The impact of the ‘hub and spoke’ model of care for lung cancer and equitable access to surgery

Quality of breast surgery care at a comprehensive cancer center and its rural affiliate hospital

BACKGROUND

Cancer centers are increasingly affiliating with rural hospitals to perform surgery. Perioperative and oncologic outcomes for cancer center surgeons operating at rural hospitals are understudied.

METHODS

For patients with non-metastatic breast cancer from a rural catchment area who had oncologic surgery at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center (CC) or its rural affiliate (RA) from 2017 to 2022, we compared perioperative outcomes (composite of surgical site infection, seroma requiring drainage, and reoperation for margins) and receipt of guideline-concordant care (if patient received all applicable treatments) using descriptive statistics and chi-squared tests.

RESULTS

Among 168 patients, 99 had surgery at RA, 60 CC. RA patients were older, higher stage, and more often had lumpectomy. There were no differences in perioperative outcomes (CC 10%, RA 14%, p ​= ​0.445) or guideline concordant care (RA 76%, CC 78%, p ​= ​0.846).

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer center surgeons operating at a rural affiliate had comparable perioperative outcomes and guideline-concordant care.

An International Consensus on Actions to Improve Lung Cancer Survival: A Modified Delphi Method Among Clinical Experts in the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership

BACKGROUND

Research from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) demonstrates that international variation in lung cancer survival persists, particularly within early stage disease. There is a lack of international consensus on the critical contributing components to variation in lung cancer outcomes and the steps needed to optimise lung cancer services. These are needed to improve the quality of options for and equitable access to treatment, and ultimately improve survival.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 9 key informants from ICBP countries. An international clinical network representing 6 ICBP countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, England, Ireland, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales) was established to share local clinical insights and examples of best practice. Using a modified Delphi consensus model, network members suggested and rated recommendations to optimise the management of lung cancer. Calls to Action were developed via Delphi voting as the most crucial recommendations, with Good Practice Points included to support their implementation.

RESULTS

Five Calls to Action and thirteen Good Practice Points applicable to high income, comparable countries were developed and achieved 100% consensus. Calls to Action include (1) Implement cost-effective, clinically efficacious, and equitable lung cancer screening initiatives; (2) Ensure diagnosis of lung cancer within 30 days of referral; (3) Develop Thoracic Centres of Excellence; (4) Undertake an international audit of lung cancer care; and (5) Recognise improvements in lung cancer care and outcomes as a priority in cancer policy.

CONCLUSION

The recommendations presented are the voice of an expert international lung cancer clinical network, and signpost key considerations for policymakers in countries within the ICBP but also in other comparable high-income countries. These define a roadmap to help align and focus efforts in improving outcomes and management of lung cancer patients globally.

The basics of onco-nephrology in the renal clinic

Onconephrology is a rapidly evolving subspecialty that covers all areas of renal involvement in cancer patients. The complexity of the field may benefit from well-defined multidisciplinary management by a dedicated team. Patients with cancer frequently suffer from concurrent chronic kidney disease (CKD), with a prevalence ranging from 12% to 53% at the time of cancer diagnosis. Taking into account the incidence of cancer and the prevalence of CKD in the Italian population, we estimate that about 44,000 patients suffered from both diseases in 2020. Since there is an increasing necessity to address the needs of this population in dedicated outpatient clinics, it is critical to highlight some basic characteristics and to suggest areas of development. Our experience in the nephrological management of cancer patients clearly suggests the need to implement dedicated multidisciplinary teams and to create onconephrology clinics (at least within larger, referral, hospitals). Furthermore, it must be kept in mind that not only is CKD common in cancer patients, but also that the concomitant presence of these two conditions too often excludes cancer patients from clinical trials, thus limiting their access to therapies that could potentially improve their outcomes. Indeed, the Renal Insufficiency and Cancer Medications (IRMA) study found that cancer patients with CKD or on dialysis are often undertreated, or are exposed to either ineffective or toxic anticancer agents. Finally, the aim of this article is to initiate a debate about what an onconephrology outpatient clinic might look like, in order to ensure the highest quality of care for this growing patient population.

Survival Impact of an Enhanced Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Conference in a Regional Community Health Care System

INTRODUCTION

We compared NSCLC treatment and survival within and outside a multidisciplinary model of care from a large community health care system.

