Do cancer centers designated by the National Cancer Institute have better surgical outcomes?

If health organisations and staff engage in research, does healthcare improve? Strengthening the evidence base through systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

There is an often-held assumption that the engagement of clinicians and healthcare organizations in research improves healthcare performance at various levels. Previous reviews found up to 28 studies suggesting a positive association between the engagement of individuals and healthcare organizations in research and improvements in healthcare performance. The current study sought to provide an update.

METHODS

We updated our existing published systematic review by again addressing the question: Does research engagement (by clinicians and organizations) improve healthcare performance? The search covered the period 1 January 2012 to March 2024, in two phases. First, the formal updated search ran from 1 January 2012 to 31 May 2020, in any healthcare setting or country and focussed on English language publications. In this phase two searches identified 66 901 records. Later, a further check of key journals and citations to identified papers ran from May 2020 to March 2024. In total, 168 papers progressed to full-text appraisal; 62 were identified for inclusion in the update. Then we combined papers from our original and updated reviews.

RESULTS

In the combined review, the literature is dominated by papers from the United States (50/95) and mostly drawn from the Global North. Papers cover various clinical fields, with more on cancer than any other field; 86 of the 95 papers report positive results, of which 70 are purely positive and 16 positive/mixed, meaning there are some negative elements (i.e. aspects where there is a lack of healthcare improvement) in their findings.

CONCLUSIONS

The updated review collates a substantial pool of studies, especially when combined with our original review, which are largely positive in terms of the impact of research engagement on processes of care and patient outcomes. Of the potential engagement mechanisms, the review highlights the important role played by research networks. The review also identifies various papers which consider how far there is a "dose effect" from differing amounts of research engagement. Additional lessons come from analyses of equity issues and negative papers. This review provides further evidence of contributions played by systems level research investments such as research networks on processes of care and patient outcomes.

Clinician-to-clinician connectedness and access to gastric cancer surgery at National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers

BACKGROUND

For patients with gastric cancer, the pathway from primary care (PC) clinician to gastroenterologist to cancer specialist (medical oncologist or surgeons) is referral dependent. The impact of clinician connectedness on disparities in quality gastric cancer care, such as at National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers (NCI-CC), remains underexplored. This study evaluated how clinician connectedness influences access to gastrectomy at NCI-CC.

METHODS

Maryland's All-Payer Claims Database was used to evaluate 667 patients who underwent gastrectomy for cancer from 2013 to 2018. Two separate referral linkages, defined as ≥9 shared patients, were examined: (1) PC clinicians to gastroenterologists at NCI-CC and (2) gastroenterologists to cancer specialists at NCI-CC. Multiple logistic regression models determined associations between referral linkages and odds of undergoing gastrectomy at NCI-CC.

RESULTS

Only 15% of gastrectomies were performed at NCI-CC. Patients of gastroenterologists with referral links to cancer specialists at NCI-CC were more likely to be <65 years, male, White, and privately insured. Every additional referral link between PC clinician and gastroenterologist at NCI-CC and between gastroenterologist and cancer specialist at NCI-CC increased the odds of gastrectomy at NCI-CC by 71% and 26%, respectively. Black patients had half the odds as White patients in receiving gastrectomy at NCI-CC; however, adjusting for covariates including clinician-to-clinician connectedness attenuated this observation.

CONCLUSION

Patients of clinicians with low connectedness and Black patients are less likely to receive gastrectomy at NCI-CC. Enhancing clinician connectedness is necessary to address disparities in cancer care. These results are relevant to policy makers, clinicians, and patient advocates striving for health equity.

Impact of the Affordable Care Act on access to accredited facilities for cancer treatment

OBJECTIVE

To examine differential changes in receipt of surgery at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated comprehensive cancer centers (NCI-CCC) and Commission on Cancer (CoC) accredited hospitals for patients with cancer more likely to be newly eligible for coverage under Affordable Care Act (ACA) insurance expansions, relative to those less likely to have been impacted by the ACA.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING

Pennsylvania Cancer Registry (PCR) for 2010-2019 linked with discharge records from the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council (PHC4).

STUDY DESIGN

Outcomes include whether cancer surgery was performed at an NCI-CCC or a CoC-accredited hospital. We conducted a difference-in-differences analysis, estimating linear probability models for each outcome that control for residence in a county with above median county-level pre-ACA uninsurance and the interaction between county-level baseline uninsurance and cancer treatment post-ACA to capture differential changes in access between those more and less likely to become newly eligible for insurance coverage (based on area-level proxy). All models control for age, sex, race and ethnicity, cancer site and stage, census-tract level urban/rural residence, Area Deprivation Index, and year- and county-fixed effects.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

We identified adults aged 26-64 in PCR with prostate, lung, or colorectal cancer who received cancer-directed surgery and had a corresponding surgery discharge record in PHC4.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We observe a differential increase in receiving care at an NCI-CCC of 6.2 percentage points (95% CI: 2.6-9.8; baseline mean = 9.8%) among patients in high baseline uninsurance areas (p = 0.001). Our estimate of the differential change in care at the larger set of CoC hospitals is positive (3.9 percentage points [95% CI: -0.5-8.2; baseline mean = 73.7%]) but not statistically significant (p = 0.079).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that insurance expansions under the ACA were associated with increased access to NCI-CCCs.

Variation in Hospital Mortality After Complex Cancer Surgery: Patient, Volume, Hospital or Social Determinants?

INTRODUCTION

We sought to define the individual contributions of patient characteristics (PCs), hospital characteristics (HCs), case volume (CV), and social determinants of health (SDoH) on in-hospital mortality (IHM) after complex cancer surgery.

METHODS

The California Department of Health Care Access and Information database identified patients who underwent esophagectomy (ES), pneumonectomy (PN), pancreatectomy (PD), or proctectomy (PR) for a malignant diagnosis between 2010 and 2020. Multi-level multivariable regression was performed to assess the proportion of variance explained by PCs, HCs, CV and SDoH on IHM.

RESULTS

A total of 52,838 patients underwent cancer surgery (ES: n = 2,700, 5.1%; PN: n = 30,822, 58.3%; PD: n = 7530, 14.3%; PR: n = 11,786, 22.3%) across 294 hospitals. The IHM for the overall cohort was 1.7% and varied from 4.4% for ES to 0.8% for PR. On multivariable regression, PCs contributed the most to the variance in IHM (overall: 32.0%; ES: 21.6%; PN: 28.0%; PD: 20.3%; PR: 39.9%). Among the overall cohort, CV contributed 2.4%, HCs contributed 1.3%, and SDoH contributed 1.2% to the variation in IHM. CV was the second highest contributor to IHM among ES (5.3%), PN (5.3%), and PD (5.9%); however, HCs were a more important contributor among patients who underwent PR (8.0%). The unexplained variance in IHM was highest among ES (72.4%), followed by the PD (67.5%) and PN (64.6%) patient groups.

CONCLUSIONS

PCs are the greatest underlying contributor to variations in IHM following cancer surgery. These data highlight the need to focus on optimizing patients and exploring unexplained sources of IHM to improve quality of surgical care.

Treatment in certified cancer centers is related to better survival in patients with colon and rectal cancer: evidence from a large German cohort study

BACKGROUND

Certified cancer centers aim to ensure high-quality care by establishing structural and procedural standards according to evidence-based guidelines. Despite the high clinical and health policy relevance, evidence from a nation-wide study for the effectiveness of care for colorectal cancer in certified centers vs. other hospitals in Germany is still missing.

METHODS

In a retrospective cohort study covering the years 2009-2017, we analyzed patient data using demographic information, diagnoses, and treatments from a nationwide statutory health insurance enriched with information on certification. We investigated whether patients with incident colon or rectal cancer did benefit from primary therapy in a certified cancer center. We used relative survival analysis taking into account mortality data of the German population and adjustment for patient and hospital characteristics via Cox regression with shared frailty for patients in hospitals with and without certification.

RESULTS

The cohorts for colon and rectal cancer consisted of 109,518 and 51,417 patients, respectively, treated in a total of 1052 hospitals. 37.2% of patients with colon and 42.9% of patients with rectal cancer were treated in a certified center. Patient age, sex, comorbidities, secondary malignoma, and distant metastases were similar across groups (certified/non-certified) for both colon and rectal cancer. Relative survival analysis showed significantly better survival of patients treated in a certified center, with 68.3% (non-certified hospitals 65.8%) 5-year survival for treatment of colon cancer in certified (p < 0.001) and 65.0% (58.8%) 5-year survival in case of rectal cancer (p < 0.001), respectively. Cox regression with adjustment for relevant covariates yielded a lower hazard of death for patients treated in certified centers for both colon (HR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.89-0.95) and rectal cancer (HR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.88-0.95). The results remained robust in a series of sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

This large cohort study yields new important evidence that patients with colorectal cancer have a better chance of survival if treated in a certified cancer center. Certification thus provides one powerful means to improve the quality of care for colorectal cancer. To decrease the burden of disease, more patients should thus receive cancer care in a certified center.

Variations in Travel Patterns Affect Regionalization of Complex Cancer Surgery in California

INTRODUCTION

Regionalization of complex surgical procedures may improve healthcare quality. We sought to define the impact of regionalization on access to high-volume hospitals for complex oncologic procedures in the state of California.

METHODS

The California Department of Health Care Access and Information Database (2012-2016) identified patients who underwent esophagectomy (ES), pneumonectomy (PN), pancreatectomy (PA), or proctectomy (PR). Geospatial analysis was conducted to determine travel patterns. Clustered multivariable regression was performed to assess the probability of receiving care at a high-volume center.

RESULTS

Among 25,070 patients (ES: n = 1216, 4.9%; PN: n = 13,247, 52.8%; PD: n = 3559, 14.2%; PR: n = 7048, 28.1%), 6575 (26.2%) individuals resided within 30 min, 11,046 (44.1%) resided within 30-60 min, 7125 (28.4%) resided within 60-90 min, and 324 (1.3%) resided beyond a 90-min travel window from a high-volume center. Median travel distance was 13.4 miles (interquartile range [IQR] 6.0-28.7). On multivariable regression, patients residing further away were more likely to bypass a low-volume center to undergo care at a high-volume hospital (odds ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.12-1.55) versus individuals residing closer to high-volume centers. Approximately one-third (29.7%) of patients lived beyond a 1-h travel window to the nearest high-volume hospital, of whom 5% traveled over 90 min. While hospital mortality rates across different travel time windows did not differ, surgery at a high-volume center was associated with an overall 1.2% decrease in in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Regionalization of complex cancer surgery may be associated with a significant travel burden for a large subset of patients with complex cancer.

Impact of Community Privilege on Access to Care Among Patients Following Complex Cancer Surgery

OBJECTIVE

We sought to define the impact of community privilege on variations in travel patterns and access to care at high-volume hospitals for complex surgical procedures.

BACKGROUND

With increased emphasis on centralization of high-risk surgery, social determinants of health play a critical role in preventing equitable access to care. Privilege is a right, benefit, advantage, or opportunity that positively impacts all social determinants of health.

METHODS

The California Office of State-wide Health Planning Database identified patients who underwent esophagectomy (ES), pneumonectomy (PN), pancreatectomy (PA), or proctectomy (PR) for a malignant diagnosis between 2012 and 2016 and was merged using ZIP codes with the Index of Concentration of Extremes, a validated metric of both spatial polarization and privilege obtained from the American Community Survey. Clustered multivariable regression was performed to assess the probability of undergoing care at a high-volume center, bypassing the nearest and high-volume center, and total real driving time and travel distance.

RESULTS

Among 25,070 patients who underwent a complex oncologic operation (ES: n=1216, 4.9%; PN: n=13,247, 52.8%; PD: n=3559, 14.2%; PR: n=7048, 28.1%), 5019 (20.0%) individuals resided in areas with the highest privilege (i.e., White, high-income homogeneity), whereas 4994 (19.9%) individuals resided in areas of the lowest privilege (i.e., Black, low-income homogeneity). Median travel distance was 33.1 miles (interquartile range 14.4-72.2). Roughly, three-quarters of patients (overall: 74.8%, ES: 35.0%; PN: 74.3%; PD: 75.2%; PR: 82.2%) sought surgical care at a high-volume center. On multivariable regression, patients residing in the least advantaged communities were less likely to undergo surgery at a high-volume hospital (overall: odds ratio 0.65, 95% CI 0.52-0.81). Of note, individuals in the least privileged areas had longer travel distances (28.5 miles, 95% CI 21.2-35.8) to reach the destination facility, as well as over 70% greater odds of bypassing a high-volume hospital to undergo surgical care at a low-volume center (odds ratio 1.74, 95% CI 1.29-2.34) versus individuals living in the highest privileged areas.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Privilege had a marked effect on access to complex oncologic surgical care at high-volume centers. These data highlight the need to focus on privilege as a key social determinant of health that influences patient access to and utilization of health care resources.

Evaluation of Nationwide Trends in Nodal Sampling Guideline Adherence for Gastric Cancer: 2005-2017

INTRODUCTION

Surgical resection is the primary curative treatment for localized gastric cancer. A multitude of research supports surgical nodal sampling guidelines. Though there are known disparities in adherence to nodal sampling, it is unclear how hospital program-level disparities have changed over time. The purpose of this study is to evaluate trends in program-level disparities in adherence to gastric cancer nodal sampling guidelines.

METHODS

Patients who underwent resection of gastric cancer from 2005 to 2017 were identified in the National Cancer Database. Patients treated at academic programs were compared to those treated at nonacademic programs, and rates and trends of adherence to nodal sampling guidelines (defined as ≥15 lymph nodes) were determined. Adjusted multivariable analysis was used to determine likelihood of nodal sampling adherence while controlling for sociodemographic, clinical, hospital, and travel distance characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 55,421 patients were included with 27,201 (49.1%) of patients meeting adherence criteria for lymph node sampling. Academic programs treated 44.4% of the total cohort. Overall, lymph node sampling criteria were met in 59.2% of patients treated at high-volume academic programs and 37.0% of patients treated at low-volume nonacademic programs (incidence rate ratios 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.63-0.72 versus high-volume academic programs). Adherence rates improved from 2005 to 2017 for both low-volume nonacademic programs (27.8% in 2005 to 50.1% in 2017) and high-volume academic programs (46.0% in 2005 to 69.8% in 2017, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Though adherence rates have improved from 2005 to 2017, high-volume academic programs were more likely to adhere to lymph node sampling guidelines for gastric cancer.

Treatment of Colorectal Cancer in Certified Centers: Results of a Large German Registry Study Focusing on Long-Term Survival

(1) Background: The WiZen study is the largest study so far to analyze the effect of the certification of designated cancer centers on survival in Germany. This certification program is provided by the German Cancer Society (GCS) and represents one of the largest oncologic certification programs worldwide. Currently, about 50% of colorectal cancer patients in Germany are treated in certified centers. (2) Methods: All analyses are based on population-based clinical cancer registry data of 47.440 colorectal cancer (ICD-10-GM C18/C20) patients treated between 2009 and 2017. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival (OAS) after treatment at certified cancer centers compared to treatment at other hospitals; the secondary endpoint was recurrence-free survival. Statistical methods included Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariable Cox regression. (3) Results: Treatment at certified hospitals was associated with significant advantages concerning 5-year overall survival (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.89, 0.96, adjusted for a broad range of confounders) for colon cancer patients. Concentrating on UICC stage I-III patients, for whom curative treatment is possible, the survival benefit was even larger (colon cancer: HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84, 0.94; rectum cancer: HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84, 0.97). (4) Conclusions: These results encourage future efforts for further implementation of the certification program. Patients with colorectal cancer should preferably be directed to certified centers.

Assessment of the Potential of Concentrating Cancer Care in Hospitals With Certification Through Survival Analysis

BACKGROUND

Certification programs seek to improve the quality of complex interdisciplinary models of care such as cancer treatment through structuring the process of care in accordance with evidence-based guidelines. In Germany, the German Cancer Society (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, DKG) provides a certification programme for cancer care that covers more than one thousand centers. In a recent retrospective cohort study, it has been shown on a large, nationwide data set based on data from a statutory health insurance and selected clinical cancer registries, that there is a benefit in survival for cancer patients who have received initial treatment in hospitals certified by the DKG. Here, we deduce two absolute measures from the relative benefit in survival with the aim to quantify this benefit if all patients had been treated in a certified center.

METHODS

The WiZen study analysed survival of adult patients insured by the AOK with a cancer diagnosis between 2009 and 2017 in certified hospitals vs. non-certified hospitals. Besides Kaplan-Meier-estimators, Cox regression with shared frailty was used for 11 types of cancer in total, adjusting for patient-specific information such as demographic characteristics and comorbidities as well as hospital characteristics and temporal trend. Based on this regression, we predict adjusted survival curves that directly address the certification effect. From the adjusted survivals, we calculated years of life lost (YLL) and number needed to treat (NNT), along with a difference in deaths 5 years after diagnosis.

RESULTS

Based on our estimate for the 537,396 patients that were treated in a non-certified hospital included in the WiZen study, corresponding to 68,7% of the study population, we find a potential of 33,243 YLL per year in Germany based on the size of the German population as of 2017. The potential to avoid death cases 5 years from diagnosis totals 4,729 per year in Germany.

