BACKGROUND: There are no clinical guidelines on best practices for the use of bronchoscopy and esophagoscopy in diagnosing head and neck cancer. This retrospective cohort study examined variation in the use of bronchoscopy and esophagoscopy across hospitals in Michigan. METHODS: A total of 17,828 patients were identified with head and neck cancer in the 2006 to 2010 Michigan State Ambulatory Surgery Databases. A hierarchical, mixed-effect logistic regression was used to examine whether a hospital's risk-adjusted rate of concurrent bronchoscopy or esophagoscopy was associated with its case volume (< 100, 100-999, or ≥ 1000 cases per hospital) for those undergoing diagnostic laryngoscopy. RESULTS: Of 9218 patients undergoing diagnostic laryngoscopy, 1191 (12.9%) received concurrent bronchoscopy and 1675 (18.2%) underwent concurrent esophagoscopy. The median hospital rate of bronchoscopy was 2.7% (range, 0%-61.1%), and low-volume (odds ratio [OR] = 27.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.9, 390.7) and medium-volume (OR = 28.1; 95% CI = 2.0, 399.0) hospitals were more likely to perform concurrent bronchoscopy compared to high-volume hospitals. The median hospital rate of esophagoscopy was 5.1% (range, 0%-47.1%), and low-volume (OR = 9.8; 95% CI = 1.5, 63.7) and medium-volume (OR = 8.5; 95% CI = 1.3, 55.0) hospitals were significantly more likely to perform concurrent esophagoscopy relative to high-volume hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with head and neck cancer who are undergoing diagnostic laryngoscopy are much more likely to undergo concurrent bronchoscopy and esophagoscopy at low- and medium-volume hospitals than at high-volume hospitals. Whether this represents overuse of concurrent procedures or appropriate care that leads to earlier diagnosis and better outcomes merits further investigation.
BACKGROUND: There are no clinical guidelines on best practices for the use of bronchoscopy and esophagoscopy in diagnosing head and neck cancer. This retrospective cohort study examined variation in the use of bronchoscopy and esophagoscopy across hospitals in Michigan. METHODS: A total of 17,828 patients were identified with head and neck cancer in the 2006 to 2010 Michigan State Ambulatory Surgery Databases. A hierarchical, mixed-effect logistic regression was used to examine whether a hospital's risk-adjusted rate of concurrent bronchoscopy or esophagoscopy was associated with its case volume (< 100, 100-999, or ≥ 1000 cases per hospital) for those undergoing diagnostic laryngoscopy. RESULTS: Of 9218 patients undergoing diagnostic laryngoscopy, 1191 (12.9%) received concurrent bronchoscopy and 1675 (18.2%) underwent concurrent esophagoscopy. The median hospital rate of bronchoscopy was 2.7% (range, 0%-61.1%), and low-volume (odds ratio [OR] = 27.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.9, 390.7) and medium-volume (OR = 28.1; 95% CI = 2.0, 399.0) hospitals were more likely to perform concurrent bronchoscopy compared to high-volume hospitals. The median hospital rate of esophagoscopy was 5.1% (range, 0%-47.1%), and low-volume (OR = 9.8; 95% CI = 1.5, 63.7) and medium-volume (OR = 8.5; 95% CI = 1.3, 55.0) hospitals were significantly more likely to perform concurrent esophagoscopy relative to high-volume hospitals. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with head and neck cancer who are undergoing diagnostic laryngoscopy are much more likely to undergo concurrent bronchoscopy and esophagoscopy at low- and medium-volume hospitals than at high-volume hospitals. Whether this represents overuse of concurrent procedures or appropriate care that leads to earlier diagnosis and better outcomes merits further investigation.
Keywords:
Michigan; Michigan State Ambulatory Surgery Databases; diagnostic techniques and procedures; endoscopy; head and neck cancer; hospital volume; otolaryngology
Authors: Jesse N Nodora; William D Martz; Erin L Ashbeck; Elizabeth T Jacobs; Patricia A Thompson; María Elena Martínez Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2011-06-28 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Waddah B Al-Refaie; Binyam Muluneh; Wei Zhong; Helen M Parsons; Todd M Tuttle; Selwyn M Vickers; Elizabeth B Habermann Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2011-11-23 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Quoc-Dien Trinh; Maxine Sun; Jesse Sammon; Marco Bianchi; Shyam Sukumar; Khurshid R Ghani; Wooju Jeong; Ali Dabaja; Shahrokh F Shariat; Paul Perrotte; Piyush K Agarwal; Craig G Rogers; James O Peabody; Mani Menon; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Paul L Nguyen; Xiangmei Gu; Stuart R Lipsitz; Toni K Choueiri; Wesley W Choi; Yin Lei; Karen E Hoffman; Jim C Hu Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-03-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ryan P Merkow; Karl Y Bilimoria; Warren B Chow; Justin S Merkow; Michael J Weyant; Clifford Y Ko; David J Bentrem Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2012-06
Authors: Rosana S Rodrigues; Fernando A Bozza; Paul E Christian; John M Hoffman; Regan I Butterfield; Carl R Christensen; Marta Heilbrun; Richard H Wiggins; Jason P Hunt; Brandon G Bentz; Ying J Hitchcock; Kathryn A Morton Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-07-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Kim F Rhoads; Leland K Ackerson; