a framework identifying organizational characteristics relevant for cancer care delivery research based on conceptual work in health services, organizational behavior, and management science and refined using a systematic review and key informant input. The proposed framework is a tool for organizing existing research and enhancing future cancer care delivery research. Following a 2012 Journal of the National Cancer Institute monograph, this work complements National Cancer Institute efforts to stimulate research addressing the relationship between cancer outcomes and contextual factors at the patient, provider, team, delivery organization, community, and health policy levels.

Mortality Among Older Medical Patients at Flagship Hospitals and Their Affiliates

BACKGROUND

We define a "flagship hospital" as the largest academic hospital within a hospital referral region and a "flagship system" as a system that contains a flagship hospital and its affiliates. It is not known if patients admitted to an affiliate hospital, and not to its main flagship hospital, have better outcomes than those admitted to a hospital outside the flagship system but within the same hospital referral region.

OBJECTIVE

To compare mortality at flagship hospitals and their affiliates to matched control patients not in the flagship system but within the same hospital referral region.

DESIGN

A matched cohort study PARTICIPANTS: The study used hospitalizations for common medical conditions between 2018-2019 among older patients age ≥ 66 years. We analyzed 118,321 matched pairs of Medicare patients admitted with pneumonia (N=57,775), heart failure (N=42,531), or acute myocardial infarction (N=18,015) in 35 flagship hospitals, 124 affiliates, and 793 control hospitals.

MAIN MEASURES

30-day (primary) and 90-day (secondary) all-cause mortality.

KEY RESULTS

30-day mortality was lower among patients in flagship systems versus control hospitals that are not part of the flagship system but within the same hospital referral region (difference= -0.62%, 95% CI [-0.88%, -0.37%], P<0.001). This difference was smaller in affiliates versus controls (-0.43%, [-0.75%, -0.11%], P=0.008) than in flagship hospitals versus controls (-1.02%, [-1.46%, -0.58%], P<0.001; difference-in-difference -0.59%, [-1.13%, -0.05%], P=0.033). Similar results were found for 90-day mortality.

LIMITATIONS

The study used claims-based data.

CONCLUSIONS

In aggregate, within a hospital referral region, patients treated at the flagship hospital, at affiliates of the flagship hospital, and in the flagship system as a whole, all had lower mortality rates than matched controls outside the flagship system. However, the mortality advantage was larger for flagship hospitals than for their affiliates.

Impact of Hospital Affiliation With a Flagship Hospital System on Surgical Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To compare general surgery outcomes at flagship systems, flagship hospitals, and flagship hospital affiliates versus matched controls.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

It is unknown whether flagship hospitals perform better than flagship hospital affiliates for surgical patients.

METHODS

Using Medicare claims for 2018 to 2019, we matched patients undergoing inpatient general surgery in flagship system hospitals to controls who underwent the same procedure at hospitals outside the system but within the same region. We defined a "flagship hospital" within each region as the major teaching hospital with the highest patient volume that is also part of a hospital system; its system was labeled a "flagship system." We performed 4 main comparisons: patients treated at any flagship system hospital versus hospitals outside the flagship system; flagship hospitals versus hospitals outside the flagship system; flagship hospital affiliates versus hospitals outside the flagship system; and flagship hospitals versus affiliate hospitals. Our primary outcome was 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

We formed 32,228 closely matched pairs across 35 regions. Patients at flagship system hospitals (32,228 pairs) had lower 30-day mortality than matched control patients [3.79% vs. 4.36%, difference=-0.57% (-0.86%, -0.28%), P<0.001]. Similarly, patients at flagship hospitals (15,571/32,228 pairs) had lower mortality than control patients. However, patients at flagship hospital affiliates (16,657/32,228 pairs) had similar mortality to matched controls. Flagship hospitals had lower mortality than affiliate hospitals [difference-in-differences=-1.05% (-1.62%, -0.47%), P<0.001].

