Association Between Treatment Facility Volume, Therapy Types, and Overall Survival in Patients With Stage IIIA Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Adjuvant treatment of surgically treated bone metastasis patients: association with hospital characteristics and trends over time

Patients with metastatic disease of the bone (MDB) often require surgical stabilization; however, there is not widespread consensus on subsequent adjuvant management. This study aimed to characterize utilization of perioperative adjuvant treatment among MDB patients. We identified 9413 surgically treated MDB patients with primary (breast, kidney, lung, prostate, or multiple myeloma) cancer from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for receipt of chemotherapy, radiation, and bisphosphonates, respectively, in the adjuvant setting (90 days before or after surgery) by hospital characteristics-medical school affiliation, surgery volume, and Commission on Cancer (CoC) accreditation. Trends in treatment utilization by year of surgery were assessed via bar charts and Chi-square tests for trend. Patients surgically treated at major medical schools or high-volume facilities (compared to no medical school affiliation and low volume) had significantly higher odds of receiving radiation and chemotherapy, independent of patient and tumor characteristics (OR (95% CI); medical school: radiation 1.33 (1.19-1.49), chemotherapy 1.15 (1.02-1.30); and high volume: radiation 1.22 (1.11-1.34), chemotherapy 1.11 (1.02-1.22)). Patients surgically treated at CoC-accredited institutions, compared to non-accredited, had significantly higher odds of receiving radiation and bisphosphonates [radiation 1.24 (1.13-1.36); bisphosphonates 1.15 (1.04-1.28)]. Use of chemotherapy and bisphosphonates increased while radiation use declined over the study period from 1991 to 2014. Medical school affiliation, hospital volume, and CoC accreditation are associated with receipt of adjuvant treatment to prevent or manage pathologic fractures in MDB patients. Further investigation is needed to determine whether these associations reflect delivery of optimal care.

European Respiratory Society guideline on various aspects of quality in lung cancer care

This European Respiratory Society guideline is dedicated to the provision of good quality recommendations in lung cancer care. All the clinical recommendations contained were based on a comprehensive systematic review and evidence syntheses based on eight PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) questions. The evidence was appraised in compliance with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Evidence profiles and the GRADE Evidence to Decision frameworks were used to summarise results and to make the decision-making process transparent. A multidisciplinary Task Force panel of lung cancer experts formulated and consented the clinical recommendations following thorough discussions of the systematic review results. In particular, we have made recommendations relating to the following quality improvement measures deemed applicable to routine lung cancer care: 1) avoidance of delay in the diagnostic and therapeutic period, 2) integration of multidisciplinary teams and multidisciplinary consultations, 3) implementation of and adherence to lung cancer guidelines, 4) benefit of higher institutional/individual volume and advanced specialisation in lung cancer surgery and other procedures, 5) need for pathological confirmation of lesions in patients with pulmonary lesions and suspected lung cancer, and histological subtyping and molecular characterisation for actionable targets or response to treatment of confirmed lung cancers, 6) added value of early integration of palliative care teams or specialists, 7) advantage of integrating specific quality improvement measures, and 8) benefit of using patient decision tools. These recommendations should be reconsidered and updated, as appropriate, as new evidence becomes available.

The Influence of Hospital Characteristics on Patient Survival in Surgically Managed Metastatic Disease of Bone: An Analysis of the SEER-Medicare Linked Database

OBJECTIVES

We investigated whether patients receiving surgical treatment for metastatic disease of bone (MDB) at hospitals with higher volume, medical school affiliation, or Commission on Cancer accreditation have superior outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database, we identified 9413 patients surgically treated for extremity MDB between 1992 and 2014 at the age of 66 years or older. Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate the hazards ratios (HR) for 90-day and 1-year mortality and 30-day readmission according to the characteristics of the hospital where bone surgery was performed.

RESULTS

We observed no notable differences in 90-day mortality, 1-year mortality, or 30-day readmission associated with hospital volume. Major medical school affiliation was associated with lower 90-day (HR: 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.80-0.96) and 1-year (HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.87-0.99) mortality after adjustments for demographic and tumor characteristics. Surgical treatment at Commission on Cancer accredited hospitals was associated with significantly higher risk of death at 90 days and 1 year after the surgery. This effect appeared to be driven by lung cancer patients (1-year HR: 1.17, 95% CI: 1.07-1.27).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest surgical management of MDB at lower-volume hospitals does not compromise survival or readmissions. There may be benefit to referral or consultation with an academic medical center in some tumor types or clinical scenarios.

Associations of Healthcare Affordability, Availability, and Accessibility with Quality Treatment Metrics in Patients with Ovarian Cancer

BACKGROUND

Differential access to quality care is associated with racial disparities in ovarian cancer survival. Few studies have examined the association of multiple healthcare access (HCA) dimensions with racial disparities in quality treatment metrics, that is, primary debulking surgery performed by a gynecologic oncologist and initiation of guideline-recommended systemic therapy.