METHODS

We implemented a rigorously benchmarked "enhanced" Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Conference (eMTOC) and used Tumor Registry data (2011-2017) to evaluate guideline-concordant care. Because eMTOC was located in metropolitan Memphis, we separated non-MTOC patient by metropolitan and regional location. We categorized National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-concordant treatment as "preferred," or "appropriate" (allowable under certain circumstances). We compared demographic and clinical characteristics across cohorts using chi-square tests and survival using Cox regression, adjusted for multiple testing. We also performed propensity-matched and adjusted survival analyses.

RESULTS

Of 6259 patients, 14% were in eMTOC, 55% metropolitan non-MTOC, and 31% regional non-MTOC cohorts. eMTOC had the highest rates of African Americans (34% versus 28% versus 22%), stages I to IIIB (63 versus 40 versus 50), urban residents (81 versus 78 versus 20), stage-preferred treatment (66 versus 57 versus 48), guideline-concordant treatment (78 versus 70 versus 63), and lowest percentage of nontreatment (6 versus 21 versus 28); all p values were less than 0.001. Compared with eMTOC, hazard for death was higher in metropolitan (1.5, 95% confidence interval: 1.4-1.7) and regional (1.7, 1.5-1.9) non-MTOC; hazards were higher in regional non-MTOC versus metropolitan (1.1, 1.0-1.2); all p values were less than 0.05 after adjustment. Results were generally similar after propensity analysis with and without adjusting for guideline-concordant treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Multidisciplinary NSCLC care planning was associated with significantly higher rates of guideline-concordant care and survival, providing evidence for rigorous implementation of this model of care.

Age-related treatment patterns for stage I NSCLC in three European countries

INTRODUCTION

Surgery is the preferred treatment for patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) while stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) may be applied in patients with major comorbidity or high age. We evaluated the association between age and treatment utilization for early-stage NSCLC in patients diagnosed in 2015-2016 in three European countries.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Information was retrieved from population-based registries in England, Norway and the Netherlands. Treatment patterns and two-year overall survival rates for 105,124 patients with clinical stage I were analysed by age-group.

RESULTS

Surgical resection rates were higher in Norway (55%) and England (53%) than in the Netherlands (47%), and decreased with increasing age. SBRT use was highest in the Netherlands (41%), followed by Norway (29%) and England (12%). In the Netherlands, SBRT was the prevailing treatment in patients aged 70 years or older. In octogenarians, the proportion not receiving curative intent treatment was 53% in England, versus 35% in Norway and 22% in the Netherlands. Two-year survival rates were better for surgery than for SBRT and slightly better in Norway.

CONCLUSION

In patients aged 70 years or older, the proportion not receiving any curative treatment remains substantial, and differs significantly between countries. Measures to address these disparities are needed.

Recent advances in liver transplantation

Liver transplant is a life-saving treatment with 1-year and 5-year survival rates of 90% and 70%, respectively. However, organ demand continues to exceed supply, such that many patients will die waiting for an available organ. This article reviews for the general gastroenterologist the latest developments in the field to reduce waiting list mortality and maximise utilisation of available organs. The main areas covered include legislative changes in organ donation and the new 'opt-out' systems being rolled out in the UK, normothermic machine perfusion to optimise marginal grafts, a new national allocation system to maximise benefit from each organ and developments in patient 'prehabilitation' before listing. Current areas of research interest, such as immunosuppression withdrawal, are also summarised.

The promises and challenges of early non-small cell lung cancer detection: patient perceptions, low-dose CT screening, bronchoscopy and biomarkers

Lung cancer survival statistics are sobering with survival ranking among the poorest of all cancers despite the addition of targeted therapies and immunotherapies. However, improvements in tools for early detection hold promise. The Nederlands–Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek (NELSON) trial recently corroborated the findings from the previous National Lung Screening Trial low‐dose Computerised Tomography (NLST) screening trial in reducing lung cancer mortality. Biomarker research and development is increasing at pace as the molecular life histories of lung cancers become further unravelled. Low‐dose CT screening (LDCT) is effective but targets only those at the highest risk and is burdensome on healthcare. An optimally designed CT screening programme at best will only detect a low proportion of overall lung cancers as only those at very high‐risk meet screening criteria. Biomarkers that help risk stratify suitable patients for LDCT screening, and those that assist in determining which LDCT detected nodules are likely to represent malignant disease are needed. Some biomarkers have been proposed as standalone lung cancer diagnosis tools. Bronchoscopy technology is improving, with better capacity to identify and obtain samples from early lung cancers. Clinicians need to be aware of each early lung cancer detection method’s inherent limitations. We anticipate that the future of early lung cancer diagnosis will involve a synergistic, multimodal approach, combining several early detection methods.