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated at flagship hospitals had significantly lower mortality rates than those treated at flagship hospital affiliates. Hence, flagship system affiliation does not alone imply better surgical outcomes.

Quality of breast surgery care at a comprehensive cancer center and its rural affiliate hospital

BACKGROUND

Cancer centers are increasingly affiliating with rural hospitals to perform surgery. Perioperative and oncologic outcomes for cancer center surgeons operating at rural hospitals are understudied.

METHODS

For patients with non-metastatic breast cancer from a rural catchment area who had oncologic surgery at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center (CC) or its rural affiliate (RA) from 2017 to 2022, we compared perioperative outcomes (composite of surgical site infection, seroma requiring drainage, and reoperation for margins) and receipt of guideline-concordant care (if patient received all applicable treatments) using descriptive statistics and chi-squared tests.

RESULTS

Among 168 patients, 99 had surgery at RA, 60 CC. RA patients were older, higher stage, and more often had lumpectomy. There were no differences in perioperative outcomes (CC 10%, RA 14%, p ​= ​0.445) or guideline concordant care (RA 76%, CC 78%, p ​= ​0.846).

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer center surgeons operating at a rural affiliate had comparable perioperative outcomes and guideline-concordant care.

Hub and spoke framework for study of surgical centralization within United States health systems

BACKGROUND

Hospital consolidation into health systems has mixed effects on surgical quality, potentially related to degree of surgical centralization at high-volume (hub) sites. We developed a novel measure of centralization and evaluated a hub and spoke framework.

METHODS

Surgical centralization within health systems was measured using hospital surgical volumes (American Hospital Association) and health system data (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality). Hub and spoke hospitals were compared using mixed effects logistic regression and system characteristics associated with surgical centralization were identified using a linear model.

RESULTS

Within 382 health systems containing 3022 hospitals, system hubs perform 63% of cases (IQR 40-84%). Hubs are larger, in metropolitan and urban areas, and more often academically affiliated. Degree of surgical centralization varies ten-fold. Larger, multistate, and investor-owned systems are less centralized. Adjusting for these factors, there is less centralization among teaching systems (p ​< ​0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A hub-spoke framework applies to most health systems but centralization varies significantly. Future studies of health system surgical care should assess the contributions of surgical centralization and teaching status on differential quality.

Assessment of a collaborative treatment model for trimodal management of esophageal cancer

Background

Patients with esophageal cancer often receive care in a collaborative (multi-institutional) treatment model as opposed to a single institutional model. The effect of a collaborative model on the quality of trimodality therapy and survival is unknown.

Methods

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to identify patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by esophagectomy for esophageal cancer between 2012-2017. Patients who received neoadjuvant therapy and surgery at a single institution were compared to those that received collaborative treatment across multiple institutions. Outcomes included adherence to guideline recommended multiagent chemotherapy, receipt of 41.4-50.4 Gy of radiation, R0 resection, pathologic complete response (pCR), and 5-year survival. Sociodemographics, comorbidities, and tumor characteristics were assessed in bivariate and multivariable analysis.

Results

Among 8,396 patients identified, 39% received treatment at a single institution, while 61% received collaborative treatment. Median travel distance to the site of esophagectomy was two times greater for patients receiving collaborative treatment (30 vs. 15 miles; P<0.001). Patients in the collaborative cohort were less likely to receive guideline-recommended multiagent chemotherapy (85% vs. 96%; P<0.001) and 41.4-50.4 Gy of radiation (89% vs. 91%; P=0.01). R0 resection rates were similar (94.4% vs. 93.7%; P=0.17). Patients who received collaborative treatment had an increased rate of pCR (24% vs. 22%; P=0.02). Overall, 90-day and 5-year survival were 92.9% and 42.6% respectively and did not differ significantly between the two groups.

Conclusions

Collaborative trimodality treatment of esophageal cancer is a common and reasonable practice model, which may alleviate patient travel burden with only a modest impact on the quality of CRT, pCR, 90-day survival, and 5-year survival.

