Survival in relation to hospital type after resection or sorafenib treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma in The Netherlands

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.

Should Doctors Open Online Consultation Services? An Empirical Investigation of Their Impact on Offline Appointments

Online healthcare portals have become prevalent worldwide in recent years. One common form of healthcare portal is the online consultation website, which provides a bridge between patients and doctors and reduces patients’ time and cost when seeking healthcare services. Another form is the healthcare service appointment website, which facilitates offline visits for patients. Though nominally separate, the behaviors of the users (including patients and doctors) on these two types of websites could be related to each other. In particular, how does opening online consultation services impact the offline appointments of doctors? Although this is an important question for healthcare portals, doctors, and policy makers, it has not been rigorously examined in the literature. We examine the overall impact of opening online consultation services on offline appointments and show that the number of offline appointments for doctors increases after opening online consultation services. Given that online consultation is a new but important way to connect patients and doctors, our findings provide useful implications for all the stakeholders—doctors, patients, hospitals, and policy makers—regarding how to integrate online and offline channels in the healthcare context.

The Comprehensive Analysis of Efficacy and Safety of CalliSpheres® Drug-Eluting Beads Transarterial Chemoembolization in 367 Liver Cancer Patients: A Multiple-Center, Cohort Study

This study aimed to investigate the efficacy, safety, and prognostic factors of drug-eluting beads transarterial chemoembolization (DEB-TACE) in treating Chinese patients with liver cancer. A total of 367 liver cancer patients from 24 medical centers were consecutively enrolled in this multiple-center, prospective cohort study, including 275 hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cases, 37 intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) cases, and 55 secondary liver cancer cases. All the patients received CalliSpheres^® DEB-TACE treatment. Treatment response, overall survival (OS), change of liver function, and adverse events (AEs) were assessed. DEB-TACE treatment achieved 19.9% complete response (CR) and 79.6% objective response rate (ORR), with mean OS of 384 days [95% confidence interval (CI): 375–393 days]. CR and ORR were both higher in HCC patients compared with primary ICC patients and secondary liver cancer patients, while no difference was discovered in OS. Portal vein invasion was an independent risk factor for CR, while portal vein invasion, previous conventional TACE (cTACE) treatment, and abnormal blood creatinine (BCr) were independent risk factors for ORR. In addition, largest nodule size ≥5.0 cm, abnormal albumin (ALB), and abnormal total bilirubin (TBIL) independently correlated with unfavorable OS. Most liver function indexes were recovered to baseline levels at 1–3 months after DEB-TACE. Common AEs were pain, fever, vomiting, and nausea; most of them were at mild grade. CalliSpheres^® DEB-TACE is efficient and well tolerated in Chinese liver cancer patients. Portal vein invasion, previous cTACE treatment, largest nodule size, abnormal BCr, ALB, and TBIL correlate with worse prognosis independently.

Evaluation of drug-eluting beads versus conventional transcatheter arterial chemoembolization in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) is the first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). It consists of conventional TACE (cTACE) and drug-eluting beads TACE (DEB-TACE). The comparative outcomes of the two methods remain controversial. The study aim to research the optimal TACE strategy for unresectable HCC.

METHODS

A systematic search of keywords, including 'HCC' and 'drug-eluting beads' was performed including four electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, China Biological Medicine Database (CBM), and Cochrane library databases from the date of inception to December 25, 2015. Review Manager 5.3 was used to calculate the pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% confident intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Sixteen cohort studies (4 RCTs, 3 prospective cohorts, 9 retrospective cohorts) were included comprising a total of 1832 patients: 822 patients with DEB-TACE therapy and 1010 patients undergoing cTACE. The 1-, 2-, and 3-year overall survival (OS) rates and 1- and 2-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rates were significantly higher in DEB-TACE group, with pooled RRs of 1.12 (95% CI=1.03-1.23, P=0.007), 1.26 (95% CI=1.03-1.54, P=0.02), 1.69 (95% CI=1.00-2.84, P=0.04), 1.21 (95% CI=1.01-1.44, P=0.03) and 1.68 (95% CI=1.17-2.43, P=0.005). There was no statistical significance in 3-year RFS, tumor response and treatment-related adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Compared with cTACE, DEB-TACE therapy significantly improved 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS rates and the 1- and 2-year RFS rates.

Influence of hospital type on survival in stage IV colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

Hospital factors along with various patient and surgeon factors are considered to affect the prognosis of colorectal cancer. Hospital volume is well known, but little is known regarding other hospital factors.

METHODS

We reviewed data on 853 patients with stage IV colorectal cancer who underwent elective palliative primary tumor resection between January 2006 and December 2007. To detect the hospital factors that could influence the prognosis of incurable colorectal cancer, the relationships between patient/hospital factors and overall survival were analyzed. Among hospital factors, hospital type (Group A: university hospital or cancer center; Group B: community hospital), hospital volume, and number of colorectal surgeons were examined.

RESULTS

In univariate analysis, Group A hospitals showed significantly better prognosis than Group B hospitals (p = 0.034), while hospital volume and number of colorectal surgeons were not associated with overall survival. After adjustment for patient factors in multivariate analysis, hospital type was significantly associated with overall survival (hazard ratio: 1.31; 95 % confidence interval: 1.05-1.63; p = 0.016). However, there was no significant difference in short-term outcomes between hospital types.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital type was identified as a hospital factor that possibly affects the prognosis of stage IV colorectal cancer patients.