Traveling to a High-volume Center is Associated With Improved Survival for Patients With Esophageal Cancer. Ann Surg. 2017;265:743-749. [PMID: 28266965 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000001702]

Dynamic volume-outcome association for esophagectomies: Do current volume thresholds still apply?

BACKGROUND

It is unknown if the current minimum case volume recommendation of 20 cases per year per hospital is applicable to contemporary practice.

METHODS

Patients undergoing esophageal resection between 2005 and 2015 were identified in the National Cancer Database. High, medium, and low-volume hospital strata were defined by quartiles. Adjusted odds ratios and adjusted 30-day mortality between low-, medium-, and high-volume hospitals were calculated using logistic regression analyses and trended over time.

RESULTS

Only 1.1% of hospitals had ≥20 annual cases. The unadjusted 30-day mortality for esophagectomy was 3.8% overall. Unadjusted and adjusted 30-day mortality trended down for all three strata between 2005 and 2015, with disproportionate decreases for low-volume and medium-volume versus high-volume hospitals. By 2015, adjusted 30-day mortality was similar in medium- and high-volume hospitals (odds ratio 1.35, 95% confidence interval 0.96-1.91). For hospitals with 20 or more annual cases the adjusted 30-day mortality was 2.7% overall. To achieve this same 30-day mortality the minimum volume threshold had lowered to 7 annual cases by 2015.

CONCLUSION

Only 1.1% of hospitals meet current volume recommendations for esophagectomy. Differential improvements in postoperative mortality at low- and medium- versus high-volume hospitals have led to 7 cases in 2015 achieving the same adjusted 30-day mortality as 20 cases in the overall cohort. Lowering volume thresholds for esophagectomy in contemporary practice would potentially increase the proportion of hospitals able to meet volume standards and increase access to quality care without sacrificing quality.

Evaluation of association between center colorectal neuroendocrine neoplasm volume and survival among patients with colorectal neuroendocrine carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Although correlation between center volume and survival has been reported for several complex cancers, it remains unknown if this is true for colorectal neuroendocrine carcinomas (CRNECs). We hypothesized that higher center annual volume of colorectal neuroendocrine neoplasm resections would be associated with overall survival (OS) for patients with CRNECs.

METHODS

Patients in the National Cancer Database diagnosed with stages I-III CRNEC between 2006 and 2018 and who underwent surgical resection were identified. The mean annual colorectal neuroendocrine neoplasm resection volume threshold associated with significantly worse mortality hazard was determined using restricted cubic splines. Kaplan-Meier (KM) method was used to compare OS, while Cox proportional hazards model was used for multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

There were 694 patients with CRNEC who met inclusion criteria across 1229 centers. Based on the cubic spline, centers treating fewer than one colorectal neuroendocrine neoplasm patient every 3 years on average had worse outcomes. Centers below this threshold were classified as low-volume (LV) centers corresponding with 42% of centers and about 15% of the patient cohort. In unadjusted survival analysis, LV patients had a median OS of 14 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10-19) while those treated at HV centers had a median OS of 33 months (95% CI: 25-49). In multivariable analysis, resection at a LV center was associated with increased risk of mortality (1.42 [95% CI: 1.01-2.00], p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

CRNEC patients have a dire prognosis; however, treatment at an HV center may be associated with decreased risk of mortality.

Rural Women Have a Prolonged Recovery Process after Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Gender and geographic access to care play a large role in health disparities in esophageal cancer care. The aim of our study was to evaluate disparities in peri-operative outcomes for patients undergoing esophagectomy based on gender and geographic location.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of prospectively collected data from patients who underwent esophagectomy from 2003 to 2022 was identified and analyzed based on gender and county, which were aggregated into existing state-level "metropolitan" versus "rural" designations. The demographics, pre-operative treatment, surgical complications, post-operative outcomes, and length of stay (LOS) of each group were analyzed using chi-squared, paired t-tests and single-factor ANOVA.

RESULTS

Of the 1545 patients, men (83.6%) and women (16.4%) experienced similar rates of post-operative complications, but women experienced significantly longer hospital (p = 0.002) and ICU (p = 0.03) LOSs as compared with their male counterparts, with no differences in 30-day mortality. When separated by geographic criteria, rural women were further outliers, with significantly longer hospital LOSs (p < 0.001) and higher rates of ICU admission (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Rural female patients undergoing esophagectomy were more likely to have a longer inpatient recovery process compared with their female metropolitan or male counterparts, suggesting a need for more targeted interventions in this population.

Regionalizing ovarian cancer cytoreduction to high-volume centers and the impact on patient travel in New York State

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the theoretical impact of regionalizing cytoreductive surgery for ovarian cancer (OC) to high-volume facilities on patient travel.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified patients with OC who underwent cytoreduction between 1/1/2004-12/31/2018 from the New York State Cancer Registry and Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System. Hospitals were stratified by low-volume (<21 cytoreductive surgical procedures for OC annually) and high-volume centers (≥21 procedures annually). A simulation was performed; outcomes of interest were driving distance and time between the centroid of the patient's residence zip code and the treating facility zip code.

RESULTS

Overall, 60,493 patients met inclusion criteria. Between 2004 and 2018, 210 facilities were performing cytoreductive surgery for OC in New York; 159 facilities (75.7%) met low-volume and 51 (24.3%) met high-volume criteria. Overall, 10,514 patients (17.4%) were treated at low-volume and 49,979 (82.6%) at high-volume facilities. In 2004, 78.2% of patients were treated at high-volume facilities, which increased to 84.6% in 2018 (P < .0001). Median travel distance and time for patients treated at high-volume centers was 12.2 miles (IQR, 5.6-25.5) and 23.0 min (IQR, 15.2-37.0), and 8.2 miles (IQR, 3.7-15.9) and 16.8 min (IQR, 12.4-26.0) for patients treated at low-volume centers. If cytoreductive surgery was centralized to high-volume centers, median distance and time traveled for patients originally treated at low-volume centers would be 11.2 miles (IQR, 3.8-32.3; P < .001) and 20.2 min (IQR, 13.6-43.0; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Centralizing cytoreductive surgery for OC to high-volume centers in New York would increase patient travel burden by negligible amounts of distance and time for most patients.

National observational study about the surgical treatment of anal fistula: Does the kind of hospital modify the results?

INTRODUCTION

Performing the surgical procedure in a high-volume center has been seen to be important for some surgical procedures. However, this issue has not been studied for patients with an anal fistula (AF).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective multicentric study was performed including the patients who underwent AF surgery in 2019 in 56 Spanish hospitals. A univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to analyse the relationship between hospital volume and AF cure and fecal incontinence (FI).

RESULTS

1809 patients were include. Surgery was performed in a low, middle, and high-volume hospitals in 127 (7.0%), 571 (31.6%) y 1111 (61.4%) patients respectively. After a mean follow-up of 18.9 months 72.3% (1303) patients were cured and 132 (7.6%) developed FI. The percentage of patients cured was 74.8%, 75.8% and 70.3% (p = 0.045) for low, middle, and high-volume hospitals. Regarding FI, no statistically significant differences were observed depending on the hospital volume (4.8%, 8.0% and 7.7% respectively, p = 0.473). Multivariate analysis didńt observe a relationship between AF cure and FI.

CONCLUSION

Cure and FI in patients who underwent AF surgery were independent from hospital volume.

In the patient's shoes: The impact of hospital proximity and volume on stage I endometrial cancer care patterns and outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To compare the impact of travel burden and hospital volume on care patterns and outcomes in stage I endometrial cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study identified patients from the National Cancer Database with stage I epithelial endometrial carcinoma who underwent hysterectomy between 2012 and 2020. Patients were categorized into: lowest quartiles of travel distance and hospital surgical volume for endometrial cancer (Local) and highest quartiles of distance and volume (Travel). Primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were surgery route, lymph node (LN) assessment method, length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission, and 30- and 90-day mortality. Results were stratified by tumor recurrence risk. Outcomes were compared using propensity-score matching. Propensity-adjusted survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves and compared using log-rank tests. Cox models estimated hazard ratios for death. Sensitivity analysis using modified Poisson regressions was performed.