The RECOURSE Study: Long-term Oncologic Outcomes Associated With Robotically Assisted Minimally Invasive Procedures for Endometrial, Cervical, Colorectal, Lung, or Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess long-term outcomes with robotic versus laparoscopic/thoracoscopic and open surgery for colorectal, urologic, endometrial, cervical, and thoracic cancers.

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery provides perioperative benefits and similar oncological outcomes compared with open surgery. Recent robotic surgery data have questioned long-term benefits.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of cancer outcomes based on surgical approach was conducted based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines using Pubmed, Scopus, and Embase. Hazard ratios for recurrence, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were extracted/estimated using a hierarchical decision tree and pooled in RevMan 5.4 using inverse-variance fixed-effect (heterogeneity nonsignificant) or random effect models.

RESULTS

Of 31,204 references, 199 were included (7 randomized, 23 database, 15 prospective, 154 retrospective studies)-157,876 robotic, 68,007 laparoscopic/thoracoscopic, and 234,649 open cases. Cervical cancer: OS and DFS were similar between robotic and laparoscopic [1.01 (0.56, 1.80), P =0.98] or open [1.18 (0.99, 1.41), P =0.06] surgery; 2 papers reported less recurrence with open surgery [2.30 (1.32, 4.01), P =0.003]. Endometrial cancer: the only significant result favored robotic over open surgery [OS; 0.77 (0.71, 0.83), P <0.001]. Lobectomy: DFS favored robotic over thoracoscopic surgery [0.74 (0.59, 0.93), P =0.009]; OS favored robotic over open surgery [0.93 (0.87, 1.00), P =0.04]. Prostatectomy: recurrence was less with robotic versus laparoscopic surgery [0.77 (0.68, 0.87), P <0.0001]; OS favored robotic over open surgery [0.78 (0.72, 0.85), P <0.0001]. Low-anterior resection: OS significantly favored robotic over laparoscopic [0.76 (0.63, 0.91), P =0.004] and open surgery [0.83 (0.74, 0.93), P =0.001].

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term outcomes were similar for robotic versus laparoscopic/thoracoscopic and open surgery, with no safety signal or indication requiring further research (PROSPERO Reg#CRD42021240519).

Improving cancer care locally: Study of a hospital affiliate network model

PURPOSE

The University of Kentucky Markey Cancer Center Affiliate Network (MCCAN) increased access to high-quality cancer care for patients treated in community hospitals across the state by leveraging the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) standards to improve quality among its member sites. This study describes the network activities and services identified as most helpful or effective to its members, as well as the perceived value of joining MCCAN or pursing accreditation.

METHODS

An independent research team conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with 18 administrators and clinicians from 10 MCCAN hospitals in 2019. Interviews were transcribed and a thematic analysis was conducted.

FINDINGS

Network affiliation and CoC accreditation were perceived as helpful to improving quality of care. Having both clinician and administrative champions were key facilitators to achieving CoC standards and made mentoring of member sites a critical activity of the Network. Other components identified as valuable and/or key to the Network's success included providing access to specific CoC-required clinical services (eg, genetic counseling); offering regular performance monitoring and individualized feedback; establishing a culture of quality improvement; and fostering trust within the Network with patient referrals (ie, sending patients back to their local hospital for ongoing care).

CONCLUSIONS

Quality improvement in community cancer programs is challenging but several strategies were identified by members as valuable and effective. Efforts to disseminate the MCCAN model should focus on identifying the needs of community hospitals, implementing a quality monitoring system, and fostering site-level champions who can be influential drivers of change.

