What underlies the observed hospital volume-outcome relationship?

Patient access to perioperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin and docetaxel in patients with resectable gastric cancer in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

The FLOT4 trial demonstrated superior survival of perioperative chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel (FLOT) compared to anthracycline triplets for resectable gastric cancer. These results were presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) congress in June 2017 and published in April 2019. However, adoption of novel treatments in clinical practice often encounters delays. This study assesses the patterns of perioperative chemotherapy utilization and FLOT uptake in clinical practice within the Netherlands.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted with resectable gastric cancer patients (cT1-4a,XcNallcM0) between 2015-2020 from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Descriptive statistics, Cochran-Armitage tests, Fisher's exact or unpaired T-tests, and Jonckheere-Terpstra tests were used to analyze chemotherapy trends and FLOT uptake across hospitals.

RESULTS

Among 3290 included patients, 42.9 % received neoadjuvant treatment. In 2015, 43.6 % of patients received perioperative chemotherapy versus 43.5 % in 2020 (p = 0.63). 40 out of 62 hospitals (64.5 %) adopted FLOT between the ASCO presentation and the full publication. FLOT increased from 42.9 % before publication to 86.8 % after publication (p < 0.0001), while anthracycline triplet use decreased to 0.9 % (p < 0.0001). Higher hospital volume was associated with fewer days to adoption (p = 0.04) but not with adoption of FLOT before publication (p = 0.14).

CONCLUSION

Timing of FLOT adoption varied among Dutch hospitals, leading to unequal patient access to effective treatments. Establishing (inter)national guidelines on provisional treatment adjustment pending publication is crucial to reduce variation in access. Moreover, rapid publication of final trial results is imperative to reduce variation in practice and ensure fair patient treatment.

Understanding the Influence of Hospital Volume on Inpatient Outcomes Following Hospitalization for Status Epilepticus

BACKGROUND

Prior studies show hospital admission volume to be associated with poor outcomes following elective procedures and inpatient medical hospitalizations. However, it is unknown whether hospital volume impacts Inpatient outcomes for status epilepticus (SE) hospitalizations. In this study, we aimed to assess the impact of hospital volume on the outcome of patients with SE and related inpatient medical complications.

METHODS

The 2005 to 2013 National Inpatient Sample database was queried using International Classification of Diseases 9th Edition diagnosis code 345.3 to identify patients undergoing acute hospitalization for SE. The National Inpatient Sample hospital identifier was used as a unique facility identifier to calculate the average volume of patients with SE seen in a year. The study cohort was divided into three groups: low volume (0-7 patients with SE per year), medium volume (8-22 patients with SE per year), and high volume (> 22 patients with SE per year). Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to assess whether medium or high hospital volume had lower rates of inpatient medical complications compared with low-volume hospitals.

RESULTS

A total of 137,410 patients with SE were included in the analysis. Most patients (n = 50,939; 37%) were treated in a low-volume hospital, 31% (n = 42,724) were treated in a medium-volume facility, and 18% (n = 25,207) were treated in a high-volume hospital. Patients undergoing treatment at medium-volume hospitals (vs. low-volume hospitals) had higher odds of pulmonary complications (odds ratio [OR] 1.18 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.12-1.25]; p < 0.001), sepsis (OR 1.24 [95% CI 1.08-1.43] p = 0.002), and length of stay (OR 1.13 [95% CI 1.0 -1.19] p < 0.001). High-volume hospitals had significantly higher odds of urinary tract infections (OR 1.21 [95% CI 1.11-1.33] p < 0.001), pulmonary complications (OR 1.19 [95% CI 1.10-1.28], p < 0.001), thrombosis (OR 2.13 [95% CI 1.44-3.14], p < 0.001), and renal complications (OR 1.21 [95% CI 1.07-1.37], p = 0.002). In addition, high-volume hospitals had lower odds of metabolic (OR 0.81 [95% CI 0.72-0.91], p < 0.001), neurological complications (OR 0.80 [95% CI 0.69-0.93], p = 0.004), and disposition to a facility (OR 0.89 [95% CI 0.82-0.96], p < 0.001) compared with lower-volume hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates certain associations between hospital volume and outcomes for SE hospitalizations. Further studies using more granular data about the type, severity, and duration of SE and types of treatment are warranted to better understand how hospital volume may impact care and prognosis of patients.

Collaborative centralization of gynaecological cancer care

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss the benefits of centralization of gynaecological cancer care on patients and the healthcare system and how to overcome its barriers.

RECENT FINDINGS

Evidence demonstrates that adherence to clinical practice management guidelines is more likely; the risk of adverse events is lower; survival is improved; in young women fertility preservation is higher; and cost effectiveness is higher; in systems that employ centralized care for women with gynaecological cancer. Barriers to the uptake of centralized models include knowledge, attitude as well as deficient systems and processes, including a lack of governance and leadership. Collaborative centralization refers to a model that sees both elements (centralization and treatment closer to home) utilized at the patient level that addresses some of the barriers of centralized gynaecological cancer care.

SUMMARY

Evidence supports centralized gynaecological cancer care, as it results in reduced risks of adverse events, improved survival and higher fertility rates at lower cost to funders. Collaborative centralization is a process that considers both the value of centralization and collaboration amongst healthcare professionals at primary, secondary and tertiary levels of healthcare to benefit patient outcomes.