CONCLUSION

While Cox regression is an important tool to evaluate the benefit that arises from variables with a potential impact on survival such as certification, its direct results are not well suited to quantify this benefit for decision makers in health care. The estimated years of life lost and the number of deaths that could have been avoided 5 years from diagnosis avoid mis-interpretation of the hazard ratios commonly used in survival analysis and should help to inform key stakeholders in health care without specialist background knowledge in statistics. Our measures, directly adressing the effect of certification, can furthermore be used as a starting point for health-economic calculations. Steering the care of cancer patients primarily to certified hospitals would have a high potential to improve outcomes.

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.

Survival Outcomes of Ewing Sarcoma and Rhabdomyosarcoma by High- versus Low-Volume Cancer Centres in British Columbia, Canada

Due to the rarity and complexity of treatment for Ewing sarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma, studies demonstrate improved patient outcomes when managed by a multidisciplinary team at high-volume centres (HVCs). Our study explores the difference in outcomes of Ewing sarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma patients based on the centre of initial consultation in British Columbia, Canada. This retrospective study assessed adults diagnosed with Ewing sarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2020 undergoing curative intent therapy in one of five cancer centres across the province. Seventy-seven patients were included, 46 seen at HVCs and 31 at low-volume centres (LVCs). Patients at HVCs were younger (32.1 vs. 40.8 years, p = 0.020) and more likely to receive curative intent radiation (88% vs. 67%, p = 0.047). The time from diagnosis to first chemotherapy was 24 days shorter at HVCs (26 vs. 50 days, p = 0.120). There was no significant difference in overall survival by treatment centre (HR 0.850, 95% CI 0.448-1.614). Variations in care exist amongst patients treated at HVCs vs. LVCs, which may reflect differences in access to resources, clinical specialists, and varying practice patterns across centres. This study can be used to inform decisions regarding triaging and centralization of Ewing sarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma patient treatment.

Demographic disparities in receipt of care at a comprehensive cancer center

BACKGROUND

National Cancer Institute cancer centers (NCICCs) provide specialized cancer care including precision oncology and clinical treatment trials. While these centers can offer novel therapeutic options, less is known about when patients access these centers or at what timepoint in their disease course they receive specialized care. This is especially important since precision diagnostics and receipt of the optimal therapy upfront can impact patient outcomes and previous research suggests that access to these centers may vary by demographic characteristics. Here, we examine the timing of patients' presentation at Moffitt Cancer Center (MCC) relative to their initial diagnosis across several demographic characteristics.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted among patients who presented to MCC with breast, colon, lung, melanoma, and prostate cancers between December 2008 and April 2020. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics were obtained from the Moffitt Cancer Registry. The association between patient characteristics and the timing of patient presentation to MCC relative to the patient's cancer diagnosis was examined using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Black patients (median days = 510) had a longer time between diagnosis and presentation to MCC compared to Whites (median days = 368). Black patients were also more likely to have received their initial cancer care outside of MCC compared to White patients (odds ratio [OR] and 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.45 [1.32-1.60]). Furthermore, Hispanics were more likely to present to MCC at an advanced stage compared to non-Hispanic patients (OR [95% CI] = 1.28 [1.05-1.55]).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed racial and ethnic differences in timing of receipt of care at MCC. Future studies should aim to identify contributing factors for the development of novel mitigation strategies and assess whether timing differences in referral to an NCICC correlate with long-term patient outcomes.

European Respiratory Society guideline on various aspects of quality in lung cancer care

This European Respiratory Society guideline is dedicated to the provision of good quality recommendations in lung cancer care. All the clinical recommendations contained were based on a comprehensive systematic review and evidence syntheses based on eight PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) questions. The evidence was appraised in compliance with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Evidence profiles and the GRADE Evidence to Decision frameworks were used to summarise results and to make the decision-making process transparent. A multidisciplinary Task Force panel of lung cancer experts formulated and consented the clinical recommendations following thorough discussions of the systematic review results. In particular, we have made recommendations relating to the following quality improvement measures deemed applicable to routine lung cancer care: 1) avoidance of delay in the diagnostic and therapeutic period, 2) integration of multidisciplinary teams and multidisciplinary consultations, 3) implementation of and adherence to lung cancer guidelines, 4) benefit of higher institutional/individual volume and advanced specialisation in lung cancer surgery and other procedures, 5) need for pathological confirmation of lesions in patients with pulmonary lesions and suspected lung cancer, and histological subtyping and molecular characterisation for actionable targets or response to treatment of confirmed lung cancers, 6) added value of early integration of palliative care teams or specialists, 7) advantage of integrating specific quality improvement measures, and 8) benefit of using patient decision tools. These recommendations should be reconsidered and updated, as appropriate, as new evidence becomes available.

Hospital Academic Status and the Volume-Outcome Association in Postoperative Patients Requiring Intensive Care: Results of a Nationwide Analysis of Intensive Care Units in the United States

Objective: To determine whether the outcomes of postoperative patients admitted directly to an intensive care unit (ICU) differ based on the academic status of the institution and the total operative volume of the unit. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis using the eICU Collaborative Research Database v2.0, a national database from participating ICUs in the United States. All patients admitted directly to the ICU from the operating room were included. Transfer patients and patients readmitted to the ICU were excluded. Patients were stratified based on admission to an ICU in an academic medical center (AMC) versus non-AMC, and to ICUs with different operative volume experience, after stratification in quartiles (high, medium-high, medium-low, and low volume). Primary outcomes were ICU and hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included the need for continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) during ICU stay, ICU length of stay (LOS), and 30-day ventilator free days. Results: Our analysis included 22,180 unique patients; the majority of which (15,085[68%]) were admitted to ICUs in non-AMCs. Cardiac and vascular procedures were the most common types of procedures performed. Patients admitted to AMCs were more likely to be younger and less likely to be Hispanic or Asian. Multivariable logistic regression indicated no meaningful association between academic status and ICU mortality, hospital mortality, initiation of CRRT, duration of ICU LOS, or 30-day ventilator-free-days. Contrarily, medium-high operative volume units had higher ICU mortality (OR = 1.45, 95%CI = 1.10-1.91, p-value = 0.040), higher hospital mortality (OR = 1.33, 95%CI = 1.07-1.66, p-value = 0.033), longer ICU LOS (Coefficient = 0.23, 95%CI = 0.07-0.39, p-value = 0.038), and fewer 30-day ventilator-free-days (Coefficient = -0.30, 95%CI = -0.48 - -0.13, p-value = 0.015) compared to their high operative volume counterparts. Conclusions: This study found that a volume-outcome association in the management of postoperative patients requiring ICU level of care immediately after a surgical procedure may exist. The academic status of the institution did not affect the outcomes of these patients.

Health insurance literacy among head and neck cancer patients and their caregivers: A cross-sectional pilot study

Objective

Health insurance literacy interventions may reduce financial burden and its effects on cancer patients and their caregivers. However, little is known about the health insurance literacy levels of head and neck cancer (HNC) patients and their caregivers. We assessed the feasibility of screening for health insurance literacy in a pilot study and described the health insurance literacy levels of HNC patients and their caregivers.

Methods

We administered a survey that assessed demographics and subjective and objective health insurance literacy to HNC patients and their caregivers. Subjective health insurance literacy was measured through the Health Insurance Literacy Measure (score range: 0-84). Objective health insurance literacy was measured through correct answers to a previously developed 10-question knowledge test. Due to a small sample size, inferential statistics were not used; we instead descriptively reported findings.

Results

The pilot included 48 HNC patients and 13 caregivers. About 44.4% of patients and 30.8% of caregivers demonstrated low health insurance literacy (HILM ≤60). On the 10-item knowledge test, patients had an average of 6.8 (SD: 2.3) correct responses and caregivers had 7.8 (SD: 1.1) correct responses. Calculating out-of-pocket costs for out-of-network services was challenging; only 9.5% of patients and 0% of caregivers answered correctly.

Conclusion

Additional outreach strategies may be needed to supplement screening for health insurance literacy. Areas of focus for interventions include improving understanding of how to calculate financial responsibility for health care services and filing an appeal for health insurance claim denial.

Level of Evidence

IV.

PEARL: A Guide for Developing Community-Engaging and Culturally-Sensitive Education Materials

Community outreach and engagement has been a regular activity of the National Cancer Institute at its designated Cancer Centers. However, in 2016, community outreach and engagement became a required activity for all cancer centers. Yet there is a gap in the literature that provides guidelines for developing materials that resonate with communities. We developed the PEARL rubric to fulfill that gap from our work developing culturally sensitive breast cancer education materials for African American and Immigrant African women. We conducted a targeted literature review to understand the approaches that have been used for developing education materials for communities. We reviewed the literature and distilled key elements into our PEARL guide for creating culturally appropriate education materials. PEARL consists of five elements: Plain language and understandability, Explicit data, statistics, and graphs, Affirmative framing, Representative content, and Local connection. PEARL is a modern comprehensive guide that researchers can use for creating culturally sensitive materials. It is designed to guide researchers develop educational materials who have little to no experience in community engagement.

