Literature DB >> 12759388

Relation of hospital volume to colostomy rates and survival for patients with rectal cancer.

David C Hodgson1, Wei Zhang, Alan M Zaslavsky, Charles S Fuchs, William E Wright, John Z Ayanian.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Postoperative mortality after some types of cancer surgery is inversely related to the number of operations performed at a hospital (i.e., hospital volume). This study assessed the association of hospital volume with colostomy rates and survival for patients with rectal cancer in a large representative cohort identified from the California Cancer Registry.
METHODS: We identified 7257 patients diagnosed from January 1, 1994, through December 31, 1997, with stage I-III rectal cancer who underwent surgical resection. Registry data were linked to hospital discharge abstracts and ZIP-code-level data from the 1990 U.S. Census. Associations of hospital volume with permanent colostomy and 30-day mortality were assessed with the Mantel-Haenszel trend test and logistic regression. Overall survival was examined with the Kaplan-Meier method and a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. Multivariable analyses adjusted for demographic and clinical variables and patient clustering within hospitals. All tests of statistical significance were two-sided.
RESULTS: In unadjusted analyses across decreasing quartiles of hospital volume, we observed statistically significant increases in colostomy rates (29.5%, 31.8%, 35.2%, and 36.6%; P<.001) and in 30-day postoperative mortality (1.6%, 1.6%, 2.9%, and 4.8%; P<.001) and a decrease in 2-year survival (83.7%, 83.2%, 80.9%, and 76.6%; P<.001). The adjusted risks of permanent colostomy (odds ratio [OR] = 1.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.10 to 1.70), 30-day mortality (OR = 2.64, 95% CI = 1.41 to 4.93), and 2-year mortality (hazard ratio = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.15 to 1.44) were greater for patients at hospitals in the lowest volume quartile than for patients at hospitals in the highest volume quartile. Stratification by tumor stage and comorbidity index did not appreciably affect the results. Adjusted colostomy rates varied statistically significantly (P<.001) among individual hospitals independent of volume.
CONCLUSIONS: Rectal cancer patients who underwent surgery at high-volume hospitals were less likely to have a permanent colostomy and had better survival rates than those treated in low-volume hospitals. Identifying processes of care that contribute to these differences may improve patients' outcomes in all hospitals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12759388     DOI: 10.1093/jnci/95.10.708

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  56 in total

1.  Influence of hospital characteristics on operative death and survival of patients after major cancer surgery in Ontario.

Authors:  Marko Simunovic; Eddy Rempel; Marc-Erick Thériault; Angela Coates; Timothy Whelan; Eric Holowaty; Bernard Langer; Mark Levine
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.089

2.  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

3.  Relationship between number of breast cancer operations performed and 5-year survival after treatment for early-stage breast cancer.

Authors:  Mary Ann Gilligan; Joan Neuner; Xu Zhang; Rodney Sparapani; Purushottam W Laud; Ann B Nattinger
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2007-01-31       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  Neglected external validity in reports of randomized trials: the example of hip and knee osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Nizar Ahmad; Isabelle Boutron; David Moher; Isabelle Pitrou; Carine Roy; Philippe Ravaud
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2009-03-15

5.  Defining the volume-quality debate: is it the surgeon, the center, or the training?

Authors:  James Merlino
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2007-08

6.  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

7.  [Surgical volume. An American perspective].

Authors:  C C Greenberg; M J Zinner
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 0.955

8.  Hospital variation in sphincter preservation for elderly rectal cancer patients.

Authors:  Christopher M Dodgion; Bridget A Neville; Stuart R Lipsitz; Deborah Schrag; Elizabeth Breen; Michael J Zinner; Caprice C Greenberg
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2014-03-22       Impact factor: 2.192

9.  The association of hospital volume with rectal cancer surgery outcomes.

Authors:  Jeong-Heum Baek; Abdulhadi Alrubaie; Eduardo A Guzman; Sun Keun Choi; Casandra Anderson; Steven Mills; Joseph Carmichael; Andy Dagis; Dajun Qian; Joseph Kim; Julio Garcia-Aguilar; Michael J Stamos; Lisa Bening; Alessio Pigazzi
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2012-07-29       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 10.  The effect of hospital and surgeon volume on outcomes for rectal cancer surgery.

Authors:  Talya Salz; Robert S Sandler
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2008-10-01       Impact factor: 11.382

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.