Evaluating the implementation of robotic thoracic surgery on a Veterans Administration Hospital

Robotic thoracic surgery has demonstrated benefits. We aimed to evaluate implementation of a robotic thoracic surgery program on postoperative outcomes at our Veteran’s Administration Medical Center (VAMC). We retrospectively reviewed our VAMC database from 2015 to 2021. Patients who underwent surgery with intention to treat lung nodules were included. Primary outcome was patient length of stay (LOS). Patients were grouped by surgical approach and stratified to before and after adoption of robotic surgery. Univariate comparison of postoperative outcomes was performed using Wilcoxon rank sums and chi-squared tests. Multivariate regression was performed to control for ASA class. P values < 0.05 were considered significant. Outcomes of 108 patients were assessed. 63 operations (58%) occurred before and 45 (42%) after robotic surgery implementation. There were no differences in patient preoperative characteristics. More patients underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in the post-implementation era than pre-implementation (85% vs. 42%, p < 0.001). Robotic operations comprised 53% of operations post-implementation. On univariate analysis, patients in the post-implementation era had a shorter LOS vs. pre-implementation, regardless of surgical approach (mean 4.7 vs. 6.0 days, p = 0.04). On multivariate analysis, patients who underwent MIS had a shorter LOS [median 4 days (IQR 2–6 days) vs. 7 days (6–9 days), p < 0.001] and were more likely to be discharged home than to inpatient facilities [OR (95% CI) 13.00 (1.61–104.70), p = 0.02]. Robotic thoracic surgery program implementation at a VAMC decreased patient LOS and increased the likelihood of discharging home. Implementation at other VAMCs may be associated with improvement in some patient outcomes.

Association of Maryland Global Budget Revenue With Spending and Outcomes Related to Surgical Care for Medicare Beneficiaries With Cancer

Importance

In 2014, Maryland initiated the global budget revenue (GBR) model, placing caps on total hospital expenditures across all care sites. The GBR program aims to reduce unnecessary utilization while maintaining or improving care quality. To date, there has been limited examination of program effects on cancer care.

Objective

To compare changes in spending, clinical outcomes, and acute care utilization through 4 years of the GBR program among Medicare beneficiaries who undergo cancer-directed surgery in Maryland vs matched control states.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Drawing from a matched pool of hospitals in Maryland (n = 35) and 24 control states with a similar timing of Medicaid expansion (n = 101), we identified Medicare beneficiaries from Maryland and control states who underwent any cancer-directed surgery from 2011 through 2018. Using difference-in-differences analysis, we compared changes in outcomes from before (2011-2013) to after (2015-2018) GBR implementation between patients treated in Maryland and control states. We also performed a subgroup analysis among patients who underwent major surgical procedures that are usually performed in the inpatient setting (cystectomy, esophagectomy, gastrectomy, colorectal resection, nephrectomy, pancreatectomy, and lung resection).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Thirty-day episode spending, mortality, readmissions, and emergency department (ED) visits.

Results

Relative to Medicare beneficiaries undergoing cancer surgery in control states (n = 4737; 3323 [70.1%] female; 571 [12.1%] dual-eligible; mean [SD] age 74.9 [6.5] years), patients in Maryland (n = 20 320; 14 068 [69.2%] female; 1705 [8.4%] dual-eligible; mean [SD] age 74.9 [6.5] years) had a statistically significant reduction of 2.2 percentage points (95% CI, -4.3 to -0.1) in the 30-day readmission rate. We found no statistically significant changes in 30-day spending, mortality, or ED visits. We report no significant results in the subgroup analysis of patients undergoing major surgical procedures.

Conclusions and Relevance

Global budget revenue was not associated with changes in expenditures, ED utilization, or clinical outcomes after cancer-directed surgery through 4 years. There was a modest decline in 30-day readmissions. Specialty-specific definitions of care quality and better alignment across the entire care delivery value chain (ie, physician incentives) may be strategies that could improve delivery of high-value care for beneficiaries undergoing cancer surgery.

Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: the Right Surgical Approach

OPINION STATEMENT

Radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node assessment is the standard initial therapy for early-stage cervical cancer. Radical hysterectomy via laparotomy (an "open" approach) was first described more than 100 years ago and has been the standard for decades. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been increasingly adopted by many surgeons due to its reported perioperative benefits. MIS was deemed safe for radical hysterectomy for many years based on multiple retrospective publications. Recently, the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial reported that patients randomized to MIS had inferior oncologic outcomes. The results of the LACC trial and subsequent retrospective studies led multiple professional societies to state that open radical hysterectomy should remain the gold standard surgical approach. We acknowledge that the open approach for radical hysterectomy is an appropriate option for all cervical cancer patients eligible for surgical treatment. However, considering the limitations of the LACC trial and the available data from other retrospective studies, we feel the MIS approach should not be simply abandoned. There may still be a role for MIS in cervical cancer surgery for properly and carefully selected cases and with detailed counseling; surgeons should analyze their own outcomes closely in order to perform such counseling. Modification of surgical technique and maintaining proper oncologic surgical principles are key for MIS to remain a viable option. Tumor manipulation and contamination should be avoided. Transcervical uterine manipulators should not be used. Cervical and tumor containment prior to colpotomy, as is performed during an open approach, is required. This will all require validation in future trials. We await the results of ongoing randomized trials to further inform us. A one-size-fits-all approach may be short-sighted; we may need to decide treatment strategy based on the notion of the right surgical approach for the right patient by the right surgeon.

The impact of hospital volume on racial disparities in resected rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Although high volume centers (HVC) equate to improved outcomes in rectal cancer, the impact of surgical volume related to race is less defined.

METHODS

Patients who underwent surgical resection for stage I-III rectal adenocarcinoma were divided into cohorts based on race and hospital surgical volume. Outcomes were analyzed following 1:1 propensity-score matching using logistic, Poisson, and Cox regression analyses with marginal effects.

RESULTS

Fifty-four thousand one hundred and eighty-four (91.5%) non-Black and 5043 (8.5%) Black patients underwent resection of rectal cancer. Following 1:1 matching of non-Black (N = 5026) and Black patients, 5-year overall survival (OS) of Black patients was worse (72% vs. 74.4%, average marginal effects [AME] 0.66, p = 0.04) than non-Black patients. When compared to non-Black patients managed at HVCs, Black patients had worse OS (70.1% vs. 74.7%, AME 1.55, p = 0.03), but this difference was not significant when comparing OS between non-Black and Black patients managed at HVCs (72.3% vs. 74.7%, AME 0.62, p = 0.06). Length of stay was longer among Black and HVC patients across all cohorts. There was no difference across cohorts in 90-day mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Although racial disparities exist in rectal cancer, this disparity appears to be ameliorated when patients are managed at HVCs.

[Surgical treatment of esophageal cancer-Indicators for quality in diagnostics and treatment]

BACKGROUND

Within the framework of the quality initiative of the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery (DGAV) a review article was compiled based on a systematic literature search. Recommendations for the current diagnostics and treatment of esophageal cancer were also elaborated.

METHODS

The systematic literature search was carried out in March 2019 according to the PRISMA criteria using the MEDLINE databank. The recommendations were formulated based on a consensus in the DGAV.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Operations below the currently valid minimum quantity threshold should no longer be carried out. There are many indications that the minimum quantity in Germany should be raised to ≥20 resections/year/hospital in order to comprehensively improve the quality. Prehabilitation programs with endurance, strength and intensive breathing training as well as nutritional therapy improve patient outcome. The current treatment of esophageal cancer is stage-dependent and incorporates endoscopic resection of (sub)mucosal low-risk tumors (T1m1-3 or T1sm1 low risk), primary esophagectomy of submucosal high-risk tumors (T1a), submucosal cancer (T1sm2-3) and T2N0 tumors, multimodal treatment with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or perioperative chemotherapy and operations for advanced stages. Esophagectomy is nowadays carried out in one stage as a so-called hybrid procedure (laparoscopy and muscle-preserving thoracotomy) or as a total minimally invasive operation (laparoscopy and thoracoscopy).