Improved survival in cervical cancer patients receiving care at National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers

Background

Locally advanced cervical cancer (CC) remains lethal in the United States. We investigate the effect of receiving care at an National Cancer Institute–designated cancer center (NCICC) on survival.

Methods

Data for women diagnosed with CC from 2004 to 2016 who received radiation treatment were extracted from the California Cancer Registry (n = 4250). Cox proportional hazards regression models assessed whether (1) receiving care at NCICCs was associated with risk of CC‐specific death, (2) this association remained after multivariable adjustment for age, race/ethnicity, and insurance status, and (3) this association was explained by receipt of guideline‐concordant treatment.

Results

Median age was 50 years (interquartile range [IQR] 41–61 years), with median follow‐up of 2.7 years (IQR 1.3–6.0 years). One‐third of patients were seen at an NCICC, and 29% died of CC. The hazard of CC‐specific death was reduced by 20% for those receiving care at NCICCs compared with patients receiving care elsewhere (HR = .80; 95% CI, 0.70–0.90). Adjustment for guideline‐concordant treatment and other covariates minimally attenuated the association to 0.83 (95% CI, 0.74–0.95), suggesting that the survival advantage associated with care at NCICCs may not be due to receipt of guideline‐concordant treatment.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates survival benefit for patients receiving care at NCICCs compared with those receiving care elsewhere that is not explained by differences in guideline‐concordant care. Structural, organizational, or provider characteristics and differences in patients receiving care at centers with and without NCI designation could explain observed associations. Further understanding of these factors will promote equality across oncology care facilities and survival equity for patients with CC.

This study demonstrates survival benefit for patients receiving care for cervical cancer at National Cancer Institute–designated cancer centers that is not explained by receipt of guideline‐concordant treatment. Further understanding of these factors will promote equality across oncology care facilities resulting in survival equity for patients with cervical cancer.

Factors Mediating Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Delayed Treatment of Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite improvements, disparities in breast cancer care have led to an inequitable distribution of treatment delays and worse outcomes among patients with breast cancer. This study aimed to quantify the contribution of mediators that may explain racial/ethnic disparities in breast cancer treatment delays.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients from the National Cancer Database with stage I-III breast cancer who underwent surgical resection. Mediation analyses estimated the extent to which racial/ethnic disparities in the distribution of patient characteristics account for racial/ethnic disparities in delayed treatment.

RESULTS

Of the 1,349,715 patients with breast cancer included, 10%, 5%, and 4% were Black, Hispanic, and other non-white race/ethnicity, respectively. Multivariable models showed that patients in these racial/ethnic groups had 73%, 81%, and 24% increased odds of having a treatment delay relative to white patients. Mediation analyses suggested that 15%, 19%, and 15% of the treatment delays among Black, Hispanic, and other non-white race/ethnicity patients, respectively, are explained by disparities in education, comorbidities, insurance, and facility type. Therefore, if these mediators had been distributed equally among all races/ethnicities, a reduction of 15-19% in the delayed treatment disparities experienced by minority patients would have been observed. Academic facility type was the factor that could yield the largest reduction in time to treatment disparities, contributing to 8-13% of racial/ethnic disparities.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with breast cancer who identified as Black, Hispanic, and other non-white races/ethnicities are exposed to longer treatment delays relative to white patients. Efforts to equalize mediators could remove substantial portions of racial/ethnic disparities in delayed treatment.

Is treatment in certified cancer centers related to better survival in patients with pancreatic cancer? Evidence from a large German cohort study

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cancer patients in certified cancer centers, that meet specific quality standards in term of structures and procedures of medical care, is a national treatment goal in Germany. However, convincing evidence that treatment in certified cancer centers is associated with better outcomes in patients with pancreatic cancer is still missing.

METHODS

We used patient-specific information (demographic characteristics, diagnoses, treatments) from German statutory health insurance data covering the period 2009-2017 and hospital characteristics from the German Standardized Quality Reports. We investigated differences in survival between patients treated in hospitals with and without pancreatic cancer center certification by the German Cancer Society (GCS) using the Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox regression with shared frailty.

RESULTS

The final sample included 45,318 patients with pancreatic cancer treated in 1,051 hospitals (96 GCS-certified, 955 not GCS-certified). 5,426 (12.0%) of the patients were treated in GCS-certified pancreatic cancer centers. Patients treated in certified and non-certified hospitals had similar distributions of age, sex, and comorbidities. Median survival was 8.0 months in GCS-certified pancreatic cancer centers and 4.4 months in non-certified hospitals. Cox regression adjusting for multiple patient and hospital characteristics yielded a significantly lower hazard of long-term, all-cause mortality in patients treated in GCS-certified pancreatic centers (Hazard ratio = 0.89; 95%-CI = 0.85-0.93). This result remained robust in multiple sensitivity analyses, including stratified estimations for subgroups of patients and hospitals.

CONCLUSION

This robust observational evidence suggests that patients with pancreatic cancer benefit from treatment in a certified cancer center in terms of survival. Therefore, the certification of hospitals appears to be a powerful strategy to improve patient outcomes in pancreatic cancer care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04334239 ).

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.

Long-term effect of hospital volume on the postoperative prognosis of 158,618 patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China

Background

The impact of hospital volume on the long-term survival of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) has not been well assessed in China, especially for stage I-III stage ESCC. We performed a large sample size study to assess the relationships between hospital volume and the effectiveness of ESCC treatment and the hospital volume value at the lowest risk of all-cause mortality after esophagectomy in China.

Aim

To investigate the prognostic value of hospital volume for assessing postoperative long-term survival of ESCC patients in China.

Methods

The date of 158,618 patients with ESCC were collected from a database (1973-2020) established by the State Key Laboratory for Esophageal Cancer Prevention and Treatment, the database includes 500,000 patients with detailed clinical information of pathological diagnosis and staging, treatment approaches and survival follow-up for esophageal and gastric cardia cancers. Intergroup comparisons of patient and treatment characteristics were conducted with the X² test and analysis of variance. The Kaplan-Meier method with the log-rank test was used to draw the survival curves for the variables tested. A Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to analyze the independent prognostic factors for overall survival. The relationship between hospital volume and all-cause mortality was assessed using restricted cubic splines from Cox proportional hazards models. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality.

Results

In both 1973-1996 and 1997-2020, patients with stage I-III stage ESCC who underwent surgery in high volume hospitals had better survival than those who underwent surgery in low volume hospitals (both P<0.05). And high volume hospital was an independent factor for better prognosis in ESCC patients. The relationship between hospital volume and the risk of all-cause mortality was half-U-shaped, but overall, hospital volume was a protective factor for esophageal cancer patients after surgery (HR<1). The concentration of hospital volume associated with the lowest risk of all-cause mortality was 1027 cases/year in the overall enrolled patients.

Conclusion

Hospital volume can be used as an indicator to predict the postoperative survival of ESCC patients. Our results suggest that the centralized management of esophageal cancer surgery is meaningful to improve the survival of ESCC patients in China, but the hospital volume should preferably not be higher than 1027 cases/year.

Core tip

Hospital volume is considered to be a prognostic factor for many complex diseases. However, the impact of hospital volume on long-term survival after esophagectomy has not been well evaluated in China. Based on a large sample size of 158,618 ESCC patients in China spanning 47 years (1973-2020), We found that hospital volume can be used as a predictor of postoperative survival in patients with ESCC, and identified hospital volume thresholds with the lowest risk of death from all causes. This may provide an important basis for patients to choose hospitals and have a significant impact on the centralized management of hospital surgery.

Navigating Multi-Scale Cancer Systems Biology Towards Model-Driven Clinical Oncology and Its Applications in Personalized Therapeutics

Rapid advancements in high-throughput omics technologies and experimental protocols have led to the generation of vast amounts of scale-specific biomolecular data on cancer that now populates several online databases and resources. Cancer systems biology models built using this data have the potential to provide specific insights into complex multifactorial aberrations underpinning tumor initiation, development, and metastasis. Furthermore, the annotation of these single- and multi-scale models with patient data can additionally assist in designing personalized therapeutic interventions as well as aid in clinical decision-making. Here, we have systematically reviewed the emergence and evolution of (i) repositories with scale-specific and multi-scale biomolecular cancer data, (ii) systems biology models developed using this data, (iii) associated simulation software for the development of personalized cancer therapeutics, and (iv) translational attempts to pipeline multi-scale panomics data for data-driven in silico clinical oncology. The review concludes that the absence of a generic, zero-code, panomics-based multi-scale modeling pipeline and associated software framework, impedes the development and seamless deployment of personalized in silico multi-scale models in clinical settings.

