Hospital volume and short-term outcomes after cytoreductive nephrectomy

European Society of Gynaecological Oncology quality indicators for the surgical treatment of endometrial carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Quality of surgical care as a crucial component of a comprehensive multi-disciplinary management improves outcomes in patients with endometrial carcinoma, notably helping to avoid suboptimal surgical treatment. Quality indicators (QIs) enable healthcare professionals to measure their clinical management with regard to ideal standards of care.

OBJECTIVE

In order to complete its set of QIs for the surgical management of gynecological cancers, the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) initiated the development of QIs for the surgical treatment of endometrial carcinoma.

METHODS

QIs were based on scientific evidence and/or expert consensus. The development process included a systematic literature search for the identification of potential QIs and documentation of the scientific evidence, two consensus meetings of a group of international experts, an internal validation process, and external review by a large international panel of clinicians and patient representatives. QIs were defined using a structured format comprising metrics specifications, and targets. A scoring system was then developed to ensure applicability and feasibility of a future ESGO accreditation process based on these QIs for endometrial carcinoma surgery and support any institutional or governmental quality assurance programs.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine structural, process and outcome indicators were defined. QIs 1-5 are general indicators related to center case load, training, experience of the surgeon, structured multi-disciplinarity of the team and active participation in clinical research. QIs 6 and 7 are related to the adequate pre-operative investigations. QIs 8-22 are related to peri-operative standards of care. QI 23 is related to molecular markers for endometrial carcinoma diagnosis and as determinants for treatment decisions. QI 24 addresses the compliance of management of patients after primary surgical treatment with the standards of care. QIs 25-29 highlight the need for a systematic assessment of surgical morbidity and oncologic outcome as well as standardized and comprehensive documentation of surgical and pathological elements. Each QI was associated with a score. An assessment form including a scoring system was built as basis for ESGO accreditation of centers for endometrial cancer surgery.

The Influence of Hospital Volume on the Outcomes of Nasopharyngeal, Sinonasal, and Skull-Base Tumors: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Objective: The center of excellence model of health care hypothesizes that increased volume in a specialized center will lead to better and more affordable care. We sought to characterize the volume-outcome data for surgically treated sinonasal and skull base tumors and (chemo) radiation-treated nasopharyngeal malignancy.

Design:  Systematic review of the literature.

Setting: This review included national database and multi-institutional studies published between 1990 and 2019.

Participants: PubMed was interrogated for keywords “hospital volume,” “facility volume,” and outcomes for “Nasopharyngeal carcinoma,” “Sinonasal carcinomas,” “Pituitary Tumors,” “Acoustic Neuromas,” “Chordomas,” and “Skull Base Tumors” to identify studies. Single-institution studies and self-reported surveys were excluded.

Main outcome measures: The main outcome of interest in malignant pathologies was survival; and in benign pathologies it was treatment-related complications.

Results: A total of 20 studies met inclusion criteria. The average number of patients per study was 4,052, and ranged from 394 to 9,950 patients. Six of seven studies on malignant pathology demonstrated improved survival with treatment in high volume centers and one showed no association with survival. Ten of thirteen studies on benign disease showed reduced risk of complications, while one study demonstrated both an increased and decreased association of complications. Two studies showed no volume-outcome associations.

Conclusion: This systematic review demonstrates that a positive volume–outcome relationship exists for most pathologies of the skull base, with some exceptions. The relative dearth of literature supports further research to understand the effect of centralization of care on treatment outcomes.

Complex surgery and perioperative systemic therapy for genitourinary cancer of the retroperitoneum

Objective

The purpose of the present guideline is to recommend surgical or systemic treatment for metastatic testicular cancer; T3b or T4, or node-positive, and metastatic renal cell cancer (rcc); and T3, T4, or node-positive upper tract urothelial (utuc) cancer.

Methods

Draft recommendations were formulated based on evidence obtained through a systematic review of randomized controlled trials, comparative retrospective studies, and guideline endorsement. The draft recommendations underwent an internal review by clinical and methodology experts, and an external review by clinical practitioners.

Results

The primary literature search yielded eight guidelines, five systematic reviews, and twenty-seven primary studies that met the eligibility criteria.