Association of cancer screening and residing in a coal-polluted East Asian region with overall survival of lung cancer patients: a retrospective cohort study

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. The Xuanwei-Fuyuan (XF) region of Yunnan, China has a high incidence of lung cancer from coal-related pollution. Effort to raise public awareness screening for lung cancer has been ongoing. We retrospectively analyzed overall survival (OS) of lung cancer patients of a tertiary cancer center in Yunnan to investigate screening and regional residential status as predictive factors. Consecutive cases of newly diagnosed lung cancer were reviewed. The lung cancer cases diagnosed by screening were more likely to be early-staged and treated by surgery than those diagnosed not by screening. In patients diagnosed not by screening, XF residential status was a significant predictor of improved OS. Frailty model detected significant heterogeneity associated with region of residence in unscreened patients. Potential biases associated with screening were examined by Monte Carlo simulations and sensitivity analyses. Focused effort in cancer screening and increased public awareness of pollution-related lung cancer in XF might have led to early diagnosis and improved OS, and increased investment in health care resources in high risk areas may have produced additional unobserved factors that underlay the association of XF residential status with improved OS in patients diagnosed not by screening.

Value and Quality of Care in Head and Neck Oncology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The concept of value-based health care (VBHC) was articulated more than a decade ago. However, its clinical implementation remains an on-going process and a particularly demanding one for the domain of head and neck cancer (HNC). These cancers often present with fast growing tumors in functionally and cosmetically sensitive sites and afflict patients with differing circumstances and comorbidity. Moreover, the various treatment modalities and protocols have different effects on functional outcomes. Hence, the interpretation of what constitutes VBHC in head and neck oncology remains challenging.

RECENT FINDINGS

This monograph reviews developments in specific aspects of VBHC for HNC patients, including establishment of registries and quality indices (such as infrastructure, process, and outcome indicators). It emphasizes the importance of the multidisciplinary team, "time to treatment intervals," and adherence to guidelines. The discussion addresses major indicators including survival, quality of life and functional outcomes, and adverse events. Also, strengths and weaknesses of nomograms, prognostic and decision models, and variation of care warrant attention. Health care professionals, together with patients, must properly define quality and relevant outcomes, both for the individual patient as well as the HNC population. It is essential to capture and organize the relevant data so that they can be analyzed and the results used to improve both outcomes and value.

Innovation technology in neurorehabilitation: introducing a hub and spoke model to avoid patient “migration” in Sicily

Purpose

In the Italian National Health Service, hospital planning has been influenced by two aspects: patients' freedom to choose their healthcare provider and the equal distribution of centers spread throughout country. Unfortunately, while every Italian region should be able to meet the health needs of its own inhabitants, consistent migration among regions exists, especially from the southern areas of the country, including Sicily. As it has been demonstrated that a hub-and-spoke model (HSM) can provide medical care to even the most rural areas, the aim of this study is to propose a new Sicilian model to avoid patients' migration.

Design, Methodology, Approach

The IRCCS Centro Neurolesi “Bonino-Pulejo” of Messina, together with the Ministry of Health and the Sicilian government, has incorporated an HSM into a Sicilian healthcare program that provides neurological rehabilitation by means of innovative technologies such as robotics.

Findings

The authors expected, thanks to this novel HSM, that patients may benefit from advanced robotic neurorehabilitation even in rural areas, and therefore be properly treated in their own cities, avoiding unnecessary and expensive migrations to other regions and/or countries. Indeed, since the introduction of this model, there has been a reduction in patient migration, especially in the province of Messina, with a reduction of costs for admission outside the region of about 260.000 euros.

Originality/value

The use of innovative technology in the context of the promising HSM will help clinicians increase the intensity of therapies and improve working cost/efficacy, with better functional outcomes in patients.

Is the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey representative? A comparative analysis with the National Lung Cancer Audit

OBJECTIVES

Healthcare systems increasingly recognise the importance of service users' perspectives for improving care organisation and delivery. The English Cancer Patient Experience Survey (CPES) is carried out annually, however, its representativeness within cancer types is unknown. We have explored if the CPES results are representative of people with lung cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We linked cancer registry data across multiple sources to assess how CPES represents sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the National Lung Cancer Audit population, accounting for post-sampling mortality bias. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare people included and not included in CPES.