RESULTS

Among 36,514 patients, 51.4% were Local and 48.6% Travel. The two cohorts differed significantly in demographics and clinicopathologic characteristics. Upon propensity-score matching (p < 0.05 for all), more Travel patients underwent minimally invasive surgery (88.1%vs79.1%) with fewer conversions to laparotomy (2.0%vs2.6%), more sentinel (20.5%vs11.3%) and fewer traditional LN assessments (58.1vs61.7%) versus Local. Travel patients had longer intervals to surgery (≥30 days:56.7%vs50.1%) but shorter LOS (<2 days:76.9%vs59.8%), fewer readmissions (1.9%vs2.7%%), and comparable 30- and 90-day mortality. OS and HR for death remained comparable between the matched groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to surgery in nearby low-volume hospitals, patients with stage I epithelial endometrial cancer who travelled longer distances to high-volume centers experienced more favorable short-term outcomes and care patterns with comparable long-term survival.

Elucidating survival and functional outcomes in patients with primary head and neck malignancies treated in academic versus community settings

BACKGROUND

Differences in treatment outcomes between community or academic centers are incompletely understood.

METHODS

Retrospective review of head and neck cancer patients between 2010 and 2020 in a rural health region. Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests were used to evaluate survival outcomes, along with bivariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. Linear regression was used for functional outcomes of tracheotomy and gastrostomy tube dependence.

RESULTS

Two hundred and forty-eight patients treated at an academic center were compared with 94 patients treated in community centers. In multivariable analysis, the risk of death (HR = 0.60, p = 0.019), and risk of recurrence were lower (HR = 0.29, p < 0.001) for patients treated in academic centers. Patients treated in community centers had longer gastrostomy tube dependence (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that treatment at an academic center was associated with a lower risk of recurrence and shorter gastrostomy tube dependence compared to treatment in the community.

Distance Traveled and Disparities in Patients Undergoing Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

The impact of distance traveled on cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) outcomes needs further investigation.

METHODS

This retrospective study reviewed a prospectively managed single-center CRS/HIPEC 1992-2022 database. Zip codes were used to calculate distance traveled and to obtain data on income and education via census data. Patients were separated into three groups based on distance traveled in miles (local: ≤50 miles, regional: 51-99 miles, distant: ≥100 miles). Descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier method, and Cox regression were performed.

RESULTS

The 1614 patients in the study traveled a median distance of 109.5 miles (interquartile range [IQR], 53.36-202.29 miles), with 23% traveling locally, 23.9% traveling regionally, and 53% traveling distantly. Those traveling distantly or regionally tended to be more white (distant: 87.8%, regional: 87.2%, local: 83.2%), affluent (distant: $61,944, regional: $65,014, local: $54,390), educated (% without high school diploma: distant: 10.6%, regional: 11.5%, local: 13.0%), less often uninsured (distant: 2.3%, regional: 4.6%, local: 5.2%) or with Medicaid (distant: 3.3%, regional: 1.3%, local: 9.7%). They more often had higher Peritoneal Carcinomatosis Index (PCI) scores (distant: 15.4, regional: 15.8, local: 12.7) and R2 resections (distant: 50.3%, regional: 52.2%, local: 40.5%). Median survival did not differ between the groups, and distance traveled was not a predictor of survival.

CONCLUSION

More than 50% of the patients traveled farther than 100 miles for treatment. Although regionalization of CRS/HIPEC may be appropriate given the lack of survival difference based on distance traveled, those who traveled further had fewer health care disparities but higher PCI scores and more R2 resections, which raises concerns about access to care for the underserved, time to treatment, and surgical quality.

Impact of facility type and volume in locally advanced esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

We hypothesized that academic facilities and high-volume facilities would be independently associated with improved survival and a greater propensity for performing surgery in locally advanced esophageal cancer.

METHODS

We identified patients diagnosed with stage IB-III esophageal cancer during 2004-2016 from the National Cancer Database. Facility type was categorized as academic or community, and facility volume was based on the number of times a facility's unique identification code appeared in the dataset. Each facility type was dichotomized into high- and low-volume subgroups using the cutoff of 20 esophageal cancers treated/year. We fitted multivariable regression models in order to assess differences in surgery selection and survival between facilities according to type and volume.

RESULTS

Compared to patients treated at high-volume community hospitals, those at high-volume academic facilities were more likely to undergo surgery (odds ratio: 1.865, p < 0.001) and were associated with lower odds of death (odds ratio: 0.784, p = 0.004). For both academic and community hospitals, patients at high-volume facilities were more likely to undergo surgery compared to those at low-volume facilities, p < 0.05. For patients treated at academic facilities, high-volume facilities were associated with lower odds of death (odds ratio: 0.858, p = 0.02) compared to low-volume facilities, while there was no significant difference in the odds of death between high- and low-volume community hospitals (odds ratio: 1.018, p = 0.87).

CONCLUSIONS

Both facility type and case volume impact surgery selection and survival in locally advanced esophageal cancer. Compared to community hospitals, academic facilities were more likely to perform surgery and were associated with improved survival.

Does surgeon specialization add value to surgeon volume in gastric cancer surgery?

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the combined impact of surgeon specialization and surgeon volume on both short- and long-term outcomes in patients underwent curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

METHODS

Patients with cStage1-3 gastric adenocarcinoma who underwent curative-intent surgery between January 2010 and December 2020 were evaluated. The impact of surgeon specialization and surgeon volume on clinical outcomes was scrutinized, both individually and in combination. For the purpose of assessing the combined effect, surgeons were classified into three groups: Non-specialized low-volume (NS-low), non-specialized high-volume (NS-high), and specialized high-volume (S-high). Postoperative outcomes and survival were evaluated. The adjusted effect sizes were expressed as odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

Total of 537 patients operated by twelve surgeons were included in the analysis. For all cohort, the 30d-, in-hospital and 90d-mortality were 3.5%, 3%, and 6.3%, respectively. High surgeon volume alone had a significant impact (OR: 0.31 [0.10-0.82, p = 0.023]) on 30-day mortality. However, upon evaluating the combined effects of the parameters, while the most favorable 30-day mortality rate was observed in the S-high group, neither the NS-low group (OR: 3.82 [1.10-18.17, p = 0.054]) nor the NS-high group (OR: 1.37 [0.23-8.37, p = 0.724]) demonstrated a statistically significant difference when compared to the S-high group. The NS-low group showed poor results for several types of postoperative outcomes. In terms of overall survival, the S-high group outperformed, while the NS-low and NS-high groups presented with notably worse outcomes (HRs: 2.04 [1.51-2.75, p < 0.001], and 1.75 [1.25-2.44, p = 0.001], respectively).

CONCLUSION

The primary factor influencing short-term outcomes for patients who underwent gastric cancer surgery was found to be surgeon volume, while specialization provided a limited additional value. However, specialization emerges as an independent factor with a greater contribution to long-term survival than the impact attributed to high-volume.

Textbook outcomes for oesophagectomy: A valid composite measure assessment tool for surgical performance in a specialist unit

INTRODUCTION

In 2017 the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit Group proposed a ten-item composite measure for a 'textbook outcome' (TBO) following oesophago-gastric resection. Studies have shown associations between TBO and improved conditional and overall survival. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of TBO to assess the outcomes from a single specialist unit in a country, with low incidence of disease, allowing comparisons with international specialist centres.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected oesophageal cancer surgery data at a single centre, in Australia, between 2013 and 2018. Multivariable logistical regression assessed association between baseline factors and TBO. Post-operative complications were analysed in two separate groups as Clavien-Dindo ≥2 (CD ≥ 2) and Clavien-Dindo ≥3 (CD ≥ 3). Cox-proportional hazards regression analysis determined the association between TBO and survival.

RESULTS

246 patients were analysed, with 50.8% (n = 125) achieving a TBO when complications were defined as CD ≥ 2 and 58.9% (n = 145) when using CD ≥ 3. Patients aged ≥75, and those with a pre-operative respiratory co-morbidity were less likely to achieve a TBO. Overall survival was not influenced by TBO when complications were defined as CD ≥ 2, however it was higher when a TBO was achieved, and complications were defined as CD ≥ 3 (HR 0.54, 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.84, P = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

TBO is a multi-parameter metric that allowed benchmarking of the quality of oesophageal cancer surgery in our unit, providing favourable outcomes compared with other published data. There was an association between TBO and improved overall survival when the definition of severe complications was CD ≥ 3.