METHODS

We analyzed data for patients with ovarian cancer diagnosed from 2008 to 2015 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database. We defined HCA dimensions as affordability, availability, and accessibility. Modified Poisson regressions with sandwich error estimation were used to estimate the relative risk (RR) for quality treatment.

RESULTS

The study cohort was 7% NH-Black, 6% Hispanic, and 87% NH-White. Overall, 29% of patients received surgery and 68% initiated systemic therapy. After adjusting for clinical variables, NH-Black patients were less likely to receive surgery [RR, 0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70-0.98]; the observed association was attenuated after adjusting for healthcare affordability, accessibility, and availability (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.77-1.08). Dual enrollment in Medicaid and Medicare compared with Medicare only was associated with lower likelihood of receiving surgery (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.97) and systemic therapy (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92-0.97). Receiving treatment at a facility in the highest quartile of ovarian cancer surgical volume was associated with higher likelihood of surgery (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.21).

CONCLUSIONS

Racial differences were observed in ovarian cancer treatment quality and were partly explained by multiple HCA dimensions.

IMPACT

Strategies to mitigate racial disparities in ovarian cancer treatment quality must focus on multiple HCA dimensions. Additional dimensions, acceptability and accommodation, may also be key to addressing disparities.

Association of facility type with overall survival in patients with nonsurgically managed pancreatic cancer

Aim: To investigate the association between receiving treatment at academic centers and overall survival in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients who do not receive definitive surgery of the pancreatic tumor. Methods: Using the National Cancer Database, patients who were diagnosed with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma between 2004 to 2016 were identified. Results: Of 262,209 patients, 101,003 (38.5%) received treatment at academic centers. In the multivariable Cox regression analysis, patients who received treatment at a nonacademic facility had significantly worse overall survival compared with patients who were treated at an academic center (hazard ratio: 1.279; 95% CI: 1.268-1.290; p = 0.001). Conclusion: Compared with treatment at academic centers, treatment at nonacademic centers was associated with significantly worse overall survival in patients with nonsurgically managed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Treatment at Integrated Centers Might Bridge the Academic-Community Survival Gap in Patients With Metastatic Non-Small Cell Carcinoma of the Lung

BACKGROUND

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is responsible for the most cancer-related deaths in the United States. A better understanding of treatment-related disparities and ways to address them are important to improving survival for patients with metastatic NSCLC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis using the National Cancer Database. Included in this analysis were 107,116 patients with metastatic NSCLC who were treated at academic centers (AC), community-based centers (CC), and integrated centers (IC) between 2004 and 2015. The primary end point was overall survival, with comparisons of AC, CC, and IC.

RESULTS

The survival disparity between AC and CC continued to grow over the study period, from a 5.7% difference in 2-year survival to a 7.5% difference. Treatment at IC was initially associated with survival similar to CC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93), however, later in the study period treatment at IC improved (HR, 0.74) outpacing the improvement in survival in CC (HR, 0.82) but not to the same degree as the improvement in AC (HR, 0.64). The improvement in survival at IC was noted predominantly in patients with adenocarcinoma (HR, 0.72; P < .001) but not in squamous-cell carcinoma (HR, 0.89; P value not significant).

CONCLUSION

Treatment of metastatic NSCLC at IC was associated with improved survival during our study period compared with treatment at CC. This appeared to be histology-dependent, suggesting a treatment-related improvement in survival because over this period newer therapies were preferentially available for adenocarcinoma. Integrating care across treatment facilities might be one way to bridge the growing gap in survival between AC and CC.

[Minimum volumes in surgical treatment of lung cancer : A survey of thoracic surgeons in Germany on the introduction of a minimum volume regulation for surgical treatment of lung cancer]

BACKGROUND

The Federal Joint Committee (G‑BA) is currently discussing the introduction of new minimum volume regulations (MVR) in Germany. The present study examined the current opinions of active thoracic surgeons regarding minimum volumes (MV) for the surgical treatment of lung cancer.

METHODS

The participating centers for the online survey were identified on the basis of the thoracic surgery departments in the 2017 hospital directory (Federal Statistical Office), lung cancer centers (German Cancer Society), certified centers of excellence for thoracic surgery (German Society for Thoracic Surgery), hospitals with a focus on lung surgery and German university hospitals. They were asked about the potential effects of MVR on the quality of results and quality of care, economic aspects and the structure of care. Furthermore, a recommendation for MV was requested and possible provisions for exemption were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 145 hospitals (response rate 85%) with 454 thoracic surgeons (response rate 54%) were surveyed. The results showed a high degree of approval for MV to improve the quality of results and 78.4% of the surgeons surveyed expected it to result in centralization of surgical care, although this would not lead to a deterioration in care according to 70.1% of the participants. Approximately 46.1% of the participants expected care to become more economical and 83.3% supported the introduction of an MVR, with the average recommended MV being 67 anatomical lung resections per center per year.

CONCLUSION

An MVR for the surgical treatment of lung cancer met with a high degree of approval among active thoracic surgeons. The MV that was called for (n = 67) was slightly below the prerequisite for primary surgical cases at a certified lung cancer center.

