Hospital Volume and Textbook Outcomes in Minimally Invasive Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Use of textbook outcome as a quality metric in hepatopancreaticobiliary surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Textbook outcomes (TOs) represent the optimal course after surgery. To date, no meta-analysis has assessed the pooled TOs of patients undergoing hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery and the effect of TO achievement on patient outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess TO achievement across different studies and to characterize the effect of TO achievement on patient-related outcomes, including disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched (1990-2024). The criteria used to define TO and the median overall TO in HPB surgery were obtained. In addition, a random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to assess the effect of TO achievement on 5-year OS and DFS.

RESULTS

A total of 27 studies involving 517,304 patients met inclusion criteria. The main criteria used to define TO included absence of readmission and mortality within 30 days after discharge, severe postoperative complications, prolonged hospital stay, and negative surgical margin (R0). Of note, the main factors related to TO achievement were younger patient age and lower American Society of Anesthesiologists score. Overall, the median rates of TOs achieved across procedures were 62.0% (IQR, 48.0%-69.0%) for hepatic procedure, 54.0% (IQR, 41.0%-68.0%) for biliary procedure, 46.0% (IQR, 42.0%-46.5%) for combined hepatopancreatic procedure, 45.0% (IQR, 30.5%-59.0%) for pancreatic procedure, 33.0% (IQR, 32.2%-34.0%) for liver transplantation, and 19.5% (IQR, 16.8%-22.3%) for combined hepatobiliary procedure. TO achievement was associated with improved odds of 5-year OS (odds ratio [OR], 1.22 [95% CI, 1.20-1.24]) and 5-year DFS (OR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.16-1.37]).

CONCLUSION

Overall, hepatic and biliary operations had the highest TO achievement, followed by pancreatic procedures. In contrast, hepatobiliary surgery and liver transplantation had the lowest TO. There was a significant discrepancy in the definition of TO across different studies, highlighting the need for consensus on the definition of TO.

Fragmentation of care in breast cancer: greater than the sum of its parts

INTRODUCTION

Fragmentation of care (FC, the receipt of care at > 1 institution) has been shown to negatively impact cancer outcomes. Given the multimodal nature of breast cancer treatment, we sought to identify factors associated with FC and its effects on survival of breast cancer patients.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed of surgically treated, stage I-III breast cancer patients in the 2004-2020 National Cancer Database, excluding neoadjuvant therapy recipients. Patients were stratified into two groups: FC or non-FC care. Treatment delay was defined as definitive surgery > 60 days after diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors predictive of FC, and survival was compared using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox proportional hazards methods.

RESULTS

Of the 531,644 patients identified, 340,297 (64.0%) received FC. After adjustment, FC (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.25-1.29) was independently associated with treatment delay. Factors predictive of FC included Hispanic ethnicity (OR 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01-1.07), treatment at comprehensive community cancer programs (OR 1.06, 95% CI: 1.03-1.08) and integrated network cancer programs (OR 1.55, 95% CI: 1.51-1.59), AJCC stage II (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.05-1.07) and stage III tumors (OR 1.06, 95% CI: 1.02-1.10), and HR + /HER2 + tumors (OR 1.05, 95% CI: 1.02-1.07). Treatment delay was independently associated with increased risk of mortality (HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.20-1.26), whereas FC (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.86-0.88) showed survival benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

While treatment delay negatively impacts survival in breast cancer patients, our findings suggest FC could be a marker for multispecialty care that may mitigate some of these effects.

Impact of hospital volume and facility characteristics on postoperative outcomes after hepatectomy: A mediation analysis

BACKGROUND

The impact of hospital procedural volume on outcomes after hepatectomy relative to other facility-related factors remains unclear. We sought to define the comparative impact of hospital volume compared with other facility-related factors on postoperative outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing hepatectomy.

