Does Center Volume Correlate with Survival from Breast Cancer?

Higher relative survival in breast cancer patients treated in certified and high-volume breast cancer centres - A population-based study in Belgium

OBJECTIVES

The study was undertaken to assess the association between certification and volume of breast centres on the one hand and survival on the other in patients with invasive breast cancer (IBC).

METHODS

The study comprises a cohort of 46,035 patients diagnosed with IBC between 2014 and 2018, selected from the nation-wide Belgian Cancer Registry (BCR) database, which was linked with health insurance, hospital discharge and vital status data. Overall and relative survival probabilities were obtained with Kaplan-Meier method and an actuarial approach based on Ederer II, respectively. The associations between centre certification/volume and relative survival were assessed using Poisson models, adjusted for potential confounders.

RESULTS

Five years after the diagnosis of IBC, the observed and relative survival probabilities for the cohort were 83.4 % (95 %CI: [83.1, 83.8]) and 93.3 % (95 %CI: [92.9, 93.7]), respectively. After adjustment for age and combined tumour stage, the risk to die from BC was 44 % higher (EHR: 1.44, 95 %CI: [1.24, 1.66]) for patients treated in a low-volume centre and 30 % higher (EHR: 1.30, 95 %CI: [1.14, 1.48]) for patients treated in a medium-volume centre, compared to high-volume centres. Likewise, the risk to die from BC was 30 % higher (EHR: 1.30, 95 %CI: [1.15, 1.48], p < 0.001) for patients treated in a non-certified centre (representing 23.8 % of the cohort), compared to patients treated in a coordinating breast clinic.

CONCLUSION

This population-based study reveals that BC survival is higher when patients are treated in certified and high-volume breast clinics.

Associations of hospital volume and hospital competition with short-term, middle-term and long-term patient outcomes after breast cancer surgery: a retrospective population-based study

OBJECTIVES

For oncological care, there is a clear tendency towards centralisation and collaboration aimed at improving patient outcomes. However, in market-based healthcare systems, this trend is related to the potential trade-off between hospital volume and hospital competition. We analyse the association between hospital volume, competition from neighbouring hospitals and outcomes for patients who underwent surgery for invasive breast cancer (IBC).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Surgical margins, 90 days re-excision, overall survival.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS

In this population-based study, we use data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Our study sample consists of 136 958 patients who underwent surgery for IBC between 2004 and 2014 in the Netherlands.

RESULTS

Our findings show that treatment types as well as patient and tumour characteristics explain most of the variation in all outcomes. After adjusting for confounding variables and intrahospital correlation in multivariate logistic regressions, hospital volume and competition from neighbouring hospitals did not show significant associations with surgical margins and re-excision rates. For patients who underwent surgery in hospitals annually performing 250 surgeries or more, multilevel Cox proportional hazard models show that survival was somewhat higher (HR 0.94). Survival in hospitals with four or more (potential) competitors within 30 km was slightly higher (HR 0.97). However, this effect did not hold after changing this proxy for hospital competition.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the selection of patient outcomes, hospital volume and regional competition appear to play only a limited role in the explanation of variation in IBC outcomes across Dutch hospitals. Further research into hospital variation for high-volume tumours like the one studied here is recommended to (i) use consistently measured quality indicators that better reflect multidisciplinary clinical practice and patient and provider decision-making, (ii) include more sophisticated measures for hospital competition and (iii) assess the entire process of care within the hospital, as well as care provided by other providers in cancer networks.

Analyzing the effect of physician assignment in the survival of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

Background

Non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc) is the most common cause of cancer deaths worldwide, with a 5-year survival of 17%. The low survival rate observed in patients with nsclc is primarily attributable to advanced stage of disease at diagnosis, with more than 50% of cases being stage iv at presentation. For patients with advanced disease, palliative systemic therapy can improve overall survival (os); however, a recent review at our institution of more than 500 consecutive cases of advanced nsclc demonstrated that only 55% of the patients received palliative systemic therapy. What is unknown to date is whether that observed low rate of systemic therapy in our previous study is uniform across oncologists.

Methods

With ethics approval, we performed a retrospective analysis of newly diagnosed patients with stage iv nsclc seen as outpatients at our institution between 2009 and 2012 by 4 different oncologists. Demographics, treatment, and survival data were collected and compared for the 4 oncologists.

Results

The 4 oncologists saw 528 patients overall, with D seeing 115; L, 158; R, 137; and M, 118. Significant variation was observed in the proportion receiving 1 line or more of chemotherapy: D, 60%; L, 65%; R, 43%; and M, 52%. Physician assignment was not associated with a difference in median os, with D's cohort having a median os of 6.8 months; L, 8.4 months; R, 7.0 months; and M, 7.0 months.

Conclusions

Practice size and proportion of patients treated varied between oncologists, but those differences did not translate into significantly different survival outcomes for patients.