Patient and Caregiver Considerations and Priorities When Selecting Hospitals for Complex Cancer Care

BACKGROUND

Healthcare policies have focused on centralizing care to high-volume centers in an effort to optimize patient outcomes; however, little is known about patients' and caregivers' considerations and selection process when selecting hospitals for care. We aim to explore how patients and caregivers select hospitals for complex cancer care and to develop a taxonomy for their selection considerations.

METHODS

This was a qualitative study in which data were gathered from in-depth interviews conducted from March to November 2019 among patients with hepatopancreatobiliary cancers who were scheduled to undergo a pancreatectomy (n = 20) at a metropolitan, urban regional, or suburban medical center and their caregivers (n = 10).

RESULTS

The interviews revealed six broad domains that characterized hospital selection considerations: hospital factors, team characteristics, travel distance to hospital, referral or recommendation, continuity of care, and insurance considerations. The identified domains were similar between participants seen at the metropolitan center and urban/suburban medical centers, with the following exceptions: participants receiving care specifically at the metropolitan center noted operative volume and access to specific services such as clinical trials in their hospital selection; participants receiving care at urban/suburban centers noted health insurance considerations and having access to existing medical records in their hospital selection.

CONCLUSIONS

This study delineates the many considerations of patients and caregivers when selecting hospitals for complex cancer care. These identified domains should be incorporated into the development and implementation of centralization policies to help increase patient access to high-quality cancer care that is consistent with their priorities and needs.

Determinants of physician networks: an ethnographic study examining the processes that inform patterns of collaboration and referral decision-making among physicians

OBJECTIVE

Most scholarly attention to studying collaborative ties in physician networks has been devoted to quantitatively analysing large, complex datasets. While valuable, such studies can reduce the dynamic and contextual complexities of physician collaborations to numerical values. Qualitative research strategies can contribute to our understanding by addressing the gaps left by more quantitative approaches. This study seeks to contribute to the literature that applies network science approaches to the context of healthcare delivery. We use qualitative, observational and interview, methods to pursue an in-depth, micro-level approach to the deeply social and discursive processes that influence patterns of collaboration and referral decision-making in physician networks.

DESIGN

Qualitative methodologies that paired ethnographic field observations, semistructured interviews and document analysis were used. An inductive thematic analysis approach was used to analyse, identify and describe patterns in those data.

SETTING

This study took place in a high-volume cardiovascular department at a major academic medical centre (AMC) located in the Midwest region of the USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Purposive and snowballing sampling were used to recruit study participants for both the observational and face-to-face in-depth interview portions of the study. In total, 25 clinicians and 43 patients participated in this study.

RESULTS

Two primary thematic categories were identified: (1) circumstances for external engagement; and (2) clinical conditions for engagement. Thematic subcategories included community engagement, scientific engagement, reputational value, experiential information, professional identity, self-awareness of competence, multidisciplinary programmes and situational factors.

CONCLUSION

This study adds new contextual knowledge about the mechanisms that characterise referral decision-making processes and how these impact the meaning of physician relationships, organisation of healthcare delivery and the knowledge and beliefs that physicians have about their colleagues. This study highlights the nuances that influence how new collaborative networks are formed and maintained by detailing how relationships among physicians develop and evolve over time.

Survival After Cancer Treatment at Top-Ranked US Cancer Hospitals vs Affiliates of Top-Ranked Cancer Hospitals

IMPORTANCE

Hospital networks formed around top-ranked cancer hospitals represent an opportunity to optimize complex cancer care in the community.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the short- and long-term survival after complex cancer treatment at top-ranked cancer hospitals and the affiliates of top-ranked hospitals.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study was conducted using data from the unabridged version of the National Cancer Database. Included patients were individuals 18 years or older who underwent surgical treatment for esophageal, gastric, lung, pancreatic, colorectal, or bladder cancer diagnosed between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2016. Patient outcomes after complex surgical procedures for cancer at top-ranked cancer hospitals (as ranked in top 50 by US News and World Report) were compared with outcomes at affiliates of top-ranked cancer hospitals (affiliation listed in American Hospitals Association survey and confirmed by search of internet presence). Data were analyzed from July through December 2019.