METHODS

Data on patients who underwent hepatectomy between 2013 and 2021 were collected from the Medicare Standard Analytic Files and linked with facility-level data from the American Hospital Association Survey databases. Hospital volume was stratified into high- (top 10%) and low-volume centers. Propensity score matching was used to account for variable imbalances in patient characteristics among high-compared with low-volume centers. Mediation analysis was employed to delineate facility-related factors responsible for the impact of hospital volume on outcomes with a specific focus on incidence of complications, in-hospital mortality, and failure to rescue.

RESULTS

The analytic cohort included 22,969 patients from 340 institutions. After propensity score matching, receipt of surgery at a high-volume center was associated with a lower likelihood of postoperative complications (39.9% vs 41.7%, P = .01), in-hospital mortality (2.2% vs 2.8%, P = .02), and failure to rescue (5.4% vs 6.5%, P = .04) versus low-volume centers. Mediation analysis revealed that hospital capacity (bed capacity and nurse-to-bed ratio) contributed the most to the variations in risk of complications and in-hospital mortality, whereas liver transplant program status had the largest impact on failure to rescue.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital volume is a significant determinant of postoperative outcomes after hepatectomy, with hospital capacity and liver transplant program status being important mediators of this effect. Centralization and optimal resource distribution are important to achieve favorable outcomes following liver resection.

Association of Hospital Volume With Quality Care Outcomes Following Minor and Major Hepatectomy for Primary Liver Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Regionalizing hepatic resections to high-volume hospitals (HVH) has improved outcomes, yet widened disparities in access. We sought to evaluate the association of hospital volume with quality care outcomes and overall survival (OS) between minor and major hepatectomy for primary liver cancer.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database identified patients with primary liver cancer who underwent minor/major hepatectomy (2009-2019). HVHs were defined by the top quartile in annual case volume (vs. the bottom three quartiles). Quality care outcomes (time to resection, margin status, length of stay, 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality) and OS were assessed using multivariable regression.

RESULTS

Overall, 6,988 patients underwent minor hepatectomy and 4880 major hepatectomy. No differences in quality care outcomes or OS based on hospital volume for minor hepatectomy were observed (all p > 0.05). Treatment at HVHs for major hepatectomy was associated with decreased odds of 30-day and 90-day mortality events (all p < 0.05). Median OS was 40.2 months [IQR 21.7-66.6] at HVHs versus 33.5 [IQR 17.0-58.7] at low-volume hospitals which remained independently predictive of improved OS on multivariable analysis (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79-0.93).

CONCLUSION

These results support regionalization to HVHs for major hepatectomy; however, minor hepatectomy can be safely performed at hospitals regardless of volume.

Stratifying risk of failure to achieve textbook outcomes among patients undergoing hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: A multicenter score validation study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The concept of textbook outcomes (TOs) has gained increased attention as a critical metric to assess the quality and success of outcomes following complex surgery. A simple yet effective scoring system was developed and validated to predict risk of not achieving textbook outcomes (non-TOs) following hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

Using a multicenter prospectively collected database, risk factors associated with non-TO among patients who underwent hepatectomy for HCC were identified. A predictive scoring system based on factors identified from multivariate regression analysis was used to risk stratify patients relative to non-TO. The score was developed using 70 % of the overall cohort and validated in the remaining 30 %.

RESULTS

Among 3681 patients, 1458 (39.6 %) failied to experience a TO. Based on the derivation cohort, obesity, American Society of Anaesthesiologists score(ASA score), Child-Pugh grade, tumor size, and extent of hepatectomy were identified as independent predictors of non-TO. The scoring system ranged from 0 to 10 points. Patients were categorized into low (0-3 points), intermediate (4-6 points), and high risk (7-10 points) of non-TO. In the validation cohort, the predicted risk of developing non-TOs was 39.0 %, which closely matched the observed risk of 39.9 %. There were no differences among the predicted and observed risks within the different risk categories.

CONCLUSIONS

A novel scoring system was able to predict risk of non-TO accurately following hepatectomy for HCC. The score may enable early identification of individuals at risk of adverse outcomes and inform surgical decision-making, and quality improvement initiatives.