Impact of Volume on Mortality and Hospital Stay After Lung Cancer Surgery in a Single-Payer System

BACKGROUND

There is a literature gap for hospitals in single-payer healthcare systems quantifying the influence of hospital volume on outcomes following major lung cancer resection. We aimed to determine the effect of hospital volume on mortality, and length of stay (LOS).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study using administrative, population-based data from a single-payer universal healthcare system was performed in adults with non-small cell lung cancer who underwent lobectomy or pneumonectomy between 2008 and 2017. Hospital volume was defined as the average annual number of major lung resections performed at each institution. Length of stay and post-operative mortality was compared using multivariable linear and non-linear regression between hospital volume categories and continuously. Adjusted association between hospital volume and post-operative mortality was determined by multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

10,831 lung resections were performed: 1237 pneumonectomies; 9594 lobectomies. Patients undergoing lobectomy at high-volume hospitals had shorter median LOS (6 vs 8 days, p = 0.001) compared with low-volume hospitals. After adjusting for confounders, surgery at a high-volume center was significantly associated with shorter LOS after lobectomy and overall resections (p=<0.001), but not after pneumonectomy (p=0.787). Surgery at a high-volume center was positively associated with improved 90-day mortality in lobectomy and overall procedures (OR 0.607; [0.399-0.925]; and 0.632 [0.441-0.904], respectively). Volume was not a predictor of 90-day mortality after pneumonectomy (OR 0.533 [0.257-1.104], p=0.090).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgery at a high-volume center was positively correlated with improved 90-day survival and shorter hospital LOS. The results support regionalized lung cancer care in a single-payer healthcare system.

Neoadjuvant Therapy in Stage II/III Rectal Cancer: A Retrospective Study in a Disparate Population and the Effect on Survival

BACKGROUND

Kentucky has one of the highest rectal cancer incidences in the United States. High poverty rates have led to poor insurance coverage and inadequate access to care. The treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer utilizes a multimodal regimen requiring regular access to expert care. The rate of receipt of neoadjuvant therapy in Kentucky is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the rate and factors associated with the receipt of neoadjuvant therapy for localized advanced rectal cancer in Kentucky and the effect on overall survival.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective database review.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted by utilizing the Kentucky Cancer Registry at an academic center.

PATIENTS

All patients diagnosed with stage II/III rectal adenocarcinoma from 2005 to 2015 in the Commonwealth of Kentucky were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were the factors associated with nonreceipt of neoadjuvant therapy and overall survival.

RESULTS

Of 1896 patients, only 46.8% received neoadjuvant therapy. Factors associated with not receiving neoadjuvant therapy included older age, female sex, low education level, high poverty level, and treatment at nonacademic centers. Survival analysis demonstrated significantly improved survival in patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy compared with other treatment regimens.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by the retrospective nature of the review and by unmeasured confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study was the first to evaluate the factors behind the low rates of neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer in Kentucky. Neoadjuvant therapy in this population is beneficial for survival; efforts should be made in policy and education with focus on older patients, female patients, and treatment at nonacademic centers. Centralization of rectal cancer care improves outcomes, but we must be aware of the effect it may have on disparate populations with poor access. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B596.

TERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE EN EL MANEJO DEL CNCER DE RECTO EN ESTADIO II / III UN ESTUDIO RETROSPECTIVO EN UNA POBLACIN DISPAR Y EL EFECTO EN LA SUPERVIVENCIA

ANTECEDENTES:El estado de Kentucky tiene una de las mayores incidencias de cáncer de recto en los EE. UU. Debido a una alta tasa de pobreza, el porcentaje de la población que cuenta con seguro de salud, es muy limitado, y por lo tanto el acceso a una atención de alto nivel es muy bajo. El tratamiento del cáncer de recto localmente avanzado, es multidisciplinario, lo que exige acceso y disponibilidad a un grupo experto. Se desconoce la tasa de pacientes que reciben terapia neoadyuvante en Kentucky.OBJETIVO:Establecer la tasa y los factores asociados con el uso de terapia neoadyuvante en el tratamiento del cáncer de recto localmente avanzado en Kentucky, y su efecto en la supervivencia global.DISEÑO:Revisión retrospectiva de una base de datos.ESCENARIO:Este estudio se llevó a cabo utilizando el Registro de Cáncer de Kentucky en un centro académico.PACIENTES:Se incluyen todos los pacientes diagnosticados con adenocarcinoma de recto, de la Mancomunidad (Commonwealth) de Kentucky, en estadio II / III entre 2005 y 2015.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Establecer los factores asociados con el hecho de no recibir terapia neoadyuvante; y establecer la supervivencia global.RESULTADOS:De 1896 pacientes evaluados, solo el 46,8% recibió terapia neoadyuvante. Los factores asociados, para no haber recibido terapia neoadyuvante fueron: la edad avanzada, sexo femenino, bajo nivel educativo, alto nivel de pobreza y tratamiento en centros no académicos. El análisis de la supervivencia mostró una supervivencia significativamente mejor en los pacientes que recibieron terapia neoadyuvante en comparación con otros esquemas de tratamiento.LIMITACIONES:Revisión retrospectiva, factores de confusión no medidos.CONCLUSIONES:Nuestro estudio ha sido el primero en evaluar los factores determinantes de las bajas tasas de terapia neoadyuvante para el tratamiento del cáncer de recto localmente avanzado en Kentucky. La terapia neoadyuvante mejora y favorece la supervivencia en esta población, por lo tanto se deben hacer esfuerzos en las políticas de salud, así como en educación, enfocados a los pacientes mayores, pacientes femeninas y tratamiento en centros no académicos. El centralizar la atención del cáncer de recto, mejora los resultados, pero debemos ser conscientes del efecto que puede tener en poblaciones desiguales económicamente, con acceso deficiente a la posibilidad de recibir atención de alto nivel. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B596.

Molecular Tumor Board Review and Improved Overall Survival in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

With the introduction of precision medicine, treatment options for non-small-cell lung cancer have improved dramatically; however, underutilization, especially in disadvantaged patients, like those living in rural Appalachian regions, is associated with poorer survival. Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) represent a strategy to increase precision medicine use. UK HealthCare at the University of Kentucky (UK) implemented a statewide MTB in January 2017. We wanted to test the impact of UK MTB review on overall survival in Appalachian and other regions in Kentucky.

METHODS

We performed a case-control study of Kentucky patients newly diagnosed with non-small-cell lung cancer between 2017 and 2019. Cases were reviewed by the UK MTB and were compared with controls without UK MTB review. Controls were identified from the Kentucky Cancer Registry and propensity-matched to cases. The primary end point was the association between MTB review and overall patient survival.

RESULTS

Overall, 956 patients were included, with 343 (39%) residing in an Appalachian region. Seventy-seven (8.1%) were reviewed by the MTB and classified as cases. Cox regression analysis showed that poorer survival outcome was associated with lack of MTB review (hazard ratio [HR] = 8.61; 95% CI, 3.83 to 19.31; P < .0001) and living in an Appalachian region (hazard ratio = 1.43; 95% CI, 1.17 to 1.75; P = .004). Among individuals with MTB review, survival outcomes were similar regardless of whether they lived in Appalachia or other parts of Kentucky.

CONCLUSION

MTB review is an independent positive predictor of overall survival regardless of residence location. MTBs may help overcome some health disparities for disadvantaged populations.

Continued Relevance of Minimum Volume Standards for Elective Esophagectomy: A National Perspective

BACKGROUND

Despite minimum volume recommendations, the majority of esophagectomies are performed at centers with fewer than 20 annual cases. The present study examined the impact of institutional esophagectomy volume on in-hospital mortality, complications and resource use following esophageal resection.

METHODS

The 2010-2018 Nationwide Readmissions Database was queried to identify all adult patients undergoing esophagectomy for malignancy. Hospitals were categorized as high-volume (HVH) if performing at least 20 esophagectomies annually, and low-volume (LVH) if fewer. Multivariable models were developed to study the impact of volume on outcomes of interest which included in-hospital mortality, complications, duration of hospitalization (LOS), inflation adjusted costs, readmissions, and non-home discharge.

RESULTS

Of an estimated 23,176 hospitalizations, 45.6% occurred at HVH. Incidence of esophagectomy increased significantly along with median institutional case load over the study period, while the proportion on hospitals considered HVH remained steady at approximately 7.4%. After adjusting for relevant patient and hospital characteristics, HVH was associated with decreased mortality (AOR=0.65), LOS (β=-1.83 days), pneumonia (AOR=0.69), prolonged ventilation (AOR=0.50), sepsis (AOR=0.80), and tracheostomy (AOR=0.66), but increased odds of non-home discharge (AOR=1.56, all P<0.01), with LVH as reference.

CONCLUSIONS

Many clinical outcomes of esophagectomy are improved with no increment in costs when performed at centers with an annual caseload of at least 20, as recommended by patient advocacy organizations. These findings suggest that centralization of esophageal resections to high-volume centers may be congruent with value-based care models.