RESULTS

Of 240,375 people diagnosed (2009-2015), 15,967 (7 %) were included in CPES. Gender and ethnicity were reasonably represented, as were sociodemographic and clinical groupings, although more received anti-cancer treatment (96 % of CPES respondents vs. 56 % of patients nationally; adjusted odds ratio = 10.3, 95 % confidence interval 9.4-11.2 for any anti-cancer treatment) with chemotherapy most over-represented, followed by surgery and then radiotherapy. CPES under-represented older, more socioeconomically deprived, and certain clinical groups, including those with worse performance status, multiple comorbidities, and diagnosis via emergency presentation.

CONCLUSION

CPES includes patients across the sociodemographic and clinical spectrum indicating its value for research and service planning. Unbalanced representation of incident lung cancer cases is a limitation that must be considered in context of using CPES findings to implement service changes. Although half the national lung cancer population who received no anti-cancer treatment do not have their experiences represented, the strength of this dataset is in providing detailed comparisons of patient experiences across different treatment groups.

CT screening for lung cancer: Are we ready to implement in Europe?

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) is already available in certain parts of the world, such as the United States, but not yet in Europe. The recently published European position statement on lung cancer screening has recommended planning for implementation of screening to start within 18-months [1]. Pilot European programmes are already underway, primarily in the United Kingdom (UK), delivering lung cancer screening to their local populations. This review article acknowledges the evidence base for LDCT screening and will discuss the challenges that still need to be overcome in an attempt to answer the question: are we ready to implement in Europe?

Utilizing the Hub-and-Spoke Model to Deliver Quality Breast Imaging in a Large Health System

Healthcare systems are constantly expanding and gaining new territories. This growth is met with challenges in the organization and delivery of quality health care services to a large geographical area. The need for provider and staff coverage at the new sites often outpaces the rate at which additional providers and staff are hired. The need for new technology, equipment, and administrative support to oversee the new sites may also lag. The overall result could compromise patient experience at these outlying locations. The breast imaging division at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center (UHCMC) instituted many changes to support UHCMC's continual growth while focusing on consistent quality of care and optimal patient experience. Changes included adoption of the hub-and-spoke organization-design model and incorporation of the integrated practice unit (IPU) concept. In the hub-and-spoke organization-design model, full services are offered at a central hub, with additional limited services provided at the peripheral spoke sites. The IPU is a dedicated team of clinical and nonclinical personnel providing the full care cycle centered on a specific medical condition such as breast health. The breast imaging hubs and spokes are incorporated into the breast health IPUs to provide uniform quality care across a large health system. The purpose of this article is to describe how the breast imaging division, functioning as members of the breast care IPU, utilized the hub-and-spoke concept to provide quality breast imaging services throughout the expanding health system.

Impact of organisation and specialist service delivery on lung cancer outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Data from the National Lung Cancer Audit (NLCA) often show variation in outcomes between lung cancer units which are not entirely explained by case mix. We explore the association between the organisation of services and patient outcome.

METHODS

Details of service provision were collected via an electronic survey in June 2017. An overall organisational score derived from eleven key service factors from national lung cancer commissioning guidance was calculated for each organisation. The results for each hospital were linked to their patient outcome results from the 2015 NLCA cases. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to link the organisational score to patient outcomes.

RESULTS

Lung cancer unit organisational audit scores varied from 0 to 11. Thirty-eight (29%) units had a score of 0-4, 64 (50%) had a score of 5-7 and 27 (21%) had a score of 8-11. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that, compared with an organisational score of 0-4, patients seen at units with a score of 8-11 had higher 1-year survival (adjusted OR (95% CI)=2.30 (1.04 to 5.08), p<0.001), higher curative-intent treatment rate (adjusted OR (95% CI)=1.62 (1.26 to 2.09), p<0.001) and greater likelihood of receiving treatment within 62 days (adjusted OR (95% CI)=1.49 (1.20 to 1.86), p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

National variation in the provision of services and workforce remain. We provide evidence that adherence to the national lung commissioning guidance has the potential to improve patient outcomes within the current service structure.