Evolution of minimally invasive liver surgery in France over the last decade

BACKGROUND

Despite evidence of benefits on postoperative outcomes, minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) had a very low diffusion up to 2014, and recent evolution is unknown. Our aim was to analyze the recent diffusion and adoption of MILS and compare the trends in indications, extent of resection, and institutional practice with open liver surgery (OLS).

METHODS

We analyzed the French nationwide, exhaustive cohort of all patients undergoing a liver resection in France between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2022. Average annual percentage changes (AAPC) in the incidence of MILS and OLS were compared using mixed-effects log-linear regression models. Time trends were analyzed in terms of extent of resection, indication, and institutional practice.

RESULTS

MILS represented 25.2% of 74,671 liver resections and year incidence doubled from 16.5% in 2013 to 35.4% in 2022. The highest AAPC were observed among major liver resections [+ 22.2% (19.5; 24.9) per year], primary [+ 10.2% (8.5; 12.0) per year], and secondary malignant tumors [+ 9.9% (8.2; 11.6) per year]. The highest increase in MILS was observed in university hospitals [+ 14.7% (7.7; 22.2) per year] performing 48.8% of MILS and in very high-volume (> 150 procedures/year) hospitals [+ 12.1% (9.0; 15.3) per year] performing 19.7% of MILS. OLS AAPC decreased for all indications and institutions and accelerated over time from - 1.8% (- 3.9; - 0.3) per year in 2013-2018 to - 5.9% (- 7.9; - 3.9) per year in 2018-2022 (p = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first reported trend reversal between MILS and OLS. MILS has considerably increased at a national scale, crossing the 20% tipping point of adoption rate as defined by the IDEAL framework.

Textbook outcome in liver surgery: open vs minimally invasive hepatectomy among patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

We sought to investigate whether minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH) was superior to open hepatectomy (OH) in terms of achieving textbook outcome in liver surgery (TOLS) after resection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

Patients who underwent resection of HCC between 2000 and 2020 were identified from an international database. TOLS was defined by the absence of intraoperative grade ≥2 events, R1 resection margin, posthepatectomy liver failure, bile leakage, major complications, in-hospital mortality, and readmission.

RESULTS

A total of 1039 patients who underwent HCC resection were included in the analysis. Although most patients underwent OH (n = 724 [69.7%]), 30.3% (n = 315) underwent MIH. Patients who underwent MIH had a lower tumor burden score (3.6 [IQR, 2.6-5.2] for MIH vs 6.1 [IQR, 3.9-10.1] for OH) and were more likely to undergo minor hepatectomy (84.1% [MIH] vs 53.6% [OH]) than patients who had an OH (both P < .001). After propensity score matching to control for baseline differences between the 2 cohorts, the incidence of TOLS was comparable among patients who had undergone MIH (56.6%) versus OH (64.8%) (P = .06). However, MIH was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (6.0 days [IQR, 4.0-8.0] for MIH vs 9.0 days [IQR, 6.0-12.0] for OH). Among patients who had MIH, the odds ratio of achieving TOLS remained stable up to a tumor burden score of 4; after which the chance of TOLS with MIH markedly decreased.

CONCLUSION

Patients with HCC who underwent resection with MIH versus OH had a comparable likelihood of TOLS, although MIH was associated with a short length of stay.

What Is the Role of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery in Treating Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma on Cirrhosis?

Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) has been slowly introduced in the past two decades and today represents a major weapon in the fight against HCC, for several reasons. This narrative review conveys the major emerging concepts in the field. The rise in metabolic-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD)-related HCC means that patients with significant cardiovascular risk will benefit more profoundly from MILS. The advent of efficacious therapy is leading to conversion from non-resectable to resectable cases, and therefore more patients will be able to undergo MILS. In fact, resection outcomes with MILS are superior compared to open surgery both in the short and long term. Furthermore, indications to surgery may be further expanded by its use in Child B7 patients and by the use of laparoscopic ablation, a curative technique, instead of trans-arterial approaches in cases not amenable to radiofrequency. Therefore, in a promising new approach, multi-parametric treatment hierarchy, MILS is hierarchically superior to open surgery and comes second only to liver transplantation.