Centers of Excellence: If We Build It, Will They Come?

Pediatric surgeons have been pursuing high quality, affordable care or value-based care for over 50 years. One approach to streamlining the clinical care for a complex problem was the development of a center of excellence (COE). The concept of COE focuses on a shared vision of providing high quality care through a multidisciplinary approach. The goal is to improve diagnostic accuracy as well as therapeutic outcomes using focused expertise within a group. COEs are often resource intensive before becoming fiscally viable and therefore require initial support from hospital leadership. This review discusses the key steps to consider before building a COE, strategies to help build one, and how to keep one successful as defined by quality, accessibility, equity, training, and maintaining teams within the group.

Impact of Facility Volume on Patient Safety Indicator Events After Transsphenoidal Pituitary Surgery

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the impact of facility volume on Patient Safety Indicator (PSI) events following transsphenoidal pituitary surgery (TSPS).

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective database review.

SETTING

National Inpatient Sample database (2003-2011).

METHODS

The National Inpatient Sample was queried for TSPS cases from 2003 to 2011. Facility volume was defined by tertile of average annual number of TSPS procedures performed. PSIs, based on in-hospital complications identified by the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality, and poor outcomes, such as mortality and tracheostomy, were analyzed.

RESULTS

An overall 16,039 cases were included: 804 had ≥1 PSI and 15,235 had none. A greater proportion of male to female (5.8% vs 4.3%) and Black to White (7.0% vs 4.5%) patients experienced PSIs. There was an increased likelihood of poor outcome (odds ratio [OR], 3.1 [95% CI, 2.5-3.7]; P < .001) and mortality (OR, 30.1 [95% CI, 18.5-48.8]; P < .001) with a PSI. The incidence rates of PSIs at low-, intermediate-, and high-volume facilities were 5.7%, 5.1%, and 4.2%, respectively. Odds of poor outcome with PSIs were greater at low-volume facilities (OR, 3.3 [95% CI, 2.4-4.4]; P < .001) vs intermediate (OR, 3.1 [95% CI, 2.1-4.2]; P < .001) and high (OR, 2.5 [95% CI, 1.7-3.8]; P < .001). Odds of mortality with PSIs were greater at high-volume facilities (OR, 43.0 [95% CI, 14.3-129.4]; P < .001) vs intermediate (OR, 40.0 [95% CI, 18.5-86.4]; P < .001) and low (OR, 17.3 [95% CI, 8.0-37.7]; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

PSIs were associated with a higher likelihood of poor outcome and mortality following TSPS. Patients who experienced PSIs had a lower risk of poor outcome but increased mortality at higher-volume facilities.

Clinical characteristics and survival of esophageal cancer patients: annual report of the surgical treatment in Shanghai Chest Hospital, 2016

Background

Esophageal cancers present a significant burden of disease and remain one of the most lethal of cancers worldwide, particular in China. Surgical treatment remains the cornerstone of esophageal cancers, and a real-world data from a high-volume esophageal cancer center have guiding significance in evaluation of the current clinical practice. This report describes the clinical characteristics, treatment outcomes, and survival of surgical treatment in patients with esophageal cancer in Shanghai Chest Hospital (SCH).

Methods

All patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer who received esophagectomy or endoscopic resection at SCH in 2016 were included in this study. The baseline characteristics, treatment-related outcomes, and follow-up data were collated from the medical records and a prospectively maintained database. The clinicopathological characteristics, surgical complications, and oncologic outcomes were summarized. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate their survival and Cox regression model was used to estimate the associated risk factors.

Results

In 2016, a total of 546 patients with esophageal cancer received surgical or endoscopic resection at SCH (including 517 esophagectomies and 29 endoscopic resections). Most patients (52.4%) were between 60-69 years old, 79.5% were male, and for more than half of all patients (51.3%), the tumor was located at the middle thoracic esophagus. Overall, 11.0% (60/546) of patients received neoadjuvant therapy and 45.8% (250/546) of patients were treated with adjuvant therapy. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (including thoracoscopy and robot-assisted) was performed in 58.0% of patients and the R0 resection rate was 90.3%. The postoperative 30- and 90-day mortality was 0.73% and 1.1%, respectively. For the esophagectomy cohort, the 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 86.5%, 67.8%, 59.9%, 54.5%, 51.8%, and for cancer specific survival (CSS), the rates were 91.8%, 74.2%, 66.6%, 61.2%, and 59.1%, respectively.

Conclusions

Through a standardized surgical procedure, the short- and long-term outcomes of patients with esophageal cancer were acceptable with good safety and oncological control in a high-volume center in China. This study reveals important surgical treatment effects of esophageal cancer patients and contributes to improvement of clinical management and future treatment development.

Implementation of the Esophagectomy Complication Consensus Group definitions: the benefits of speaking the same language

In 2015 the Esophagectomy Complication Consensus Group (ECCG) reported consensus definitions for complications after esophagectomy. This aimed to reduce variation in complication reporting, attributed to heterogeneous definitions. This systematic review aimed to describe the implementation of this definition set, including the effect on complication frequency and variation. A systematic literature review was performed, identifying all observational and randomized studies reporting complication frequencies after esophagectomy since the ECCG publication. Recruitment periods before and subsequent to the index ECCG publication date were included. Coefficients of variance were calculated to assess outcome heterogeneity. Of 144 studies which met inclusion criteria, 70 (48.6%) used ECCG definitions. The median number of separately reported complication types was five per study; only one study reported all ECCG complications. The coefficients of variance of the reported frequencies of eight of the 10 most common complications were reduced in studies which used the ECCG definitions compared with those that did not (P = 0.036). Among ECCG studies, the frequencies of postoperative pneumothorax, reintubation, and pulmonary emboli were significantly reduced in 2020-2021, compared with 2015-2019 (P = 0.006, 0.034, and 0.037 respectively). The ECCG definition set has reduced variation in esophagectomy morbidity reporting. This adds greater confidence to the observed gradual improvement in outcomes with time, and its ongoing use and wider dissemination should be encouraged. However, only a handful of outcomes are widely reported, and only rarely is it used in its entirety.

Interventions targeting postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) in patients undergoing esophageal cancer surgery: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials and narrative discussion

Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) represent the most common complications after esophageal cancer surgery. The lack of a uniform reporting nomenclature and a severity classification has hampered consistency of research in this area, including the study of interventions targeting prevention and treatment of PPCs. This systematic review focused on RCTs of clinical interventions used to minimize the impact of PPCs. Searches were conducted up to 08/02/2021 on MEDLINE (OVID), CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and the COCHRANE library for RCTs and reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A total of 339 citations, with a pooled dataset of 1,369 patients and 14 RCTs, were included. Heterogeneity of study design and outcomes prevented meta-analysis. PPCs are multi-faceted and not fully understood with respect to etiology. The review highlights the paucity of high-quality evidence for best practice in the management of PPCs. Further research in the area of intraoperative interventions and early postoperative ERAS standards is required. A consistent uniform for definition of pneumonia after esophagectomy and the development of a severity scale appears warranted to inform further RCTs and guidelines.

Community access to primary care is an important geographic disparity among ovarian cancer patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery

Objective

Given the importance of understanding neighborhood context and geographic access to care on individual health outcomes, we sought to investigate the association of community primary care (PC) access on postoperative outcomes and survival in ovarian cancer patients.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of Stage III-IV ovarian cancer patients who underwent surgery at a single academic, tertiary care hospital between 2012 and 2015. PC access was determined using a Health Resources and Services Administration designation. Outcomes included 30-day surgical and medical complications, extended hospital stay, ICU admission, hospital readmission, progression-free and overall survival. Descriptive statistics and chi-squared analyses were used to analyze differences between patients from PC-shortage vs not PC-shortage areas.

Results

Among 217 ovarian cancer patients, 54.4 % lived in PC-shortage areas. They were more likely to have Medicaid or no insurance and live in rural areas with higher poverty rates, significantly further from the treating cancer center and its affiliated hospital. Nevertheless, 49.2 % of patients from PC-shortage areas lived in urban communities. Residing in a PC-shortage area was not associated with increased surgical or medical complications, ICU admission, or hospital readmission, but was linked to more frequent prolonged hospitalization (26.3 % vs 14.1 %, p = 0.04). PC-shortage did not impact progression-free or overall survival.