Impact of cancer service centralisation on the radical treatment of men with high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer: A national cross-sectional analysis in England

In many countries, specialist cancer services are centralised to improve outcomes. We explored how centralisation affects the radical treatment of high‐risk and locally advanced prostate cancer in the English NHS. 79,085 patients diagnosed with high‐risk and locally advanced prostate cancer in England (April 2014 to March 2016) were identified in the National Prostate Cancer Audit database. Poisson models were used to estimate risk ratios (RR) for undergoing radical treatment by whether men were diagnosed at a regional co‐ordinating centre (‘hub’), for having surgery by the presence of surgical services on‐site, and for receiving high dose‐rate brachytherapy (HDR‐BT) in addition to external beam radiotherapy by its regional availability. Men were equally likely to receive radical treatment, irrespective of whether they were diagnosed in a hub (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91–1.08). Men were more likely to have surgery if they were diagnosed at a hospital with surgical services on site (RR 1.24, 1.10–1.40), and more likely to receive additional HDR‐BT if they were diagnosed at a hospital with direct regional access to this service (RR 6.16, 2.94–12.92). Centralisation of specialist cancer services does not affect whether men receive radical treatment, but it does affect treatment modality. Centralisation may have a negative impact on access to specific treatment modalities.

What's new?

More than one‐quarter of men with high‐risk or locally advanced prostate cancer in England do not receive radical treatment with radiotherapy or surgery, potentially owing to differences in treatment access. Here, prostate cancer service centralisation in England was investigated for potential impacts on treatment access. Among English patients in the National Prostate Cancer Audit database, centralisation had no impact on decisions to use radical treatment. It did, however, affect treatment option availability, with potential consequences for patient outcome. Patients were more likely to undergo surgery or high dose‐rate brachytherapy when diagnosed at hospitals with direct links to these services.

Achieving Thoracic Oncology data collection in Europe: a precursor study in 35 Countries

BACKGROUND

A minority of European countries have participated in international comparisons with high level data on lung cancer. However, the nature and extent of data collection across the continent is simply unknown, and without accurate data collection it is not possible to compare practice and set benchmarks to which lung cancer services can aspire.

METHODS

Using an established network of lung cancer specialists in 37 European countries, a survey was distributed in December 2014. The results relate to current practice in each country at the time, early 2015. The results were compiled and then verified with co-authors over the following months.

RESULTS

Thirty-five completed surveys were received which describe a range of current practice for lung cancer data collection. Thirty countries have data collection at the national level, but this is not so in Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Italy, Spain and Switzerland. Data collection varied from paper records with no survival analysis, to well-established electronic databases with links to census data and survival analyses.

CONCLUSION

Using a network of committed clinicians, we have gathered validated comparative data reporting an observed difference in data collection mechanisms across Europe. We have identified the need to develop a well-designed dataset, whilst acknowledging what is feasible within each country, and aspiring to collect high quality data for clinical research.

Recent advances in the management of lung cancer

Historically, the prognosis for individuals diagnosed with lung cancer has been bleak. However, the past 10 years have seen important advances in treatment and diagnosis which have translated into the first improvements seen in lung cancer survival. This review highlights the major advances in treatments with curative intent, systemic targeted therapies, palliative care and early diagnosis in lung cancer. We discuss the pivotal research that underpins these new technologies/strategies and their current position in clinical practice.

Geographical variations in the use of cancer treatments are associated with survival of lung cancer patients

Introduction

Lung cancer outcomes in England are inferior to comparable countries. Patient or disease characteristics, healthcare-seeking behaviour, diagnostic pathways, and oncology service provision may contribute. We aimed to quantify associations between geographic variations in treatment and survival of patients in England.

Methods

We retrieved detailed cancer registration data to analyse the variation in survival of 176,225 lung cancer patients, diagnosed 2010-2014. We used Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression to investigate survival in the two-year period following diagnosis.

Results

Survival improved over the period studied. The use of active treatment varied between geographical areas, with inter-quintile ranges of 9%–17% for surgical resection, 4%–13% for radical radiotherapy, and 22%–35% for chemotherapy. At 2 years, there were 188 potentially avoidable deaths annually for surgical resection, and 373 for radical radiotherapy, if all treated proportions were the same as in the highest quintiles. At the 6 month time-point, 318 deaths per year could be postponed if chemotherapy use for all patients was as in the highest quintile. The results were robust to statistical adjustments for age, sex, socio-economic status, performance status and co-morbidity.

Conclusion

The extent of use of different treatment modalities varies between geographical areas in England. These variations are not attributable to measurable patient and tumour characteristics, and more likely reflect differences in clinical management between local multi-disciplinary teams. The data suggest improvement over time, but there is potential for further survival gains if the use of active treatments in all areas could be increased towards the highest current regional rates.

