BACKGROUND: The Commission on Cancer (CoC) designates cancer programs on the basis of the ability to provide a wide range of oncologic services and specialists. All CoC-approved hospitals are required to report their cancer diagnoses to the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB), and the cancer diagnoses at these hospitals account for approximately 70% of all new cancers diagnosed in the United States annually. However, it is unknown how CoC-approved programs compare with non-CoC-approved hospitals. METHODS: By using the American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database (2006), CoC-approved and non-CoC-approved hospitals were compared with respect to structural characteristics (ie, accreditations, geography, and oncologic services provided). RESULTS: Of the 4,850 hospitals identified, 1,412 (29%) were CoC-approved hospitals, and 3,438 (71%) were not CoC-approved hospitals. The proportion of CoC-approved hospitals varied at the state level from 0% in Wyoming to 100% in Delaware. Compared with non-CoC-approved hospitals, CoC-approved programs were more frequently accredited by the Joint Commission, designated as a Comprehensive Cancer Center by the National Cancer Institute, and affiliated with a medical school or residency program (P < .001). CoC-approved hospitals were less likely to be critical access hospitals or located in rural areas (P < .001). CoC-approved hospitals had more total beds and performed more operations per year (P < .001). CoC-approved programs more frequently offered oncology-related services, including screening programs, chemotherapy and radiation therapy services, and hospice/palliative care (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Compared with non-CoC-approved hospitals, CoC-approved hospitals were larger, were more frequently located in urban locations, and had more cancer-related services available to patients. Studies that use the NCDB should acknowledge this limitation when relevant.
BACKGROUND: The Commission on Cancer (CoC) designates cancer programs on the basis of the ability to provide a wide range of oncologic services and specialists. All CoC-approved hospitals are required to report their cancer diagnoses to the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB), and the cancer diagnoses at these hospitals account for approximately 70% of all new cancers diagnosed in the United States annually. However, it is unknown how CoC-approved programs compare with non-CoC-approved hospitals. METHODS: By using the American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database (2006), CoC-approved and non-CoC-approved hospitals were compared with respect to structural characteristics (ie, accreditations, geography, and oncologic services provided). RESULTS: Of the 4,850 hospitals identified, 1,412 (29%) were CoC-approved hospitals, and 3,438 (71%) were not CoC-approved hospitals. The proportion of CoC-approved hospitals varied at the state level from 0% in Wyoming to 100% in Delaware. Compared with non-CoC-approved hospitals, CoC-approved programs were more frequently accredited by the Joint Commission, designated as a Comprehensive Cancer Center by the National Cancer Institute, and affiliated with a medical school or residency program (P < .001). CoC-approved hospitals were less likely to be critical access hospitals or located in rural areas (P < .001). CoC-approved hospitals had more total beds and performed more operations per year (P < .001). CoC-approved programs more frequently offered oncology-related services, including screening programs, chemotherapy and radiation therapy services, and hospice/palliative care (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Compared with non-CoC-approved hospitals, CoC-approved hospitals were larger, were more frequently located in urban locations, and had more cancer-related services available to patients. Studies that use the NCDB should acknowledge this limitation when relevant.
Authors: Robert Steven Gerhard; Dattatraya Patil; Yuan Liu; Kenneth Ogan; Mehrdad Alemozaffar; Ashesh B Jani; Omer N Kucuk; Viraj A Master; Theresa W Gillespie; Christopher P Filson Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2017-01-12 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Eliza W Beal; Rittal Mehta; Katiuscha Merath; Diamantis I Tsilimigras; J Madison Hyer; Anghela Paredes; Mary E Dillhoff; Jordan Cloyd; Aslam Ejaz; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2019-05-08 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Sarah B Bateni; Anders J Davidson; Mili Arora; Megan E Daly; Susan L Stewart; Richard J Bold; Robert J Canter; Candice A M Sauder Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-02-13 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Elizabeth R Berger; Karl Y Bilimoria; Christine V Kinnier; Christina A Minami; Kevin P Bethke; Nora M Hansen; Ryan P Merkow; David P Winchester; Anthony D Yang Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2018-11-27 Impact factor: 3.454