Conclusions

Patients from PC-shortage areas may require longer inpatient perioperative care in order to achieve the same 30-day postoperative outcomes as patients who live in non-PC shortage areas. Community access to PC is a critical factor to better understanding and reducing disparities among ovarian cancer patients.

Socioeconomic Status and Distance to Reference Centers for Complex Cancer Diseases: A Source of Health Inequalities? A Population Cohort Study Based on Catalonia (Spain)

The centralization of complex surgical procedures for cancer in Catalonia may have led to geographical and socioeconomic inequities. In this population-based cohort study, we assessed the impacts of these two factors on 5-year survival and quality of care in patients undergoing surgery for rectal cancer (2011-12) and pancreatic cancer (2012-15) in public centers, adjusting for age, comorbidity, and tumor stage. We used data on the geographical distance between the patients' homes and their reference centers, clinical patient and treatment data, income category, and data from the patients' district hospitals. A composite 'textbook outcome' was created from five subindicators of hospitalization. We included 646 cases of pancreatic cancer (12 centers) and 1416 of rectal cancer (26 centers). Distance had no impact on survival for pancreatic cancer patients and was not related to worse survival in rectal cancer. Compared to patients with medium-high income, the risk of death was higher in low-income patients with pancreatic cancer (hazard ratio (HR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15-1.86) and very-low-income patients with rectal cancer (HR 5.14, 95% CI 3.51-7.52). Centralization was not associated with worse health outcomes in geographically dispersed patients, including for survival. However, income level remained a significant determinant of survival.

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.

Rural-Urban Differences in Esophagectomy for Cancer

Introduction

Patients who are disadvantaged socioeconomically or live in rural areas may not pursue surgery at high-volume centers where outcomes are better for some complex procedures. The objective of this study was to compare rural and urban patient differences directly by location of residence and outcomes after undergoing esophagectomy for cancer.

Methods

An analysis of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample (HCUP-NIS) database was performed, capturing adult patients with esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy. Patients were stratified into rural or urban groups by the National Center for Health Statistics Urban-Rural Classification Scheme. Demographics, hospital variables, and outcomes were compared.

Results

A total of 2,877 patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer were captured by the database, with 228 (7.92%) rural and 2,575 (89.50%) urban patients. The rural and urban groups had no differences in age, race, and insurance status, and shared many common comorbidities. Major outcomes of mortality (3.95% versus 4.27%, p = 0.815) and length of stay (15.75 ± 13.22 vs. 15.55 ± 14.91 days, p = 0.828) were similar for both rural and urban patients. There was a trend for rural patients to more likely be discharged home (35.96% vs. 29.79%, OR 0.667 [95% CI 0.479 – 0.929]; p = 0.0167).

Conclusions

This retrospective administrative database study indicated that rural and urban patients received equivalent postoperative care after undergoing esophagectomy. The findings were reassuring as there did not appear to be a disparity in major outcomes depending on the location of residence, but further studies are necessary to assure equitable treatment for rural patients.

Robotic Techniques in Esophagogastric Cancer Surgery: An Assessment of Short- and Long-Term Clinical Outcomes

Background

Robotic esophagogastric cancer surgery is gaining widespread adoption. This population-based cohort study aimed to compare rates of textbook outcomes (TOs) and survival from robotic minimally invasive techniques for esophagogastric cancer.

Methods

Data from the United States National Cancer Database (NCDB) (2010–2017) were used to identify patients with non-metastatic esophageal or gastric cancer receiving open surgery (to the esophagus, n = 11,442; stomach, n = 22,183), laparoscopic surgery (to the esophagus [LAMIE], n = 4827; stomach [LAMIG], n = 6359), or robotic surgery (to the esophagus [RAMIE], n = 1657; stomach [RAMIG], n = 1718). The study defined TOs as 15 or more lymph nodes examined, margin-negative resections, hospital stay less than 21 days, no 30-day readmissions, and no 90-day mortalities. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox analyses were used to account for treatment selection bias.

Results

Patients receiving robotic surgery were more commonly treated in high-volume academic centers with advanced clinical T and N stage disease. From 2010 to 2017, TO rates increased for esophageal and gastric cancer treated via all surgical techniques. Compared with open surgery, significantly higher TO rates were associated with RAMIE (odds ratio [OR], 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27–1.58) and RAMIG (OR 1.30; 95% CI 1.17–1.45). For esophagectomy, long-term survival was associated with both TO (hazard ratio [HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.60–0.67) and RAMIE (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.84–1.00). For gastrectomy, long-term survival was associated with TO (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.56–0.60) and both LAMIG (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.85–0.94) and RAMIG (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.81–0.96). Subset analysis in high-volume centers confirmed similar findings.

Conclusion

Despite potentially adverse learning curve effects and more advanced tumor stages captured during the study period, both RAMIE and RAMIG performed in mostly high-volume centers were associated with improved TO and long-term survival. Therefore, consideration for wider adoption but a well-designed phase 3 randomized controlled trial (RCT) is required for a full evaluation of the benefits conferred by robotic techniques for esophageal and gastric cancers.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1245/s10434-021-11082-y.

Racial Disparities in Esophageal Cancer

Esophageal cancer is a deadly cancer. Advances in multimodal treatment have improved esophageal cancer outcomes. Advancements have not benefited all races equally. Major disparities in esophageal cancer outcomes exist. Minorities undergo fewer surgical resections of esophageal cancer and have poorer outcomes.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Medicare Advantage Networks and Access to High-volume Cancer Surgery Hospitals

OBJECTIVE

To determine how Medicare Advantage (MA) health plan networks impact access to high-volume hospitals for cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND

Cancer surgery at high-volume hospitals is associated with better short- and long-term outcomes. In the United States, health insurance is a major detriment to seeking care at high-volume hospitals. A third of older (>65 years) Americans are enrolled in privatized MA health plans. The impact of MA plan networks on access to high-volume surgery hospitals is unknown.

METHODS

We analyzed in-network hospitals for MA plans offered in Los Angeles county during open enrollment of 2015. For the purposes of this analysis, MA network data from provider directories were linked to hospital volume data from California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. Volume thresholds were based on published literature.

RESULTS

A total of 34 MA plans enrolled 554,754 beneficiaries in Los Angeles county during 2014 open enrollment for coverage starting in 2015 (MA penetration ∼43%). The proportion of MA plans that included high-volume cancer surgery hospital varied by the type of cancer surgery. While most plans (>71%) included at least one high-volume hospital for colon, rectum, lung, and stomach; 59% to 82% of MA plans did not include any high-volume hospitals for liver, esophagus, or pancreatic surgery. A significant proportion of beneficiaries in MA plans did not have access to high-volume hospitals for esophagus (93%), stomach (44%), liver (39%), or pancreas (70%) surgery. In contrast, nearly all MA beneficiaries had access to at least one high-volume hospital for lung (93%), colon (100%), or rectal (100%) surgery. Overall, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services plan rating or plan popularity were not correlated with access to high-volume hospital (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The study identifies lack of high-volume hospital coverage in MA health plans as a major detriment in regionalization of cancer surgery impacting at least a third of older Americans.

Risk Prediction Model of 90-Day Mortality After Esophagectomy for Cancer

Importance

Ninety-day mortality rates after esophagectomy are an indicator of the quality of surgical oncologic management. Accurate risk prediction based on large data sets may aid patients and surgeons in making informed decisions.

Objective

To develop and validate a risk prediction model of death within 90 days after esophagectomy for cancer using the International Esodata Study Group (IESG) database, the largest existing prospective, multicenter cohort reporting standardized postoperative outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this diagnostic/prognostic study, we performed a retrospective analysis of patients from 39 institutions in 19 countries between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019. Patients with esophageal cancer were randomly assigned to development and validation cohorts. A scoring system that predicted death within 90 days based on logistic regression β coefficients was conducted. A final prognostic score was determined and categorized into homogeneous risk groups that predicted death within 90 days. Calibration and discrimination tests were assessed between cohorts.

Exposures

Esophageal resection for cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction.

Main Outcomes and Measures

All-cause postoperative 90-day mortality.

Results

A total of 8403 patients (mean [SD] age, 63.6 [9.0] years; 6641 [79.0%] male) were included. The 30-day mortality rate was 2.0% (n = 164), and the 90-day mortality rate was 4.2% (n = 353). Development (n = 4172) and validation (n = 4231) cohorts were randomly assigned. The multiple logistic regression model identified 10 weighted point variables factored into the prognostic score: age, sex, body mass index, performance status, myocardial infarction, connective tissue disease, peripheral vascular disease, liver disease, neoadjuvant treatment, and hospital volume. The prognostic scores were categorized into 5 risk groups: very low risk (score, ≥1; 90-day mortality, 1.8%), low risk (score, 0; 90-day mortality, 3.0%), medium risk (score, -1 to -2; 90-day mortality, 5.8%), high risk (score, -3 to -4: 90-day mortality, 8.9%), and very high risk (score, ≤-5; 90-day mortality, 18.2%). The model was supported by nonsignificance in the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. The discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.64-0.72) in the development cohort and 0.64 (95% CI, 0.60-0.69) in the validation cohort.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, on the basis of preoperative variables, the IESG risk prediction model allowed stratification of an individual patient's risk of death within 90 days after esophagectomy. These data suggest that this model can help in the decision-making process when esophageal cancer surgery is being considered and in informed consent.

Simulated Volume-Based Regionalization of Complex Procedures: Impact on Spatial Access to Care

OBJECTIVE

This study simulates the regionalization of pancreatectomies to assess its impact on spatial access in terms of patient driving times.

BACKGROUND

Although policies to regionalize complex procedures to high-volume centers may improve outcomes, the impact on patient access is unknown.

METHODS

Patients who underwent pancreatectomies from 2005 to 2014 were identified from California's statewide database. Round-trip driving times between patients' home ZIP code and hospital addresses were calculated via Google Maps. Regionalization was simulated by eliminating hospitals performing <20 pancreatectomies/yr, and reassigning patients to the next closest hospital that satisfied the volume threshold. Sensitivity analyses were performed for New York and Medicare patients to assess for influence of geography and insurance coverage, respectively.

RESULTS

Of 13,317 pancreatectomies, 6335 (47.6%) were performed by hospitals with <20 cases/yr. Patients traveled a median of 49.8 minutes [interquartile range (IQR) 30.8-96.2] per round-trip. A volume-restriction policy would increase median round-trip driving time by 24.1 minutes (IQR 4.5-53.5). Population in-hospital mortality rates were estimated to decrease from 6.7% to 2.8% (P < 0.001). Affected patients were more likely to be racial minorities (44.6% vs 36.5% of unaffected group, P < 0.001) and covered by Medicaid or uninsured (16.3% vs 9.8% of unaffected group, P < 0.001). Sensitivity analyses revealed a 17.8 minutes increment for patients in NY (IQR 0.8-47.4), and 27.0 minutes increment for Medicare patients (IQR 6.2-57.1).

CONCLUSIONS

A policy that limits access to low-volume pancreatectomy hospitals will increase round-trip driving time by 24 minutes, but up to 54 minutes for 25% of patients. Population mortality rates may improve by 1.5%.

"Tubeless" esophagectomy: Less is more

The esophageal cancer surgery is a complex procedure with elevated rates of both morbidity and mortality, which is why, in order to achieve adequate results, it should be performed in high volume centers, where complete multidisciplinary support is available and recent clinical guidelines are applied. We describe the initial experience and the technique of "tubeless" esophagectomy where esophageal resection and mediastinal lymphadenectomy are performed and no drains nor tubes of any kind are placed, with the aim to decrease the level of surgical aggression, enhance the postoperative comfort and accelerate the patient́s recovery.

Influence of travel burden on tumor classification and survival of head and neck cancer patients

PURPOSE

Cancer patients have to overcome various barriers to obtain diagnostics and treatment at head and neck cancer centers. Travel distance to a specialized hospital may result in psychosocial and financial distress, thus interfering with diagnostics, treatment, and follow-up care. In this study, we have aimed to analyze the association of travel distance with cTNM status, UICC stage at primary diagnosis, and survival outcomes of head and neck cancer (HNC) patients.

METHODS

We have analyzed data of 1921 consecutive HNC patients diagnosed between 2014 and 2019 at the head and neck cancer center of the Comprehensive Cancer Center Ulm (CCCU), Germany. Postal code-based travel distance calculation in kilometers, TNM status, and UICC stage were recorded at initial diagnosis. The assembly of travel distance-related groups (short, intermediate, long-distance) has been investigated. Moreover, group-related survival and recurrence analysis have been performed.

RESULTS

In contrast to observations from overseas, no association of travel distance and higher cTNM status or UICC stage at primary diagnosis has been observed. Furthermore, no significant differences for recurrence-free survival and overall survival by travel distance were detected.

CONCLUSION

In southern Germany, travel distance to head and neck cancer centers seems to be tolerable. Travel burden is not synonymous with travel distance alone but also involves sociodemographic, monetary, and disease-specific aspects as well as accessibility to proper infrastructure of transport and health care system.

Racial disparity in curative treatment and survival from solid-organ cancers

Race is an important prognostic factor affecting allocation to intervention and survival from cancer treatment in the USA. The mechanism of this association is an important area for future investigation.

Travelling to a High-Volume Center Confers Improved Survival in Stage I Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

The association of hospital volume with outcomes has been assessed previously for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but there are limited data on the cumulative effect of travel burden and hospital volume on treatment decisions and survival outcomes. We used the National Cancer Database to evaluate this relationship in early-stage NSCLC.

METHODS

Outcomes of interest were compared between 2 propensity-matched groups with stage I NSCLC: patients in the bottom quartile of distance travelled who underwent surgery at low-volume centers (Local) and those in the top quartile of distance travelled who received surgery at high-volume centers (Distant). Outcomes included type of resection (anatomic or nonanatomic), time to resection (< or ≥8 weeks), number of lymph nodes examined (< or ≥10 nodes) and R0 resection.

RESULTS

We identified 3325 Local patients who travelled 2.3 miles (interquartile range [IQR]: 1.4-3.3 miles) to centers that treated 10.5 (IQR: 6.5-16.5) stage I NSCLCs/year and 3361 Distant patients who travelled 40.0 miles (IQR: 29.1-63.4 miles) to centers treating 56.9 (IQR: 40.1-84.7) stage I NSCLCs/year. Local patients were less likely to receive surgery <8 weeks post-diagnosis, have ≥10 lymph nodes examined during surgery, and undergo an R0 resection (all P < .01). Distant patients had shorter hospital stays and superior median survival, both P < .01.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients travelling longer distances to high-volume centers receive better and more timely surgical care, leading to shorter hospital stays and improved survival outcomes. Regionalization of lung cancer care by improving travel support to larger treatment facilities may help improve early-stage NSCLC outcomes.

Racial Disparities in Rates of Surgery for Esophageal Cancer: a Study from the National Cancer Database

BACKGROUND

Treatment guidelines for stage I-III esophageal cancer indicate that management should include surgery in appropriate patients. Variations in utilization of surgery may contribute to racial differences observed in survival. We sought to identify factors associated with racial disparities in surgical resection of esophageal cancer and evaluate associated survival differences.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with stage I-III esophageal cancer from 2004 to 2015 were identified using the National Cancer Database. Matched patient cohorts were created to reduce confounding. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with receipt of surgery. Multi-level modeling was performed to control for random effects of individual hospitals on surgical utilization.

RESULTS

A total of 60,041 patients were included (4402 black; 55,639 white). After 1:1 matching, there were 5858 patients evenly distributed across race. For all stages, significantly fewer black than white patients received surgery. Black race independently conferred lower likelihood of receiving surgery in single-level multivariable analysis (OR (95% CI); stage I, 0.67 (0.48-0.94); stage II, 0.76 (0.60-0.96); stage III, 0.62 (0.50-0.76)) and after controlling for hospital random effects. Hospital-level random effects accounted for one third of the unexplained variance in receipt of surgery. Risk-adjusted 1-, 3-, and 5-year mortality was higher for patients who did not undergo surgery.

CONCLUSION

Black patients with esophageal cancer are at higher risk of mortality compared to white patients. This increased risk may be influenced by decreased likelihood of receiving surgical intervention for resectable disease, in part because of between-hospital differences. Improving access to surgical care may improve disparities in esophageal cancer survival.