Conclusions

Cytoreductive nephrectomy should no longer be considered the standard of care in patients with T3b or T4, or node-positive, and metastatic rcc. Eligible patients should be treated with systemic therapy and have their primary tumour removed only after review at a multidisciplinary case conference (mcc). Adjuvant sunitinib after surgery is not recommended. Patients with venous tumour thrombus should be considered for surgical intervention. Patients with T3, T4, or node-positive utuc should have their tumour removed without delay. Decisions concerning lymph node dissection should be done at a mcc and be based on stage, expertise, and imaging. Adjuvant systemic treatment is recommended for resected high-risk utuc. Patients with metastasis-positive testicular cancer with residual tumour after systemic treatment should be treated at specialized centres. For all complex retroperitoneal surgeries, the evidence shows that higher-volume centres are associated with lower rates of procedure-related mortality, and patients should be referred to higher-volume centres for surgical resection.

Impact of hospital nephrectomy volume on intermediate- to long-term survival in renal cell carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relationship between hospital volume and intermediate- and long-term patient survival for patients undergoing nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Adult patients with RCC treated with nephrectomy between 2000 and 2010 were identified from the English Hospital Episode Statistics database and National Cancer Data Repository. Patients with nodal or metastatic disease were excluded. Hospitals were categorised into low- (LV; <20 cases/year), medium- (20-39 cases/year) and high-volume (HV; ≥40 cases/year), based on annual cases of RCC nephrectomy. Multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) for all-cause mortality by hospital volume, adjusting for patient, tumour and surgical characteristics. We assessed conditional survival over three follow-up periods: short (30 days to 1 year), intermediate (1-3 years) and long (3-5 years). We additionally explored whether associations between volume and outcomes varied by tumour stage.

RESULTS

A total of 12 912 patients were included. Patients in HV hospitals had a 34% reduction in mortality risks up to 1 year compared to those in LV hospitals (HR 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.53-0.83; P < 0.01). Assuming causality, treatment in HV hospitals was associated with one fewer death in every 71 patients treated. Benefit of nephrectomy centralisation did not change with higher T stage (P = 0.17). No significant association between hospital volume and survival was observed beyond the first year.

CONCLUSIONS

Nephrectomy for RCC in HV hospitals was associated with improved survival for up to 1 year after treatment. Our results contribute new insights regarding the value of nephrectomy centralisation.

Who is dying after nephrectomy for cancer? Study of risk factors and causes of death after analyzing morbidity and mortality reviews (UroCCR-33 study)

BACKGROUND AND METHODS

Nephrectomy is the treatment for renal cell cancer from T1-4 tumors but remains at risk. To determine the thirty-day mortality rate after nephrectomy for cancer and to identify causes and risk factors of death in order to find clinical applications. From 2014 to 2017, we performed a retrospective multicentric analysis of prospectively collected data study involving the French network for research on kidney cancer (UroCCR). All patients who died after nephrectomy for cancer during the first thirty days were identified. Patients' characteristics, causes of death and morbidity and mortality reviews reports were analyzed for each death.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

In total, 2578 patients underwent nephrectomy and 35 deaths occurred. The thirty-day mortality rate was 1.4%. In univariate analysis, symptoms at diagnosis (P=0.006, OR=2.56 IC (1.3-5.03)), c stage superior to cT1 (P<0.0001, OR=6.13 IC (2.8-13.2)), cT stage superior to cT2 (P<0.0001, OR=8.8 IC (4.39-17.8)), nodal invasion (P<0.0001, OR=4.6 IC (1.9-10.7)), distant metastasis (P=0.001, OR=4.01 IC (1.7-8.9)), open surgery (P<0.0001, OR=0.272 IC (0.13-0.54)) and radical nephrectomy (P=0.007, OR=2.737 IC (1.3-5.7)) were risk factors of thirty-day mortality. In a multivariable model, only cT stage superior to T2 (P=0.015, OR=3.55 IC (1.27-10.01)) was a risk factor of thirty-day mortality. The main cause of postoperative death was pulmonary (n=15; 43%). The second cause was postoperative digestive sepsis for 7 patients (20%). Only 2 morbidity and mortality reviews had been done for the 35 deaths. Limitations are related to the thirty-day mortality criteria and descriptive study design.

CONCLUSIONS

Symptomatic patients, stage cTNM and type and techniques of surgery are determinants of thirty-day mortality after nephrectomy for cancer. The first cause of postoperative death is pulmonary. Morbidity and mortality reviews should be considered to better understand causes of death and to reduce early mortality after nephrectomy for cancer.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.