Clinical Outcomes Following Regionalization of Gastric Cancer Care in a US Integrated Health Care System

PURPOSE

In 2016, Kaiser Permanente Northern California regionalized gastric cancer care, introducing a regional comprehensive multidisciplinary care team, standardizing staging and chemotherapy, and implementing laparoscopic gastrectomy and D2 lymphadenectomy for patients eligible for curative-intent surgery. This study evaluated the effect of regionalization on outcomes.

METHODS

The retrospective cohort study included gastric cancer cases diagnosed from January 2010 to May 2018. Information was obtained from the electronic medical record, cancer registry, state vital statistics, and chart review. Overall survival was compared in patients with all stages of disease, stage I-III disease, and curative-intent gastrectomy patients using annual inception cohorts. For the latter, the surgical approach and surgical outcomes were also compared.

RESULTS

Among 1,429 eligible patients with gastric cancer with all stages of disease, one third were treated after regionalization, 650 had stage I-III disease, and 394 underwent curative-intent surgery. Among surgical patients, neoadjuvant chemotherapy utilization increased from 35% to 66% (P < .0001), laparoscopic gastrectomy increased from 18% to 92% (P < .0001), and D2 lymphadenectomy increased from 2% to 80% (P < .0001). Dissection of ≥ 15 lymph nodes increased from 61% to 95% (P < .0001). Surgical complication rates did not appear to increase after regionalization. Length of hospitalization decreased from 7 to 3 days (P < .001). Overall survival at 2 years was as follows: all stages, 32.8% pre and 37.3% post (P = .20); stage I-III cases with or without surgery, 55.6% and 61.1%, respectively (P = .25); and among surgery patients, 72.7% and 85.5%, respectively (P < .03).

CONCLUSION

Regionalization of gastric cancer care within an integrated system allowed comprehensive multidisciplinary care, conversion to laparoscopic gastrectomy and D2 lymphadenectomy, increased overall survival among surgery patients, and no increase in surgical complications.

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.

Do certified cancer centers provide more cost-effective care? A health economic analysis of colon cancer care in Germany using administrative data

Hospital certification has become an important measure to improve cancer care quality, with the potential effect of prolonging patient survival and reducing medical spending. However, yet to be explored is the cost-effectiveness of cancer care provided in certified hospitals, considering significant additional costs incurred from certification requirements. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) using two colon cancer populations (N = 1909) treated in different levels of certified hospitals (CHs) vs noncertified hospitals (NCHs) from a healthcare system's perspective. We matched patient-level data of incident colon cancer cases, diagnosed between 2008 and 2013 from a large statutory health insurance in Saxony, Germany, to calculate net treatment costs by phase (initial, continuing and terminal phase). The costs were supplemented with extra costs from 31 additional services required for certification. Effectiveness measure was total survival time in life-years. Outcome of interest was incremental costs per additional life-year. The annualized net colon cancer treatment costs by phase showed a U shape with high costs in the initial (mean €26 855; 95% CI €25 058-€28 652) and the terminal phases (mean €30 096; 95% CI €26 199-€33 993). The base-case CEA results and all sensitivity analyses consistently demonstrated longer survival and lower costs for the colon cancer cohort treated in CHs vs NCHs. To conclude, we used administrative data to derive the first cost-effectiveness evidence supporting that colon cancer care delivered in the certified cancer centers in Germany improves survival outcomes and saves costs from a healthcare system's perspective. Generalization of the study results should be exercised with caution.

Trends in Patient Volume by Hospital Type and the Association of These Trends With Time to Cancer Treatment Initiation

Importance

Increasing demand for cancer care may be outpacing the capacity of hospitals to provide timely treatment, particularly at referral centers such as National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated and academic centers. Whether the rate of patient volume growth has strained hospital capacity to provide timely treatment is unknown.

Objective

To evaluate trends in patient volume by hospital type and the association between a hospital's annual patient volume growth and time to treatment initiation (TTI) for patients with cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective, hospital-level, cross-sectional study used longitudinal data from the National Cancer Database from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2016. Adult patients older than 40 years who had received a diagnosis of 1 of the 10 most common incident cancers and initiated their treatment at a Commission on Cancer-accredited hospital were included. Data were analyzed between December 19, 2019, and March 27, 2020.

Exposures

The mean annual rate of patient volume growth at a hospital.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was TTI, defined as the number of days between diagnosis and the first cancer treatment. The association between a hospital's mean annual rate of patient volume growth and TTI was assessed using a linear mixed-effects model containing a patient volume × time interaction. The mean annual change in TTI over the study period by hospital type was estimated by including a hospital type × time interaction term.

Results

The study sample included 4 218 577 patients (mean [SD] age, 65.0 [11.4] years; 56.6% women) treated at 1351 hospitals. From 2007 to 2016, patient volume increased 40% at NCI centers, 25% at academic centers, and 8% at community hospitals. In 2007, the mean TTI was longer at NCI and academic centers than at community hospitals (NCI: 50 days [95% CI, 48-52 days]; academic: 43 days [95% CI, 42-44 days]; community: 37 days [95% CI, 36-37 days]); however, the mean annual increase in TTI was greater at community hospitals (0.56 days; 95% CI, 0.49-0.62 days) than at NCI centers (-0.73 days; 95% CI, -0.95 to -0.51 days) and academic centers (0.14 days; 95% CI, 0.03-0.26 days). An annual volume growth rate of 100 patients, a level observed at less than 1% of hospitals, was associated with a mean increase in TTI of 0.24 days (95% CI, 0.18-0.29 days).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study, from 2007 to 2016, across the studied cancer types, patients increasingly initiated their cancer treatment at NCI and academic centers. Although increases in patient volume at these centers outpaced that at community hospitals, faster growth was not associated with clinically meaningful treatment delays.

Three-year survival from diagnosis in surgically treated patients in designated and nondesignated cancer care hospitals in Japan

The Japanese national and prefectural governments have accredited high-capacity, high-experience cancer care hospitals as "designated cancer care hospitals" to standardize cancer care, centralize patients, and improve clinical outcomes, but the performance of these designated hospitals has not been evaluated. We retrospectively compared 3-year patient survival in national, prefectural, and nondesignated cancer care hospitals in 2010-2012 in Osaka using registry-based data of 86 456 surgically treated cancer patients aged 15 years or older. Hazard ratios and 3-year survival probabilities were compared among national, prefectural, and nondesignated hospitals using a Cox proportional hazard regression model. Subgroup analyses for six cancers (stomach, colorectum, lung, breast, uterus, and prostate) and other cancers were carried out. In 2010-2012, 36 634 (42.4%), 38 048 (44.0%), and 11 774 (13.6%) patients were treated at national, prefectural, and nondesignated hospitals, respectively. The mortality hazard for all-site cancer was significantly lower in national and prefectural designated hospitals (adjusted hazard ratio 0.60 [95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.68] and 0.72 [0.66-0.80], respectively) than in nondesignated hospitals. The adjusted 3-year survival probabilities for all-site cancer were 86.6%, 84.2%, and 78.8% in national, prefectural, and nondesignated hospitals, respectively. Site-specific subgroup analyses revealed significantly lower hazard ratios in national and prefectural hospitals than in nondesignated hospitals for stomach, colorectal, lung, breast, and other cancers. To conclude, the majority of cancer patients underwent surgeries at designated hospitals and had higher 3-year survival probabilities than those treated at nondesignated hospitals. Further centralization of patients from nondesignated to designated hospitals could improve population-level survival.

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.

Regional and facility disparities in androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer from a multi-institutional Japan-wide database

OBJECTIVES

To examine the differences in prognosis of prostate cancer patients receiving primary androgen deprivation therapy by region and facility type using a Japan-wide database.

METHODS

Data on patients treated with primary androgen deprivation therapy between 2001 and 2003 from a nationwide community-based database established by the Japan Study Group of Prostate Cancer were obtained. Clinicopathological characteristics and prognostic variables, including progression, cancer-specific survival and overall survival, were compared according to region and facility type where the patients were treated.

RESULTS

Among 19 162 patients, 7102 (37.1%) and 12 060 (62.9%) men were in urban and rural areas, respectively, and 3556 (18.6%), 13 623 (71.1%) and 1983 (10.3%) patients were enrolled from academic centers, non-academic hospitals and urological clinics, respectively. The risks of progression, cancer-specific mortality and all-cause mortality were comparable between urban and rural areas in propensity-score matched analysis. Risks of progression, cancer-specific mortality and all-cause mortality in urological clinics were higher than those in academic centers in propensity-score matched analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that Japan facility type, but not geographical regions, might affect the prognosis of prostate cancer patients receiving primary androgen deprivation therapy.