EXPOSURES

Undergoing complex cancer treatment at a top-ranked cancer hospital or an affiliated hospital.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The association of affiliate status with short-term survival (ie, 90-day mortality) was compared using logistic regression, and the association of affiliate status with long-term survival was compared using time-to-event models, adjusting for patient demographic, payer, clinical, and treatment factors.

RESULTS

Among 119 834 patients who underwent surgical treatment for cancer, 79 981 patients (66.7%) were treated at top-ranked cancer hospitals (median [interquartile range] age, 66 [58-74] years; 40 910 [54.9%] men) and 39 853 patients (33.3%) were treated at affiliate hospitals (median [interquartile range] age, 69 [60-77] years; 19 004 [50.0%] men). In a pooled analysis of all cancer types, adjusted perioperative mortality within 90 days of surgical treatment was higher at affiliate hospitals compared with top-ranked hospitals (odds ratio, 1.67 [95% CI, 1.49-1.89]; P < .001). Adjusted long-term survival following cancer treatment at affiliate hospitals was only 77% that of top-ranked hospitals (time ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.72-0.83]; P < .001). The survival advantage was not fully explained by differences in annual surgical volume, with both long- and short-term survival remaining superior at top-ranked hospitals even after models were adjusted for volume.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that short- and long-term survival after complex cancer treatment were superior at top-ranked hospitals compared with affiliates of top-ranked hospitals. Further study of cancer care within top-ranked cancer networks could reveal collaborative opportunities to improve survival across a broad contingent of the US population.

Closing the gap: Contribution of surgical best practices to outcome differences between high- and low-volume centers for lung cancer resection

Background

Clinical outcomes for resected early‐stage non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are superior at high‐volume facilities, but reasons for these differences remain unclear. Understanding these differences and optimizing outcomes across institutions are critical to the management of the increasing incidence of these cases. We evaluated the extent to which surgical best practices account for resected early‐stage NSCLC outcome differences between facilities according to case volume.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study for clinical stage 1 or 2 NSCLC undergoing surgical resection from 2004 to 2013 using the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Surgical best practices (negative surgical margins, lobar or greater resection, lymph node (LN) dissection, and examination of > 10 LNs) were compared between the highest and lowest quartile volumes.

Results

A total of 150,179 patients were included in the cohort (89% white, 53% female, median age 68 years). In a multivariate model, superior overall survival (OS) was observed at highest volume centers compared to lowest volume centers (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.82‐0.96; P = .002). After matching for surgical best practices, there was no significant OS difference (HR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.87‐1.05; P = .32). Propensity score‐adjusted HR estimates indicated that surgical best practices accounted for 54% of the numerical OS difference between low‐volume and high‐volume centers. Each surgical best practice was independently associated with improved OS (all P ≤ .001).

Conclusion

Quantifiable and potentially modifiable surgical best practices largely account for resected early‐stage NSCLC outcome differences observed between low‐ and high‐volume centers. Adherence to these guidelines may reduce and potentially eliminate these differences.

Minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy for radical hysterectomy in the management of early-stage cervical cancer: Survival outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To compare oncologic and perioperative outcomes in patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS) compared to laparotomy for newly diagnosed early-stage cervical carcinoma.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified patients who underwent radical hysterectomy for stage IA1 with lymphovascular invasion (LVI), IA2, or IB1 cervical carcinoma at our institution from 1/2007-12/2017. Clinicopathologic characteristics and surgical and oncologic survival outcomes were compared using appropriate statistical testing. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to control for potential confounders.

