John D Birkmeyer1, Yating Sun, Sandra L Wong, Therese A Stukel. 1. Michigan Surgical Collaborative for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. jbirkmey@umich.edu
Abstract
CONTEXT: Although hospital procedure volume is clearly related to operative mortality with many cancer procedures, its effect on late survival is not well characterized. OBJECTIVE: To examine relationships between hospital volume and late survival after different types of cancer resections. DESIGN: Using the national Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database (1992-2002), we identified all patients undergoing major resections for lung, esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, colon, and bladder cancer (n = 64,047). Relationships between hospital volume and survival were assessed using Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for patient characteristics and use of adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: U.S. Medicare patients residing in SEER regions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 5-year survival. RESULTS: Although there were statistically significant relationships between hospital volume and 5-year survival with all 6 cancer types, the relative importance of volume varied markedly. Absolute differences in 5-year survival probabilities rates between low-volume hospitals (LVHs) and high-volume hospitals (HVHs) ranged from 17% for esophageal cancer resection (17% vs. 34%, respectively) to only 3% for colon cancer resection (45% vs. 48%). Absolute differences in 5-year survival between LVHs and HVHs fell between these ranges for lung (6%), gastric (6%), pancreatic (5%), and bladder cancer (4%). Volume-related differences in late survival could not be attributed to differences in rates of adjuvant therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Along with lower operative mortality, HVHs have better late survival rates with selected cancer resections than their lower-volume counterparts. Mechanisms underlying their better outcomes and thus opportunities for improvement remain to be identified.
CONTEXT: Although hospital procedure volume is clearly related to operative mortality with many cancer procedures, its effect on late survival is not well characterized. OBJECTIVE: To examine relationships between hospital volume and late survival after different types of cancer resections. DESIGN: Using the national Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database (1992-2002), we identified all patients undergoing major resections for lung, esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, colon, and bladder cancer (n = 64,047). Relationships between hospital volume and survival were assessed using Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for patient characteristics and use of adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: U.S. Medicare patients residing in SEER regions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 5-year survival. RESULTS: Although there were statistically significant relationships between hospital volume and 5-year survival with all 6 cancer types, the relative importance of volume varied markedly. Absolute differences in 5-year survival probabilities rates between low-volume hospitals (LVHs) and high-volume hospitals (HVHs) ranged from 17% for esophageal cancer resection (17% vs. 34%, respectively) to only 3% for colon cancer resection (45% vs. 48%). Absolute differences in 5-year survival between LVHs and HVHs fell between these ranges for lung (6%), gastric (6%), pancreatic (5%), and bladder cancer (4%). Volume-related differences in late survival could not be attributed to differences in rates of adjuvant therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Along with lower operative mortality, HVHs have better late survival rates with selected cancer resections than their lower-volume counterparts. Mechanisms underlying their better outcomes and thus opportunities for improvement remain to be identified.
Authors: John D Birkmeyer; Andrea E Siewers; Emily V A Finlayson; Therese A Stukel; F Lee Lucas; Ida Batista; H Gilbert Welch; David E Wennberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-04-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Joan L Warren; Linda C Harlan; Angela Fahey; Beth A Virnig; Jean L Freeman; Carrie N Klabunde; Gregory S Cooper; Kevin B Knopf Journal: Med Care Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Beth A Virnig; Joan L Warren; Gregory S Cooper; Carrie N Klabunde; Nicola Schussler; Jean Freeman Journal: Med Care Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Quoc-Dien Trinh; Jesse Sammon; Jay Jhaveri; Maxine Sun; Khurshid R Ghani; Jan Schmitges; Wooju Jeong; James O Peabody; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Mani Menon Journal: Ther Adv Urol Date: 2012-04
Authors: Stefano Caruso; Alberto Patriti; Franco Roviello; Lorenzo De Franco; Franco Franceschini; Andrea Coratti; Graziano Ceccarelli Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-07-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Jason D Wright; Cande V Ananth; Sharyn N Lewin; William M Burke; Zainab Siddiq; Alfred I Neugut; Thomas J Herzog; Dawn L Hershman Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2013-08-13 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Shazia Bashir; Cande V Ananth; Sharyn N Lewin; William M Burke; Yu-Shiang Lu; Alfred I Neugut; Thomas J Herzog; Dawn L Hershman; Jason D Wright Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 4.585