Epidemiology of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

Thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms, although rare, continue to be associated with high morbidity and mortality in the modern era of vascular surgery, and knowledge of this disease is essential for those in clinical practice. Given the clinically silent nature of the disease, it is difficult to determine disease incidence, with most epidemiologic recommendations not made based on evidence regarding those diagnosed with the disease, but extrapolated from data on surgical outcomes. It appears that although men are more likely to develop thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms, the distribution is not as skewed as in abdominal aortic aneurysms. Current evidence suggests that Black and Hispanic patients continue to have disproportionately poor disease outcomes, mostly attributed to later presentation and undergoing interventions at lower-volume centers. Although select patients meet criteria for disease screening based on personal or family history of aneurysmal disease, general population screening has not been recommended by any professional organization to date. Vascular surgeons need to continue to be at the forefront of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm management, especially as care becomes centered around comprehensive "aortic care centers" and as more endovascular therapies become available.

Improving the Quality of Cancer Care in Community Hospitals

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients treated in community hospitals receive less guideline-recommended care and experience poorer outcomes than those treated in academic medical centers or National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers. The Markey Cancer Center Affiliate Network (MCCAN) was designed to address this issue in Kentucky, the state with the highest cancer incidence and mortality rates in the U.S.

METHODS

Using data obtained from the Kentucky Cancer Registry, the study evaluated the impact of patients treated in MCCAN hospitals on four evidence-based Commission on Cancer (CoC) quality measures using a before-and-after matched-cohort study design. Each group included 13 hospitals matched for bed size, cancer patient volume, community population, and region (Appalachian vs. non-Appalachian). Compliance with quality measures was assessed for the 3 years before the hospital joined MCCAN (T1) and the 3 years afterward (T2).

RESULTS

In T1, the control hospitals demonstrated greater compliance with two quality measures than the MCCAN hospitals. In T2, the MCCAN hospitals achieved greater compliance in three measures than the control hospitals. From T1 to T2, the MCCAN hospitals significantly increased compliance on three measures (vs. 1 measure for the control hospitals). Although most of the hospitals were not accredited by the CoC in T1, 92% of the MCCAN hospitals had achieved accreditation by the end of T2 compared with 23% of the control hospitals.

CONCLUSION

After the MCCAN hospitals joined the Network, their compliance with quality measures and achievement of CoC accreditation increased significantly compared with the control hospitals. The unique academic/community-collaboration model provided by MCCAN was able to make a significant impact on improvement of cancer care. Future research is needed to adapt and evaluate similar interventions in other states and regions.

Understanding Thyroidectomy Cost Variations Among National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers

BACKGROUND

The cost of thyroidectomy varies across the USA, while the causes of this variation are poorly understood. We examined the cost of inpatient thyroidectomy among National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers nationwide to determine why it differs.

METHODS

A retrospective study of inpatient thyroidectomies was performed using the Vizient Clinical Data Base. Fifty-two of 70 eligible hospitals were grouped into five geographic regions (Mid-Atlantic and New England, East Central, South Atlantic, West Central, and Mountain and Pacific). We identified drivers of cost variation in the five geographic regions and used risk adjustment model to evaluate the rationality of cost from each hospital.

RESULTS

Male sex, more extended hospital stays, and occurrence of complications were consistently associated with increased costs in all regions. Also, the cost was significantly lower in the Mid-Atlantic and New England region. The higher than expected costs did not correlate well with the case mix index among hospitals (p = 0.289), but the lower than expected costs were more common in high-volume hospitals. The average length of stay was the shortest in high-volume hospitals, which might account for the lower cost in the Mid-Atlantic and New England region; however, the overages of costs still varied widely among hospitals in all regions even if the length of stay was adjusted.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost variation may result from both patient-related factors and volume-related practice pattern differences among hospitals. A more standard of care and charge transparency is still needed for patients seeking affordable care at cancer centers.

Impact of geographic distribution of accredited breast centers

The National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers (NAPBCs) is dedicated to improving the quality of care in patients with breast disease. Geographic distribution of health care resources is an important measure of quality, yet little is known regarding breast center allocation patterns concerning population demand and impact on health outcomes. The purpose of this study was to analyze the distribution of NAPBC programs in the United States (USA) and evaluate the impact on breast cancer survival. Using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2014 data base, we identified the incidence and mortality rates for breast cancer by state. We also determined the concentration of NAPBC programs in each state (ie, the number of centers per 1000 cases of breast cancer). Data were analyzed using Spearman's (nonparametric) rank correlation coefficients. Five hundred and seventy NAPBC programs were identified. Across the United States, there was a mean of 2.8 programs/1000 breast cancer diagnoses. A positive correlation (r = .45) between breast cancer incidence and the number of programs was identified (P = .0009). There was no statistically significant correlation between mortality and NAPBC program concentration (r = -0.20, P = .16). NAPBC-accredited program distribution within the United States correlates with breast cancer incidence per state. However, the number of NAPBC programs per state did not alter overall mortality rates. Added measures beyond survival, as well as further insight into referral patterns to NAPBC programs, may be required to demonstrate the value and impact of NAPBC accreditation.

Improving access to care for children with cancer through implementation of an electronic referral system (IMPACT): A single-center experience from Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

Delayed access to cancer care has been associated with childhood cancer death. Improving timely access to cancer care is the first important step in the cancer treatment journey. We introduced an electronic referral system (e-RS) to improve timely access to cancer care. This study aimed to assess the impact of implementing an e-RS on timely access to cancer care.

METHODS

A retrospective cross-sectional study of pediatric oncology patients selected through a consecutive nonprobability sampling technique was performed to determine the turnaround time (TAT) of children with cancer diagnosed 12 months before and after implementation of the e-RS. TAT was defined as time in hours from referral to approval for admission.

RESULTS

Of the 326 pediatric oncology patients diagnosed between January 2014 and December 2015, 59.9% were male and 40.1% were female. Median age for both sexes was 5.0 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 2.5-9.0 years). Among these, 98.2% were Saudi nationals. Hematological malignancies accounted for 50.6% of referrals and 16.6% had lymphoma. The median TAT of the manual referral system (m-RS) and e-RS was 18 h (IQR: 2-25 h) and 2 h (IQR: 1-16 h; P = .0001), median length of hospital stay during first admission was 11 days versus 9 days (P = .14), and death events occurred in 11 patients versus zero patients referred using the m-RS versus e-RS (P = .003), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The introduction of an e-RS was associated with more rapid processing of pediatric patients for cancer treatment and fewer patient deaths during the initial evaluation and treatment during that time period.

Association of Neighborhood Characteristics with Utilization of High-Volume Hospitals Among Patients Undergoing High-Risk Cancer Surgery

INTRODUCTION

As high-risk cancer surgery continues to become more centralized, it is important to understand the association of neighborhood characteristics relative to access to surgical care. We sought to determine the neighborhood level characteristics that may be associated with travel patterns and utilization of high-volume hospitals.

METHODS

The California Office of Statewide Health Planning database was used to identify patients who underwent pancreatectomy (PD), esophagectomy (ES), proctectomy (PR), or pneumonectomy (PN) for cancer between 2014 and 2016. Total minutes (m) traveled as well as whether a patient bypassed the nearest hospital that performed the operation to get to a higher-volume center was assessed. Data were merged with the Centers for Disease control social vulnerability index (SVI).

RESULTS

Overall, 26,937 individuals (ES: 4.7%; PN: 53.5% PD: 13.9% PR: 27.9%) underwent a complex oncologic operation. Median travel time was 16 m (interquartile range [IQR] 8.3-30.24) [ES: 21.8 m (IQR 10.6-46.9); PN: 14 m (IQR 7.8-27.0); PD: 21.2 m (IQR 10.6-42.6); PR: 15 m (IQR 8.1-28.4)]. Nearly three-quarter of patients (ES: 34%; PN: 73%; PD: 72%; LR: 81%) underwent an operation at a high-volume hospital. For all four operations, patients who resided in a county with a high overall SVI were less likely to have surgery at a high-volume hospital (ES: odds ratio [OR] 0.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24-0.65; PN: OR: 0.67, 95% CI 0.51-0.88; PD: OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44-0.84; PR: OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.58-0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients residing in communities of high social vulnerability were less likely to undergo high-risk cancer surgery at a high-volume hospital. The identification of society-based contextual disparities in access to complex surgical care should serve to inform targeted strategies to direct additional resources toward these vulnerable communities.

Outcome quality standards for surgery of colorectal liver metastasis

PURPOSE

Liver metastases are the most common malignant solid liver lesions, approximately 40% of which stem from colorectal tumors. Liver resection is currently the only curative treatment for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM). However, there is a lack of consensus criteria to assess the results of this treatment. In order to evaluate the quality of surgical outcomes, it is necessary to identify quality indicators (QIs) and their corresponding quality standards (QS). We propose a simple method to determine QI and QS in CRLM surgery (CRLMS) and establish acceptable quality limits (AQL) for each QI.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review of CRLMS results published from 2006 to 2016. Clinical guidelines, consensus conferences, and publications related to the CRLMS were reviewed to identify and select QIs. Once selected, a new review of the papers including the results of at least one of the QIs was performed. Statistical process control (SPC) method was applied to calculate the QS and AQL of each QI. The limits of variability were established from mean and confidence intervals at 95% and 99.8%.