The impact of hospital volume on liver resection: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aims to compare the outcomes of high-volume, medium-volume, and low-volume hospitals performing hepatic resections using a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A literature search until June 2023 was conducted across major databases to identify studies comparing outcomes in high-volume, medium-volume, and low-volume hospitals for liver resection. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, and surface under cumulative ranking area values, odds ratio, and mean difference with 95% credible intervals were reported for postoperative mortality, failure-to-rescue, morbidity, length of stay, and hospital costs.

RESULTS

Twenty studies comprising 248,707 patients undergoing liver resection were included. For the primary mortality outcome, overall and subgroup analyses were performed: group I: high-volume = 5 to 20 resections/year; group II: high-volume = 21 to 49 resections/year; group III: high-volume ≥50 resections/year. Results demonstrated a significant association between hospital volume and mortality (overall-high-volume versus medium-volume: odds ratio 0.66, 95% credible interval 0.49-0.87; high-volume versus low-volume: odds ratio 0.52, 95% credible interval 0.41-0.65; group I-high-volume versus low-volume: odds ratio 0.34, 95% credible interval 0.22-0.50; medium-volume versus low-volume: odds ratio 0.56, 95% credible interval 0.33-0.92; group II-high-volume versus low-volume: odds ratio 0.67, 95% credible interval 0.45-0.91), as well as length of stay (high-volume versus low-volume: mean difference -1.24, 95% credible interval -2.07 to -0.41), favoring high-volume hospitals. No significant difference was observed in failure-to-rescue, morbidity, or hospital costs across the 3 groups.

CONCLUSION

This study supports a positive relationship between hospital volume and surgical outcomes in liver resection. Patients from high-volume hospitals experience superior outcomes in terms of lower postoperative mortality and shorter lengths of stay than medium-volume and low-volume hospitals.

Safe implementation of a minimally invasive hepatopancreatobiliary program, a narrative review and institutional experience

Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted approaches to hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) operations have expanded worldwide. As surgeons and medical centers contemplate initiating and expanding minimally invasive surgical (MIS) programs for complex HPB surgical operations, there are many factors to consider. This review highlights the key components of developing an MIS HPB program and shares our recent institutional experience with the adoption and expansion of an MIS approach to pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Association of Minority-Serving Hospital Status with Post-Discharge Care Utilization and Expenditures in Gastrointestinal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Disparities in utilization of post-discharge care and overall expenditures may relate to site of care and race/ethnicity. We sought to define the impact of minority-serving hospitals (MSHs) on postoperative outcomes, discharge disposition, and overall expenditures associated with an episode of surgical care.

METHODS

Patients who underwent resection for esophageal, colon, rectal, pancreatic, and liver cancer were identified from Medicare Standard Analytic Files (2013-2017). A MSH was defined as the top decile of facilities treating minority patients (Black and/or Hispanic). The impact of MSH on outcomes of interest was analyzed using multivariable logistic regression and generalized linear regression models. Textbook outcome (TO) was defined as no postoperative complications, no prolonged length of stay, and no 90-day mortality or readmission.

RESULTS

Among 113,263 patients, only a small subset of patients underwent surgery at MSHs (n = 4404, 3.9%). While 52.3% of patients achieved TO, rates were lower at MSHs (MSH: 47.2% vs. non-MSH: 52.5%; p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, receiving care at an MSH was associated with not achieving TO (odds ratio [OR] 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-0.87) and concomitantly higher odds of additional post-discharge care (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.20). Patients treated at an MSH also had higher median post-discharge expenditures (MSH: $8400, interquartile range [IQR] $2300-$22,100 vs. non-MSH: $7000, IQR $2200-$17,900; p = 0.002). In fact, MSHs remained associated with a 11.05% (9.78-12.33%) increase in index expenditures and a 16.68% (11.44-22.17%) increase in post-discharge expenditures.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing surgery at a MSH were less likely to achieve a TO. Additionally, MSH status was associated with a higher likelihood of requiring post-discharge care and higher expenditures.