Literature DB >> 10215817

Influence of volume of work on the outcome of treatment for patients with colorectal cancer.

J M Parry1, S Collins, J Mathers, N A Scott, C B Woodman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recent recommendations for the reorganization of cancer services emphasize the importance of a 'minimal acceptable volume of work'. The influence of both hospital and surgical workload has been examined using a population-based series of patients with colorectal cancer.
METHODS: Nine hundred and twenty-seven patients with primary colorectal cancer diagnosed during the period 1 January to 30 June 1993 were identified from the North Western Regional Cancer Registry. Case notes were reviewed for information on patient age and sex, histological diagnosis, disease stage, degree of tumour differentiation, mode of admission, identity of operating surgeon, timing of operative procedure, and use of radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was then constructed to examine, simultaneously, the effects of patient-, disease- and health service-related variables on survival.
RESULTS: Age, tumour stage and differentiation, and mode of admission were revealed as significant independent prognostic variables. After adjusting for these variables, neither operator grade (consultant versus junior), consultant workload nor hospital throughput were identified as independently influencing patient survival.
CONCLUSION: The results of this study do not support an association between volume of work and patient outcome.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10215817     DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2168.1999.01064.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Surg        ISSN: 0007-1323            Impact factor:   6.939


  21 in total

1.  Reducing the risk of major elective surgery. Paper should have given details on causes of death.

Authors:  S Sudhindran
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-11-20

2.  Surgery for colorectal cancer in a low-volume unit: assessment of key issues in the achievement of acceptable clinical results.

Authors:  Hannu Paimela; Outi Lindström; Timo Tomminen; Mauri Iivonen; Esa Könönen; Pekka Kuusanmäki
Journal:  Int J Gastrointest Cancer       Date:  2005

3.  Relation of surgeon and hospital volume to processes and outcomes of colorectal cancer surgery.

Authors:  Selwyn O Rogers; Robert E Wolf; Alan M Zaslavsky; William E Wright; John Z Ayanian
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  [Structures and volume standards in colon and rectal surgery].

Authors:  U J Roblick; R Keller; P Hildebrand; R Czymek; H-P Bruch
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 0.955

5.  Volume-outcome relationship in rectal cancer surgery: a new perspective.

Authors:  Hideo Yasunaga; Yutaka Matsuyama; Kazuhiko Ohe
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2009-07-29       Impact factor: 2.549

6.  Examining the transferability of colon and rectal operative experience on outcomes following laparoscopic rectal surgery.

Authors:  Jennie K Lee; Aristithes G Doumouras; Jeremy E Springer; Cagla Eskicioglu; Nalin Amin; Margherita Cadeddu; Dennis Hong
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-06-10       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Systematic review and a meta-analysis of hospital and surgeon volume/outcome relationships in colorectal cancer surgery.

Authors:  Ya Ruth Huo; Kevin Phan; David L Morris; Winston Liauw
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2017-06

8.  Effects of hospital and surgeon volumes on operating times, postoperative complications, and length of stay following laparoscopic colectomy.

Authors:  Hideo Yasunaga; Yutaka Matsuyama; Kazuhiko Ohe
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2009-11-01       Impact factor: 2.549

9.  Hospital and surgeon procedure volume as predictors of outcome following rectal cancer resection.

Authors:  Deborah Schrag; Katherine S Panageas; Elyn Riedel; Laura D Cramer; Jose G Guillem; Peter B Bach; Colin B Begg
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 12.969

10.  Inequalities in survival from colorectal cancer: a comparison of the impact of deprivation, treatment, and host factors on observed and cause specific survival.

Authors:  H Wrigley; P Roderick; S George; J Smith; M Mullee; J Goddard
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 3.710

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.