The Effect of Hospital Volume on Breast Cancer Mortality

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine whether hospital volume was associated with mortality in breast cancer, and what thresholds of case volume impacted survival.

BACKGROUND

Prior literature has demonstrated improved survival with treatment at high volume centers among less common cancers requiring technically complex surgery.

METHODS

All adults (18 to 90 years) with stages 0-III unilateral breast cancer diagnosed from 2004 to 2012 were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Cancer Data Base (NCDB). A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model with restricted cubic splines was used to examine the association of annual hospital volume and overall survival, after adjusting for measured covariates. Intergroup comparisons of patient and treatment characteristics were conducted with X and analysis of variance (ANOVA). The log-rank test was used to test survival differences between groups. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) associated with each volume group.

RESULTS

One million sixty-four thousand two hundred and fifty-one patients met inclusion criteria. The median age of the sample was 60 (interquartile range 50 to 70). Hospitals were categorized into 3 groups using restricted cubic spline analysis: low-volume (<148 cases/year), moderate-volume (148 to 298 cases/year), and high-volume (>298 cases/year). Treatment at high volume centers was associated with an 11% reduction in overall mortality for all patients (HR 0.89); those with stage 0-I, ER+/PR+ or ER+/PR- breast cancers derived the greatest benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment at high volume centers is associated with improved survival for breast cancer patients regardless of stage. High case volume could serve as a proxy for the institutional infrastructure required to deliver complex multidisciplinary breast cancer treatment.

Overall survival is similar between women who seek care at one or more institutions after diagnosis of operable breast cancer in the community

BACKGROUND

As breast cancer diagnoses increase, so does the number of patients who are critically evaluating hospital attributes to determine where to receive their treatment. Evidence suggests that complex surgeries have better outcomes in high volume academic centers. Whether clinical outcomes of women diagnosed with operable breast cancer, who are treated by multiple disciplines including non-complex surgical approaches, differ for those received all or part of their treatment at their community cancer center is unclear. We hypothesize that the clinical outcomes do not differ for those who received all or part of their care at their community cancer center. Our aim is to analyze data from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to assess the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients who received all their treatment at community cancer center when compared with those who had part or all of their care elsewhere.

METHODS

A cohort of 162,803 women diagnosed at a community cancer center with an operable breast cancer (clinical stage I - III) between 2005 and 2014 from the NCDB was evaluated. Demographics, cancer-specific characteristics and overall survival differences between patients who stay at or leave their home institution for breast cancer treatment were compared.

RESULTS

Within this cohort, patients treated at multiple institutions were younger, traveled further from home for their care, and were more likely to have no comorbidities (p < 0.001). Overall survival adjusted for demographics and cancer stage and subtype did not differ based on treatment at one or multiple institutions.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision for patients to undergo breast cancer treatment in a different institution after being diagnosed in a community center does not appear to impact overall survival.

Case Numbers and Process Quality in Breast Surgery in Germany: A Retrospective Analysis of Over 150,000 Patients From 2013 to 2014

BACKGROUND

Numerous studies from around the world have shown a positive association between case numbers and the quality of medical care. The evidence to date suggests that conformity to guidelines for the treatment of patients with breast cancer is better in German hospitals that have higher case numbers.

METHODS

We used data obtained by an external program for quality assurance in inpatient care (externe stationäre Qualitätssicherung, esQS) for the years 2013 and 2014 to investigate seven process indicators in the area of breast surgery, including histologic confirmation of the diagnosis before definitive treatment, axillary dissection as recommended by the guidelines, and an appropriate temporal interval between diagnosis and operation. Case numbers were categorized with the aid of various threshold values. Moreover, subgroup analyses were carried out for patients under age 65, patients in good general health, patients without lymph-node involvement, and patients with a tumor size pT0 or pT1 or an overall tumor size less than 5 cm.

RESULTS

Data on 153,475 patients from 939 hospitals were analyzed. Six of seven indicators had values that were better overall, to a statistically significant extent, in hospitals with higher case numbers. Although this relationship was not consistently seen, the worst results were generally found in the category with the lowest case numbers. Similar though less striking results were obtained in the subgroup analyses. An exception to the general finding was that, in hospitals with higher case numbers, the interval between diagnosis and operation was more often longer than three weeks.

CONCLUSION

Guideline adherence is higher in hospitals that treat more cases. The present study does not address the question whether this, in turn, affects morbidity or mortality. To improve process quality in peripheral hospitals, the quality assurance program should be continued.