"Tubeless" esophagectomy: Less is more

The esophageal cancer surgery is a complex procedure with elevated rates of both morbidity and mortality, which is why, in order to achieve adequate results, it should be performed in high volume centers, where complete multidisciplinary support is available and recent clinical guidelines are applied. We describe the initial experience and the technique of "tubeless" esophagectomy where esophageal resection and mediastinal lymphadenectomy are performed and no drains nor tubes of any kind are placed, with the aim to decrease the level of surgical aggression, enhance the postoperative comfort and accelerate the patient́s recovery.

Travel distance and overall survival in hepatocellular cancer care

BACKGROUND

Our objective was to assess the relationship between overall survival (OS) and distance travelled to the treating facility for patients undergoing liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma and to determine whether this relationship was dependent upon the structural factors of the treating facility.

METHODS

Using National Cancer Database, we focused on extremes of travel: Local (<12.5 miles to treating facility) and Travel (≥50 miles). We analyzed OS with Cox models; we estimated stratified models to assess interaction between distance and facility characteristics (volume, academic status).

RESULTS

We included 6860 patients. After correction for confounding, distance travelled was not associated with OS (p = 0.444). However, Travel patients treated at high-volume, academic centers had worse OS compared to Local patients (HR 1.54, 95%CI 1.07-2.21); this association was not seen for patients treated at low volume, academic centers (p = 0.708) high volume non-academic centers (p = 0.174) or low volume non-academic centers (p = 515).

CONCLUSION

For those patients treated at high-volume, academic centers, living far from the facility was associated with worse OS. The reasons for this association should be investigated further.

Does Timing of Robotic Esophagectomy Adoption Impact Short-Term Postoperative Outcomes?

BACKGROUND

Robotic esophagectomies are increasingly common and are reported to have superior outcomes compared with an open approach; however, it is unclear if all institutions can achieve such outcomes. We hypothesize that early adopters of robotic technique would have improved short-term outcomes.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database (2010-2016) was used to identify robotic esophagectomies. Early adopters were defined as programs which performed robotic esophagectomies in 2010-2011, late adopters in 2012-2013. Outcomes of esophagectomies performed between 2014 and 2016 were compared and included length of stay, number of lymph nodes evaluated, readmission, conversion rate, and 90-day mortality. Multivariable regressions, accounting for robotic esophagectomy volume, were used to control for confounding factors.

RESULTS

There were 37 early adopters and 35 late adopters. Between 2014 and 2016, 683 robotic esophagectomies were performed: 446 (65.3%) by early adopters and 237 (34.7%) by late adopters. Early adopters were more likely to be academic programs (96.2 versus 72.8%, P < 0.01). Other clinical and demographic variables were similar. Late adopters were found to have decreased a number of lymph nodes evaluated (coefficient -2.407, P = 0.004) compared with early adopters. There were no significant differences in length of stay, readmissions, rate of positive margins, conversion from robotic to open, or 90-day mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

When accounting for robotic esophagectomy volume, late adoption of robotic esophagectomy was associated with a reduced lymph node harvest, but other postoperative outcomes were similar. These data suggest that programs can safely start new robotic esophagectomy programs, but must ensure an adequate case load.

Is long travel distance a barrier to surgical cancer care in the United States? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Travel distance to surgical cancer care is increasing. The relationship between increased travel distance and receipt of surgical cancer care in the United States is not well characterized.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies examining travel distance and receipt of surgery for adult patients in the United States was performed. Literature searches were conducted using PubMed and EMBASE.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included. Only one found lower likelihood of surgery with increasing travel distance. Three studies, all based on hospital-based data, found that increased travel distance was associated with a higher likelihood of receiving surgery. Two studies found no association and one study had mixed findings.

CONCLUSION

We were unable to identify a consistent relationship between travel distance and receipt of surgery. Our results highlight the need for additional research examining how increasing travel distance impacts receipt of surgical cancer care.

Factors Associated With Receipt of Partial Nephrectomy or Minimally Invasive Surgery for Patients With Clinical T1a and T1b Renal Masses: Implications for Regionalization of Care

PURPOSE

To identify factors associated with receipt of partial nephrectomy (PN) and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in patients with clinical T1 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) using the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB).

METHODS

We queried the NCDB from 2010 to 2014 identifying patients treated surgically for cT1a-bN0M0 RCC. Logistic regression was used to examine associations between socioeconomic, clinical, and treatment factors, and receipt of MIS or PN within the T1 patient population.

RESULTS

Our cohort included 69,694 patients (cT1a, n = 44,043; cT1b, n = 25,651). For cT1a tumors, 70% of patients received PN and 65% underwent MIS. For cT1b tumors, 32% of patients received PN and 62% underwent MIS. cT1a and cT1b patients with household income < $62,000, without private insurance, and treated outside academic centers were less likely to receive MIS or PN. cT1a patients traveling > 31 miles were more likely to undergo MIS. For both cT1a/b, the farther a patient traveled for treatment, the more likely a PN was performed.

CONCLUSION

Data showed an increase in utilization of MIS and PN from 2010 to 2014. However, patients in the lowest socioeconomic groups were less likely to travel and were more likely to receive more invasive treatments. On the basis of these findings, additional research is needed into how regionalization of RCC surgery affects treatment disparities.

Treatment Patterns and Distance to Treatment Facility for Soft Tissue Sarcoma of the Extremity

BACKGROUND

The impact that distance traveled to receive treatment has on treatments and outcomes among patients with soft tissue sarcoma (STS) of the extremity has yet to be thoroughly investigated.

METHODS

Information on patients treated for STS of the extremity between 2006 and 2015 was obtained from the National Cancer Database. Patients were stratified into two groups based on median distance traveled to receive treatment. Chi-square tests assessed associations between categorical variables and distance to treatment. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox regression were used to estimate survival.

RESULTS

The sample included 21,763 patients. The mean age was 59.3 y, 54.6% were men, and 83.2% were white. The median distance traveled to the treating facility was 15.6 miles. Compared with patients who traveled <15 miles, those who traveled ≥15 miles were more likely to have undifferentiated rather than well-differentiated tumors (odds ratio [OR], 1.23; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.10-1.37), and stage II rather than stage I disease (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.24). They were also more likely to undergo limb-sparing resection (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.39-1.79) or amputation (OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.44-2.07) rather than no surgery and less likely to have positive margins (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79-0.93). There was no difference in the risk of death between patients who traveled ≥15 miles and those who did not (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.94-1.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Although clinical characteristics and treatments may differ based on distance traveled, survival appears equivalent. Further research into reasons why greater distance traveled is associated with more advanced disease, but comparable survival is warranted.

The Community Oncology and Academic Medical Center Alliance in the Age of Precision Medicine: Cancer Genetics and Genomics Considerations

Recent public policy, governmental regulatory and economic trends have motivated the establishment and deepening of community health and academic medical center alliances. Accordingly, community oncology practices now deliver a significant portion of their oncology care in association with academic cancer centers. In the age of precision medicine, this alliance has acquired critical importance; novel advances in nucleic acid sequencing, the generation and analysis of immense data sets, the changing clinical landscape of hereditary cancer predisposition and ongoing discovery of novel, targeted therapies challenge community-based oncologists to deliver molecularly-informed health care. The active engagement of community oncology practices with academic partners helps with meeting these challenges; community/academic alliances result in improved cancer patient care and provider efficacy. Here, we review the community oncology and academic medical center alliance. We examine how practitioners may leverage academic center precision medicine-based cancer genetics and genomics programs to advance their patients' needs. We highlight a number of project initiatives at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center that seek to optimize community oncology and academic cancer center precision medicine interactions.

Travel distance, hospital volume and their association with ovarian cancer short- and long-term outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To examine patterns of patient travel among women with ovarian cancer and to explore the association between travel distance and short and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

Women with stage II-IV epithelial ovarian cancer diagnosed from 2004 to 2016 who underwent primary surgery were identified in the National Cancer Database. Mixed-effect log-linear models and proportional hazards models were developed to evaluate the association between travel distance and short and long-term outcomes after propensity score weighting. A further analysis was performed to compare patients who traveled a short distance to a low volume center (Local) to patients who traveled farther to a high volume hospital (Travel).