Impact of distance from surgery department on the outcome of patients followed for non-small-cell lung cancer in the respiratory department of nonacademic hospitals: Results of the KBP-2010-study

OBJECTIVE

Increased postoperative mortality in low volume centers has contributed to merge and space thoracic surgical centers. Some studies have showed that the likelihood of receiving surgery was lower in lung cancer patients living far from a thoracic surgery center. Our objective was thus to determine whether surgery and survival rates in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were influenced by the distance between the respiratory and thoracic surgery departments.

METHODS

KBP-2010-CPHG is a prospective multicenter epidemiological study including 6083 patients followed in 104 nonacademic hospitals for primary NSCLC diagnosed in 2010. Distance between respiratory and thoracic surgery departments were obtained retrospectively. Predictive factors for surgery and mortality were identified by logistic regression and Cox hazard model.

RESULTS

Twenty-three percent of hospitals had a thoracic surgery department; otherwise, mean distance between the hospital and the surgery center was 65km. Nineteen percent of patients underwent surgery. Distance was neither an independent factor for surgery (odds-ratios [95% CI]: 0.971 [0.74-1.274], 0.883 [0.662-1.178], and 1.015 [0.783-1.317] for 1-34, 35-79, and ≥80km vs. 0km) nor for mortality (hazard-ratios [95% CI]: 1.020 [0.935-1.111], 1.003 [0.915-1.099], and 1.006 [0.927-1.091]) (P>0.05).

DISCUSSION

This result supports the French national strategy which merges surgery departments and should reassure patients (and physicians) who could be afraid to be lately addressed to surgery or loose chance when being followed far from the thoracic surgical center.

Impact of hepatobiliary service centralization on treatment and outcomes in patients with colorectal cancer and liver metastases

Background

Centralization of specialist surgical services can improve patient outcomes. The aim of this cohort study was to compare liver resection rates and survival in patients with primary colorectal cancer and synchronous metastases limited to the liver diagnosed at hepatobiliary surgical units (hubs) with those diagnosed at hospital Trusts without hepatobiliary services (spokes).

Methods

The study included patients from the National Bowel Cancer Audit diagnosed with primary colorectal cancer between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2014 who underwent colorectal cancer resection in the English National Health Service. Patients were linked to Hospital Episode Statistics data to identify those with liver metastases and those who underwent liver resection. Multivariable random‐effects logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio of liver resection by presence of specialist hepatobiliary services on site. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method.

Results

Of 4547 patients, 1956 (43·0 per cent) underwent liver resection. The 1081 patients diagnosed at hubs were more likely to undergo liver resection (adjusted odds ratio 1·52, 95 per cent c.i. 1·20 to 1·91). Patients diagnosed at hubs had better median survival (30·6 months compared with 25·3 months for spokes; adjusted hazard ratio 0·83, 0·75 to 0·91). There was no difference in survival between hubs and spokes when the analysis was restricted to patients who had liver resection (P = 0·620) or those who did not undergo liver resection (P = 0·749).

Conclusion

Patients with colorectal cancer and synchronous metastases limited to the liver who are diagnosed at hospital Trusts with a hepatobiliary team on site are more likely to undergo liver resection and have better survival.

Better survival

High lung cancer surgical procedure volume is associated with shorter length of stay and lower risks of re-admission and death: National cohort analysis in England

It is debated whether treating cancer patients in high-volume surgical centres can lead to improvement in outcomes, such as shorter length of hospital stay, decreased frequency and severity of post-operative complications, decreased re-admission, and decreased mortality. The dataset for this analysis was based on cancer registration and hospital discharge data and comprised information on 15,738 non-small-cell lung cancer patients resident and diagnosed in England in 2006-2010 and treated by surgical resection. The number of lung cancer resections was computed for each hospital in each calendar year, and patients were assigned to a hospital volume quintile on the basis of the volume of their hospital. Hospitals with large lung cancer surgical resection volumes were less restrictive in their selection of patients for surgical management and provided a higher resection rate to their geographical population. Higher volume hospitals had shorter length of stay and the odds of re-admission were 15% lower in the highest hospital volume quintile compared with the lowest quintile. Mortality risks were 1% after 30 d and 3% after 90 d. Patients from hospitals in the highest volume quintile had about half the odds of death within 30 d than patients from the lowest quintile. Variations in outcomes were generally small, but in the same direction, with consistently better outcomes in the larger hospitals. This gives support to the ongoing trend towards centralisation of clinical services, but service re-organisation needs to take account of not only the size of hospitals but also referral routes and patient access.