Influence of patient, physician, and hospital characteristics on the receipt of guideline-concordant care for inflammatory breast cancer

PURPOSE

Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is an aggressive subtype of breast cancer for which treatments vary, so we sought to identify factors that affect the receipt of guideline-concordant care.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with IBC in 2004 were identified from the Breast and Prostate Cancer Data Quality and Patterns of Care Study, containing information from cancer registries in seven states. Variation in guideline-concordant care for IBC, based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, was assessed according to patient, physician, and hospital characteristics.

RESULTS

Of the 107 IBC patients in the study without distant metastasis at the time of diagnosis, only 25.8% received treatment concordant with guidelines. Predictors of non-concordance included patient age (≥70 years), non-white race, normal body mass index (BMI 18.5-25 kg/m(2)), patients with physicians graduating from medical school >15 years prior, and smaller hospital size (<200 beds). IBC patients survived longer if they received guideline-concordant treatment based on either 2003 (p=0.06) or 2013 (p=0.06) NCCN guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Targeting factors associated with receipt of care that is not guideline-concordant may reduce survival disparities in IBC patients. Prompt referral for neoadjuvant chemotherapy and post-operative radiation therapy is also crucial.

What is the minimum number of patients for quality control of lung cancer management in Norway?

INTRODUCTION

There are few data available on the optimal number of lung cancer patients needed to generate and compare estimates of quality between units managing lung cancer. The number of lung cancer patients per management unit varies considerably in Norway, where there are 42 hospitals that treated between 1 and 454 lung cancer patients in 2011.

AIMS

To estimate the differences in quality indicators that are of sufficient importance to change a pulmonary physician's lung cancer management program, and to estimate the size of the patient samples necessary to detect such differences.

METHOD

Twenty-six physicians were asked about the relative differences from a national average of quality indicators that would change their own lung cancer management program. Sample sizes were calculated to give valid estimates of quality of a management unit based on prevalence of quality indicators and minimally important differences (MID).

RESULTS

The average MID in quality indicators that would cause a change in management varied from 18% to 24% among 26 chest physicians, depending on the indicator.

CONCLUSIONS

To generate precise estimates for quality control of lung cancer care in Norway, the number of management units must be reduced. Given the present willingness of chest physicians to change their procedures for management of lung cancer according to the results of quality control indicators, we recommend a maximum of 10 units with a minimum of 200 incident lung cancer patients per year for each management center.

Survival from breast cancer: an analysis of Australian data by surgeon case load, treatment centre location, and health insurance status

OBJECTIVE

Early invasive breast cancer data from the Australian National Breast Cancer Audit were used to compare case fatality by surgeon case load, treatment centre location and health insurance status.

METHOD

Deaths were traced to 31 December 2007, for cancers diagnosed in 1998-2005. Risk of breast cancer death was compared using Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

When adjustment was made for age and clinical risk factors: (i) the relative risk of breast cancer death (95% confidence limit) was lower when surgeons' annual case loads exceeded 20 cases, at 0.87 (0.76, 0.995) for 21-100 cases and 0.83 (0.72, 0.97) for higher case loads. These relative risks were not statistically significant when also adjusting for treatment centre location (P ≥ 0.15); and (ii) compared with major city centres, inner regional centres had a relative risk of 1.32 (1.18, 1.48), but the risk was not elevated for more remote sites at 0.95 (0.74, 1.22). Risk of death was not related to private insurance status.

CONCLUSION

Higher breast cancer mortality in patients treated in inner regional than major city centres and in those treated by surgeons with lower case loads requires further study.

Mechanisms of improved outcomes for breast cancer between surgical oncologists and general surgeons

BACKGROUND

Prior multi-institutional studies have reported a survival benefit of breast cancer treatment by surgical oncologists (SO) over general surgeons (GS).

METHODS

Retrospective review tumor registry data of all breast cancer patients receiving primary treatment at a single institution from January 1, 1995, to December 31, 2008.

RESULTS

During the time period, there were 2192 patients who received primary breast cancer treatment at this institution. The mean age was 57 years and the mean follow-up was >55 months. Stage distribution was similar between GS and SO. Overall survival (SO 83.8% vs. GS 75.6%) and disease-free survival (SO 80.7% vs. GS 72.0%) was highly statistically significant (P<0.0001). For stages 1, 2a, 2b, 3a, and 3b there were statistically significant (P<0.05) differences for overall and disease-free survival. Overall, the use of breast conservation was more likely by SO-52.6 vs. 38.3% all stages and 65.8 vs. 54.0% for stage 0-2. The compliance with all systemic therapies (chemotherapy and hormone therapy) was more likely if being treated by SO-77.3 vs. 68.5% (P<0.02). The use of radiotherapy for breast conservation and in stage 3 mastectomy patients was higher for SO (P<0.001). Participation in clinical trials was far higher for SO patients-56.2 vs. GS 7.0% (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The value added by having primary breast cancer treatment by a SO seems to arise from the more successful completion of multidisciplinary care in a timely fashion and higher rates of clinical trial involvement.