RESULTS

We identified 56,834 patients treated in 1201 hospitals. Hispanic women were 58% and black women 64% less likely than white women to travel to a center in the greatest distance quartile for care. Similarly, Medicaid recipients (vs. commercially insured) were less likely to travel to a quartile four hospital (compared to Q1 of distance traveled). Of all patients, 90-day mortality was significantly lower in patients who traveled farther (Q4 vs. Q1; P < 0.0001). Compared to women in the Local group, patients in the Travel group had a decreased 30-day readmission rate. There was no difference in 30-day, 90-day, or 5-year mortality when comparing the Local to the Travel group.

CONCLUSIONS

Travel distance for ovarian cancer surgery has increased over time. While there may be some short-term benefits in traveling to a regional center for care, there was little difference in long term outcomes based on travel distance.

Quality Assurance, Metrics, and Improving Standards in Rectal Cancer Surgery in the United States

Rectal cancer surgery has seen significant improvement in recent years. This has been possible in part due to focus on surgeon education and training, specific surgical quality metrics, and longitudinal tracking of data through the use of registries. In countries that have implemented such efforts, data has shown significant improvement in outcomes. However, there continues to be significant variation in rectal cancer outcomes and practices worldwide. Just within the United States, county level mortality rates from rectal cancer range from 8-15 per 100,000 to 38-59 per 100,000. In order to continue to improve rectal cancer patient outcomes, there needs to be evidence based guidelines and standards centered around the framework of structure, process, and outcomes. In addition, there must be a feedback system by which programs can continually assess their performance. Obtaining evidence for specific standards and measures can be challenging and requires analyzing available data and literature, some of which may be conflicting. This article evaluates the evolution of metrics and standards used for quality improvement in rectal cancer and ongoing efforts to further improve patient outcomes.

Comparison of survival of stage I-III colon cancer by travel distance and hospital volume

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have demonstrated improved outcomes at high-volume colorectal surgery centers; however, the benefit for patients who live far from such centers has not been assessed relative to local, low-volume facilities.

METHODS

The 2010-2015 National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for patients with stage I-III colon adenocarcinoma undergoing treatment at a single center. A 'local, low-volume' cohort was constructed of 12,768 patients in the bottom quartile of travel distance at the bottom quartile of institution surgical volume and a 'travel, high-volume' cohort of 11,349 patients in the top quartile of travel distance at the top quartile of institution surgical volume.

RESULTS

In unadjusted analysis, patients in the travel cohort had improved rates of positive resection margins (3.7% vs. 5.5%, p < 0.001), adequate lymph-node harvests (92% vs. 83.6%, p < 0.001), and 30- (2.2% vs. 3.9%, p < 0.001) and 90-day mortality (3.7% vs. 6.4%, p < 0.001). On multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusting for patient demographic, tumor, and facility characteristics, the cohorts demonstrated equivalent overall survival (HR: 0.972, p = 0.39), with improved secondary outcomes in the 'travel' cohort of adequate lymph-node harvesting (OR: 0.57, p < 0.001), and 30- (OR 0.79, p = 0.019) and 90-day mortality (OR 0.80, p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with stage I-III colon cancer, traveling to high-volume institutions compared to local, low-volume centers does not convey an overall survival benefit. However, given advantages including 30- and 90-day mortality and adequate lymph-node harvest, nuanced patient recommendations should consider both these differences and the unquantified benefits to local care, including cost, travel time, and support systems.

Centralizing Rectal Cancer Surgery: What Is the Impact of Travel on Patients?

BACKGROUND

It is unclear what impact centralizing rectal cancer surgery may have on travel burden for patients.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the impact of centralizing rectal cancer surgery to high-volume centers on patient travel distance.

DESIGN

This is a population-based study.

SETTINGS

The New York State Cancer Registry and Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System were queried for patients with rectal cancer undergoing proctectomy.

PATIENTS

Patients with stage I to III rectal cancer who underwent surgical resection between 2004 and 2014 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The outcome of interest was travel distance calculated as the straight-line distance between the centroid of the patient residence zip code and the hospital zip code. Mean distance was compared by using the Student t test.

RESULTS

A total of 5860 patients met inclusion criteria. The total number of hospitals performing proctectomies for rectal cancer decreased between 2004 and 2014. The average number of proctectomies performed at high-volume centers (20+ resections/year) increased from 16.6 to 24.4 during this time. The average number of miles traveled by patients was 12.1 miles in 2004, and this increased to 15.4 in 2014. If proctectomies were centralized to high-volume centers, there would be 11 facilities. The mean distance traveled would be 24.5 miles.

LIMITATIONS

This study is subject to the limitations of an administrative data set. There are no patient preference or referral data.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of hospitals performing rectal cancer resections in New York State is decreasing and volume by center is increasing. There was a statistically significant difference in the mean distance traveled by patients over time. If rectal cancer resections were centralized to high-volume centers, the mean travel distance would increase by 9.5 miles. There would be a 321% increase in the number of patients having to travel 50+ miles for surgery. Any plan for centralization in New York State will require careful planning to avoid placing undue travel burden on patients. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B138. CENTRALIZACIÓN DE LA CIRUGÍA DE CÁNCER RECTAL: ¿CUÁL ES EL IMPACTO DEL VIAJE PARA LOS PACIENTES?: No está claro qué impacto puede tener la centralización de la cirugía de cáncer rectal en la carga de viaje para los pacientes.Determinar el impacto de centralizar la cirugía de cáncer rectal en centros de alto volumen sobre la distancia de viaje del paciente.Este es un estudio basado en cohorte poblacional.El Registro de Cáncer del Estado de Nueva York y el Sistema Cooperativo de Planificación e Investigación Estatal fueron consultados para pacientes con cáncer rectal sometidos a proctectomía.Pacientes con cáncer rectal en estadio I-III que se sometieron a resección quirúrgica entre 2004-2014.El resultado de interés fue la distancia de viaje calculada como la distancia en línea recta entre el centroide de la residencia del paciente y el código postal del hospital. La distancia media se comparó mediante la prueba t de Student.Un total de 5,860 pacientes cumplieron los criterios de inclusión. El número total de hospitales que realizaron proctectomías para cáncer rectal disminuyó entre 2004-2014. El número promedio de proctectomías realizadas en centros de alto volumen (más de 20 resecciones/año) aumentó de 16.6 a 24.4 durante este tiempo. El número promedio de millas recorridas por los pacientes fue de 12.1 millas en 2004 y esto aumentó a 15.4 en 2014. Si las proctectomías se centralizaran en centros de alto volumen, habría 11 instalaciones. La distancia media recorrida sería de 24.5 millas.Limitaciones inherentes a un conjunto de datos administrativos. No existen datos sobre preferencia del paciente o sobre referencia de los mismos.El número de hospitales que realizan resecciones de cáncer rectal en Nueva York está disminuyendo y el volumen por centro está aumentando. Hubo una diferencia estadísticamente significativa en la distancia media recorrida por los pacientes a lo largo del tiempo. Si las resecciones por cáncer rectal se centralizaran en centros de gran volumen, la distancia media de viaje aumentaría 9.5 millas. Habría un aumento del 321% en el número de pacientes que tienen que viajar más de 50 millas para la cirugía. Cualquier plan de centralización en Nueva York requerirá una planificación cuidadosa para evitar imponer una carga de viaje excesiva a los pacientes. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B138.

Is Treatment at a High-volume Center Associated with an Improved Survival for Primary Malignant Bone Tumors?

BACKGROUND

Centralization of cancer care to high-volume facilities has been shown to improve the overall survival of patients with soft-tissue sarcomas. Current evidence regarding the impact of increased hospital volume on treatment patterns and survival rates for patients with primary malignant bone tumors remains limited. Understanding the facility volume-outcome relationship for primary malignant bone tumors will further discussion on ways to promote delivery of quality cancer care across the nation.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Is there a difference in overall survival for patients with primary malignant bone tumors undergoing treatment at a high-volume facility (at least 20 patients per year) versus those treated at a low-volume facility (less than 20 patients per year)? (2) Do surgical treatment patterns (limb-salvage versus amputation) and margin status (positive versus negative) vary between high-volume and low-volume facilities?