RESULTS

We identified 196 evaluable cases-117 MIS (106 robotic [90.6%]) and 79 laparotomy cases. Cohorts had similar age, BMI, substage, histologic subtype, clinical and pathologic tumor size, positive margins, and presence of LVI. The MIS group had more cases with no residual tumor in the hysterectomy (24.8% vs. 10.1%, P = 0.01). The laparotomy group had more cases with positive nodes (29.1% vs. 17.1%, P = 0.046) and more patients who received adjuvant therapy (53.2% vs. 33.3%, P = 0.006). Median follow-up was ~4 years. Five-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 87.0% in the MIS group and 86.6% in the laparotomy group (P = 0.92); 5-year disease-specific survival (DSS) rates were 96.5% and 93.9%, respectively (P = 0.93); and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 96.5% and 87.4%, respectively (P = 0.15). MIS was not associated with DFS, DSS, or OS on multivariable regression analysis. The rate of postoperative complications was significantly lower in the MIS cohort (11.1% vs. 20.3%; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

MIS radical hysterectomy for cervical carcinoma did not confer worse oncologic outcomes in our single-center and concurrent series of patients with early-stage cervical carcinoma.

Association Between Hospital Market Concentration and Costs of Laryngectomy

IMPORTANCE

High-volume hospital care for laryngectomy has been shown to be associated with reduced morbidity, mortality, and costs; however, most hospitals in the United States do not perform high volumes of laryngectomies. The influence of market competition on charges and costs for such patients has not been defined.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between regional hospital market concentration, hospital charges, and costs for laryngectomy.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was used to identify 34 193 patients who underwent laryngectomy for a malignant laryngeal or hypopharyngeal neoplasm from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2011. Hospital laryngectomy volume was modeled as a categorical variable. Hospital market concentration was evaluated using a variable-radius Herfindahl-Hirschman Index from the 2003, 2006, and 2009 Hospital Market Structure Files. Statistical analysis was performed from May 19 to August 15, 2018.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Multivariable generalized linear regression was used to evaluate associations between market concentration and total charges and costs for laryngectomy.

RESULTS

Among the 34 193 patients (19.3% female and 80.7% male; mean age, 62.7 years [range, 20.0-96.0 years]), 69.2% of procedures were performed at hospitals in highly concentrated (noncompetitive) markets and 26.2% were performed at hospitals in unconcentrated (highly competitive) markets. Most high-volume hospitals (68.0%) were located in highly concentrated markets, followed by unconcentrated markets (32.0%). Market share and volume were not associated with significant differences in total charges. Unconcentrated markets were associated with 28% higher costs (95% CI, 8%-53%) relative to moderately concentrated and highly concentrated markets. High-volume hospitals were associated with 22% lower costs (95% CI, -36% to -5%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Competition among hospitals is associated with increased costs of care for laryngectomy. High-volume hospital care is associated with lower costs of care. These data suggest that hospital market consolidation of laryngectomy at centers able to meet minimum volume thresholds may improve health care value.

Health Care Crisis by the Numbers

We summarize recent data on health and health care in the United States. Many millions suffer financial distress due to medical bills and forego needed care because of costs. Pay-for-performance programs have failed to achieve the results promised and in some cases have backfired. Health care firms expend huge amounts on marketing that provides no benefit to patients. Millions of health care workers, particularly women of color, are so poorly paid that they live in poverty, and gender-based pay inequities remain common in the health sector. Polls continue to show strong popular support for a single-payer reform, but politicians continue to resist it.

Regionalization of esophagectomy: where are we now?

The morbidity and mortality benefits of performing high-risk operations in high-volume centers by high-volume surgeons are evident. Regionalization is a proposed strategy to leverage high-volume centers for esophagectomy to improve quality outcomes. Internationally, regionalization occurs under national mandates. Those mandates do not exist in the United States and spontaneous regionalization of esophagectomy has only modestly occurred in the U.S. Regionalization must strike a careful balance and not limit access to optimal oncologic care to our most vulnerable cancer patient populations in rural and disadvantaged socioeconomic areas. We reviewed the recent literature highlighting: the justification of hospital and surgeon annual esophagectomy volumes for regionalization; how safety performance metrics could influence regionalization; whether regionalization is occurring in the US; what impact regionalization may have on esophagectomy costs; and barriers to patients traveling to receive oncologic treatment at regionalized centers of excellence.