RESULTS

The most relevant QIs and its AQLs were postoperative mortality (2%, < 4.5%), overall postoperative morbidity (33%, < 41%), liver failure (5%, < 8%), postoperative hemorrhage (1%, < 3%), biliary fistula (6%, < 10%), reoperation (3%, < 6%), R1 resection margins (18%, < 25%), and overall survival at 12 and 60 months (84%, > 77%; and 34%, > 25%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite its limitations, the present study constitutes the most extensive scientific evidence to date on QI and AQL in CRLMS and may constitute a reference in future studies.

TIDieR checklist evaluation of clinical trial intervention reporting for recent FDA-approved anticancer medications

IMPORTANCE

Clear and comprehensive descriptions of clinical trial interventions are necessary to translate new results into clinical practice. The TIDieR checklist was developed to be a minimum set of key items considered essential to high-quality reporting of clinical trial interventions.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the quality of reporting of recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved oncology interventions.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional investigation.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS/INTERVENTION

Recent, FDA-approved haematology/oncology anticancer interventions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Quality of reporting.

RESULTS

Across all included trials (n=96), a median of 8-9 (out of 12) TIDieR items were reported. Seven TIDieR items had >90% adherence, including individual-level and study-level modifications of drugs and dosing schedules. Three items were less often reported: intervention provider, including training and expertise (7/192, 3.6%); trial institution infrastructure (0/192, 0.0%); and how intervention compliance was assessed (59/192, 30.7%). Publication of a protocol improved intervention reporting (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis of clinical trials of recent, FDA-approved anticancer interventions, we found good adherence to the TIDieR checklist. These studies were homogeneous in their structure and included information; some TIDieR items were always or never/rarely reported. Clinical trial effect sizes may not translate to real-world practice for a number of reasons. Thus, to aid the translation of trial effect sizes to real-world practice, we recommend authors adhere to the TIDieR checklist and describe the infrastructure of trial centres and describe who provided the intervention, along with their expertise.

Variation in value among hospitals performing complex cancer operations

BACKGROUND

While variation in outcomes has driven centralization of complex cancer surgery, variation in cost and value remains unexplored. We evaluated outcomes relative to cost among hospitals performing esophageal and pancreatic resection for cancer.

METHODS

Using 100% Medicare claims data, we identified fee-for-service Medicare patients undergoing elective esophagectomy and pancreatectomy for cancer from 2014 to 2016. Risk- and reliability-adjusted, price-standardized payments for the surgical episode from admission through 30 days post discharge, as well as risk- and reliability-adjusted complication rates for each hospital, were calculated. Hospitals were separated into quintiles relative to payments and outcomes. Highest-value hospitals were defined as hospitals in the top 2 quartiles for both cost and outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 11,586 Medicare beneficiaries who underwent a complex oncologic operation between 2014 and 2016, 66% had a pancreatic neoplasm, while 33% had an esophageal neoplasm. Overall, 31.1% patients underwent an operation at a high-value hospital. Among patients who underwent pancreatectomy, the risk-adjusted postoperative complication rate was 31.4% at the lowest-value hospitals vs 22.7% at highest-value hospitals (odds ratio: 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.47-0.70). The esophagectomy, risk-adjusted postoperative complication rate was 48.3% at lowest-value hospitals versus 29.8% at highest-value hospitals (odds ratio: 0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.27-0.47). The average difference in episode cost of care for an esophagectomy at lowest- versus highest-value hospitals was $5,617; the difference for pancreatectomy was $2,748.

CONCLUSION

There was wide variation in complication rates and average costs among lowest- versus highest-value hospitals performing esophagectomy and pancreatectomy for cancer. Even among highest quality hospitals, wide variation in average episode costs was noted. Surgeons should seek to better understand practice variation to standardize care and decrease variation in outcomes, utilization, and costs.

Hospital Volume Matters: The Volume-Outcome Relationship in Open Juxtarenal AAA Repair

OBJECTIVE

We studied whether the volume-outcome relationship would persist in more complex aortic operations.

BACKGROUND

Despite the added complexity of the involvement of the renal arteries in open juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair, the volume effect in these difficult operations has yet to be defined.

METHODS

We identified all patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) who underwent open AAA repair from 2003 to 2016. We calculated each hospital's average annual volume for total open AAA repairs, and total open juxtarenal AAA repairs. We compared adjusted perioperative and long-term survival across quintiles of hospital volume, and constructed models including both volume metrics to evaluate the cross-volume effects.

RESULTS

Of 8880 total open AAA repairs, there were 3470 open juxtarenal cases. Centers with low (<4), medium (4-14), and high (>14) volumes of open juxtarenal repair demonstrated adjusted perioperative mortality of 9.0%, 4.9%, and 3.9%, respectively (P < 0.01). When both volume metrics were considered, open juxtarenal volume, but not total open AAA volume was associated with perioperative mortality (lowest quintile of juxtarenal volume: OR 2.36 [1.29-4.30], P < 0.01). Hospital volume was not associated with adjusted long-term mortality. High volume centers were more likely to use renal protective strategies such as mannitol and cold renal perfusion (both P < 0.01). Low volume centers performed a similar proportion of cases each year, but 22 centers (13%) did stop performing repairs during the study period.

CONCLUSION

Hospitals with low annualized volumes of open juxtarenal repair have higher perioperative mortality, irrespective of their total open aortic volume. Complex open AAA repairs should be performed at experienced centers, and future efforts should focus on centralization of complex aortic care.

Variation in long-term oncologic outcomes by type of cancer center accreditation: An analysis of a SEER-Medicare population with pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Cancer center accreditation is designed to identify centers that provide high-quality cancer care. This also guides patients and referring physicians towards centers of excellence for specialized care. We sought to examine if cancer center accreditation was associated with improved long-term oncologic outcomes in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

Using the SEER-Medicare database, we identified patients who underwent pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma from 1996 to 2013. Hospitals were categorized into three groups: National Cancer Institute-designated (NCI-designated) centers, Commission on Cancer (CoC)-accredited centers, and "non-accredited" (NA) centers. Multilevel mixed-effects models were used to calculate adjusted examined lymph nodes, disease-specific survival (DSS), and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

We identified 5,118 patients who underwent pancreatectomy at 632 hospitals (41.0% NA, 49.6% CoC, 9.4% NCI). NCI-designated centers had a greater median number of lymph nodes examined compared with CoC-accredited or NA centers (14 vs. 10 vs. 11.0 nodes, respectively; p < 0.001). Patients treated at NCI centers had a higher 5-year DSS compared to those treated at CoC or NA centers (31.2% vs. 23.6% vs. 23.0%, respectively; p < 0.001). Finally, patients treated at NCI centers had a higher 5-year OS compared to those treated at CoC or NA centers (23.5% vs. 18.9% vs. 17.9%, respectively; p < 0.001). The associations held true when adjusted analyses were performed.

CONCLUSION

Patients with resected pancreatic cancer treated at NCI-designated centers were associated with improved long-term oncologic outcomes. There was no difference between CoC-accredited centers compared with NA centers. Meticulous validation of accreditation is warranted globally prior to implementation.

The association of continuity of care and cancer centre affiliation with outcomes among patients with cancer who require emergency department care

BACKGROUND

Patients with cancer have complex care requirements and frequently use the emergency department. The purpose of this study was to determine whether continuity of care, cancer expertise of an institution or both affect outcomes in patients with cancer in the emergency setting.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using administrative databases from Ontario, Canada, involving records of patients aged 20 years and older who received chemotherapy or radiation in the 30 days before a cancer-related visit to the emergency department between 2006 and 2011. Patients seen in an emergency department at an alternative hospital (not the site where cancer treatment was given) were matched based on propensity score to patients who visited their original hospital (site where cancer treatment was given). Next, patients seen at an alternative emergency department that was in a general hospital (i.e., not a cancer centre) were matched to patients who visited their original hospital or a cancer centre. Outcomes were admission to hospital at the index visit to the emergency department, 30-day mortality, having imaging with computed tomography and return visits to the emergency department.

RESULTS

We found 42 820 patients who were eligible for our study. Patients seen in the emergency departments at alternative hospitals were less likely to be admitted to hospital (odds ratio [OR] 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-0.83) and had higher hazards of return visits to the emergency department than matched patients at original hospitals (hazard ratio [HR] 1.06, 95% CI 1.03-1.11). In comparison, patients at alternative general hospitals also had lower odds of admission to hospital (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.79-0.88) and higher hazards of return visits to the emergency department (HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03-1.11) compared with matched counterparts; however, these patients had higher 30-day mortality (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.05-1.22) and lower odds of having CT imaging (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.69-0.80).

INTERPRETATION

Cancer expertise of an institution rather than continuity of care may be an important predictor of outcomes following emergency treatment of patients with cancer.