METHODS

The 2004 to 2015 National Cancer Database was queried using International Classification of Disease for Oncology topographical codes to identify patients undergoing treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiation therapy) for primary malignant bone tumors of the extremities (C40.0-C40.3, C40.8, and C40.9) or pelvis (C41.4). Histologic codes were used to group the tumors into the following categories: osteosarcomas, Ewing's sarcomas, chondrosarcomas, chordomas, and other or unspecified. Patients who did not receive any treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiotherapy) at the reporting facility were excluded from the study. Facility volume was calculated based on the average number of patients per year for the entire study period. A preliminary stratified Cox regression model was used to identify evidence-based thresholds or cutoffs for high-volume and low-volume facilities, while adjusting for differences in patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. We identified high-volume facilities as those treating at least 20 patients per year and low-volume facilities as those treating fewer than 20 patients per year. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to report overall unadjusted 5-year survival rates at high-volume and low-volume facilities. Multivariate Cox regression analyses were used to assess whether undergoing treatment at a high-volume facility was associated with a lower risk of overall mortality, after controlling for differences in baseline demographics, tumor presentation, and treatment characteristics. For patients undergoing surgery, multivariate regression models were used to evaluate whether patients receiving care in a high-volume facility were more likely to receive resections with limb salvage surgery than to receive amputation and whether facility volume was associated with a patient's likelihood of having a positive or negative surgical margin.

RESULTS

A total of 14,039 patients were included, 15% (2115) of whom underwent treatment in a high-volume facility. Patients undergoing treatment at a high-volume facility were more likely to be white, have tumors involving the pelvis, have larger tumor sizes, and have a higher tumor grade at presentation than those undergoing treatment at a low-volume facility. Unadjusted 5-year overall survival rates were greater for high-volume facilities than for low-volume facilities (65% versus 61%; p = 0.003). After controlling for differences in patient demographics, tumor characteristics (including histologic type, grade, stage, size, and location) and treatment factors, we found that patients treated at high-volume facilities had a slightly lower overall mortality risk than those treated at low-volume facilities (hazard ratio 0.85 [95% CI 0.77 to 0.93]; p < 0.001). Patients treated at high-volume facilities were also slightly more likely to undergo resection with limb-salvage surgery to than to undergo amputation (odds ratio 1.34 [95% CI 1.14 to 1.59]; p = 0.001). Patients undergoing surgical treatment at high-volume facilities also had a lower odds of having positive resection margins than those undergoing treatment at low-volume facilities (OR 0.56 [95% CI 0.44 to 0.72]; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing treatment for primary malignant bone tumors at high-volume facilities experience a slightly better overall survival than those receiving treatment at low-volume facilities. Further research questioning the value of care at high-volume facilities is required before sweeping changes in regionalization can be considered.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Treatment of early stage (T1) esophageal adenocarcinoma: Personalizing the best therapy choice

Esophagectomy is considered the primary form of management for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC); however, the surgery is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. For patients with early-stage EAC, endoscopic resection (ER) presents a potential curative treatment option that is less invasive and carries fewer risks procedure related risks, but it is associated with higher rates of cancer recurrence following the procedure. For some patients, age and comorbidities may prevent them from having esophagectomy as a treatment option, while other patients may be operative candidates but do not wish to undergo esophagectomy for a variety of reasons related to their values and preferences. Furthermore, while anxiety of cancer recurrence following ER may significantly diminish a patient’s quality of life (QOL), so might the morbidity surrounding esophagectomy. In addition to considering health status, patient preferences, and impacts on QOL, physicians and patients must also consider what treatments would be both beneficial and available to the patient, considering esophagectomy methods-minimally invasive vs open-or the use of chemoradiotherapy in addition to ER. Our article reviews and summarizes available treatment options for patients with early EAC and their potential effects on the health and wellbeing of patients based on the current data. We conclude with a request for more research of available options for early EAC patients, the conditions that determine when each option should be employed, and their effects not only on patient health but also QOL.

Overcoming a travel burden to high-volume centers for treatment of retroperitoneal sarcomas is associated with improved survival

Background

Guidelines recommend treatment of retroperitoneal sarcomas (RPS) at high-volume centers. However, high-volume centers may not be accessible locally. This national study compared outcomes of RPS resection between local low-volume centers and more distant high-volume centers.

Methods

Patients treated for RPS were identified from the National Cancer Database (1998–2012). Travel distance and annual hospital volume were divided into quartiles. Two groups were identified: (1) short travel to low-volume hospitals (ST/LV), (2) long travel to high-volume hospitals (LT/HV). Outcomes were adjusted for clinical, tumor, and treatment characteristics.

Results

Two thousand five hundred ninety-nine patients met the inclusion criteria. The LT/HV cohort was younger and more often white (p < 0.01). The LT/HV group had more comorbidities, higher tumor grade, and more often radical resections and radiotherapy (all p < 0.05). The ST/LV group underwent significantly more R2 resections (4.4% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.003). Thirty-day mortality was significantly lower in the LT/HV group (1.2% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.0026). Five-year survival was better among the LT/HV group (63% vs. 53%, p < 0.0001). After adjustment, the LT/HV group had a 27% improvement in overall survival (HR 0.73, p = 0.0009).

Conclusions

This national study suggests that traveling to high-volume centers for the treatment of RPS confers a significant short-term and long-term survival advantage, supporting centralized care for RPS.

Do the 2018 Leapfrog Group Minimal Hospital and Surgeon Volume Thresholds for Esophagectomy Favor Specific Patient Demographics?

OBJECTIVE

We examine how esophagectomy volume thresholds reflect outcomes relative to patient characteristics.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Esophagectomy outcomes are associated with surgeon and hospital operative volumes, leading the Leapfrog Group to recommend minimum annual volume thresholds of 7 and 20 respectively.

METHODS

Patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer were identified from the 2007-2013 New York and Florida Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's State Inpatient Databases. Logit models adjusted for patient characteristics evaluated in-hospital mortality, complications, and prolonged length of stay (PLOS). Median surgeon and hospital volumes were compared between young-healthy (age 18-57, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index [ECI] <2) and older-sick patients (age ≥71, ECI >4).

RESULTS

Of 4330 esophagectomy patients, 3515 (81%) were male, median age was 64 (interquartile range 58-71), and mortality was 4.0%. Patients treated by both low-volume surgeons and hospitals had the greatest mortality risk (5.0%), except in the case of older-sick patients mortality was highest at high-volume hospitals with high-volume surgeons (12%). For mortality <1%, annual hospital and surgeon volumes needed were 23 and 8, respectively; mortality rose to 4.2% when volumes dropped to the Leapfrog thresholds of 20 and 7, respectively. Complication rose from 53% to 63% when hospital and surgeon volumes decreased from 28 and 10 to 19 and 7, respectively. PLOS rose from 19% to 27% when annual hospital and surgeon volumes decreased from 27 and 8 to 20 and 7, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Current Leapfrog Group esophagectomy volume guidelines may not predict optimal outcomes for all patients, especially at extremes of age and comorbidities.

The Volume-outcome Relationship in Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation and Implications for Regionalization

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the volume-outcome relationship in kidney transplantation by examining graft and patient outcomes using standardized risk adjustment (observed-to-expected outcomes). A secondary objective was to examine the geographic proximity of low, medium, and high-volume kidney transplant centers in the United States.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The significant survival benefit of kidney transplantation in the context of a severe shortage of donor organs mandates strategies to optimize outcomes. Unlike for other solid organ transplants, the relationship between surgical volume and kidney transplant outcomes has not been clearly established.

METHODS

The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was used to examine national outcomes for adults undergoing deceased donor kidney transplantation from January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2013 (15-year study period). Observed-to-expected rates of graft loss and patient death were compared for low, medium, and high-volume centers. The geographic proximity of low-volume centers to higher volume centers was determined to assess the impact of regionalization on patient travel burden.

RESULTS

A total of 206,179 procedures were analyzed. Compared with low-volume centers, high-volume centers had significantly lower observed-to-expected rates of 1-month graft loss (0.93 vs 1.18, P<0.001), 1-year graft loss (0.97 vs 1.12, P<0.001), 1-month patient death (0.90 vs 1.29, P=0.005), and 1-year patient death (0.95 vs 1.15, P=0.001). Low-volume centers were frequently in close proximity to higher volume centers, with a median distance of 7 miles (interquartile range: 2 to 75).

CONCLUSIONS

A robust volume-outcome relationship was observed for deceased donor kidney transplantation, and low-volume centers are frequently in close proximity to higher volume centers. Increased regionalization could improve outcomes, but should be considered carefully in light of the potential negative impact on transplant volume and access to care.