Timeliness of cancer care in a regional Victorian health service: A comparison of high-volume (Lung) and low-volume (oesophagogastric) tumour streams

Background

Timeliness of cancer care is vital for improved survival and quality of life of patients. Service and care centralisation at larger‐volume centres has been associated with improved outcomes. However, there is a lack of systematic data on the impact of tumour stream volume on timeliness of care.

Aims

To investigate and compare timeliness of care for lung cancer, a high‐volume (more commonly diagnosed) tumour stream, and oesophagogastric (OG) cancer, a low‐volume (less commonly diagnosed) tumour stream, at a regional health service in Victoria, Australia.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study comprising random samples of 75 people newly diagnosed with lung cancer (International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems‐10 [ICD‐10] diagnosis codes C34 in the Victorian Cancer Registry [VCR]) and 50 people newly diagnosed with OG cancer (ICD‐10 diagnosis codes C15 or C16 in VCR) at one regional Victorian health service between 2016 and 2017. Binary logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between patient factors and suboptimal timeliness of care.

Results

In comparison to OG cancer patients, lung cancer patients had reduced odds of suboptimal timeliness of care in reference to times outside OCP for referral to diagnosis (OR [95% CI] = 0.34 [0.14 to 0.83]) but increased odds of suboptimal timeliness for diagnosis to treatment (OR [95% CI] = 2.48 [1.01 to 6.09]).

Conclusion

In the low‐volume OG cancer stream, patients had longer wait times from referral to an MDM, where treatment decisions occur, but shorter time to commencement of first treatment. Conversely in the high‐volume lung cancer group, there was delayed initiation of first treatment following presentation at MDM. There is need to explore ways to fast‐track MDM presentation and commencement of therapy among people diagnosed with low‐volume and high‐volume cancers, respectively.

Closing the gap: Contribution of surgical best practices to outcome differences between high- and low-volume centers for lung cancer resection

Background

Clinical outcomes for resected early‐stage non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are superior at high‐volume facilities, but reasons for these differences remain unclear. Understanding these differences and optimizing outcomes across institutions are critical to the management of the increasing incidence of these cases. We evaluated the extent to which surgical best practices account for resected early‐stage NSCLC outcome differences between facilities according to case volume.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study for clinical stage 1 or 2 NSCLC undergoing surgical resection from 2004 to 2013 using the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Surgical best practices (negative surgical margins, lobar or greater resection, lymph node (LN) dissection, and examination of > 10 LNs) were compared between the highest and lowest quartile volumes.

Results

A total of 150,179 patients were included in the cohort (89% white, 53% female, median age 68 years). In a multivariate model, superior overall survival (OS) was observed at highest volume centers compared to lowest volume centers (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.82‐0.96; P = .002). After matching for surgical best practices, there was no significant OS difference (HR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.87‐1.05; P = .32). Propensity score‐adjusted HR estimates indicated that surgical best practices accounted for 54% of the numerical OS difference between low‐volume and high‐volume centers. Each surgical best practice was independently associated with improved OS (all P ≤ .001).

Conclusion

Quantifiable and potentially modifiable surgical best practices largely account for resected early‐stage NSCLC outcome differences observed between low‐ and high‐volume centers. Adherence to these guidelines may reduce and potentially eliminate these differences.

Disparities in guideline-concordant treatment for node-positive, non-small cell lung cancer following surgery

OBJECTIVES

To examine guideline concordance across a national sample and determine the relationship between socioeconomic factors, use of recommended postoperative adjuvant therapy, and outcomes for patients with resected pN1 or pN2 non-small cell lung cancer.

METHODS

All margin-negative pT1-3 N1-2 M0 non-small cell lung cancers treated with lobectomy or pneumonectomy without induction therapy in the National Cancer Database between 2006 and 2013 were included. Use of guideline-concordant adjuvant treatment, defined as chemotherapy for pN1 disease and chemotherapy with or without radiation for pN2 disease, was examined. Multivariable regression models were developed to determine associations of clinical factors with guideline adherence. Survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard analyses.

RESULTS

Of 13,462 patients, 10,113 had pN1 disease and 3349 had pN2 disease. Guideline-concordant adjuvant therapy was used in 6844 (67.7%) patients with pN1 disease and 2622 (78.3%) patients with pN2 disease. After multivariable adjustment, insurance status, older age, pneumonectomy, readmission, and longer postoperative stays were associated with lower likelihood of guideline concordance. Conversely, increased education level, later year of diagnosis, and greater nodal stage were associated with greater concordance. Overall, patients treated with guideline-concordant therapy had superior survival (5-year survival: 51.6 vs 36.0%; hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.70, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Socioeconomic factors, including insurance status and geographic region, are associated with disparities in use of adjuvant therapy as recommended by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. These disparities significantly impact patient survival. Future work should focus on improving access to appropriate adjuvant therapies among the under insured and socioeconomically disadvantaged.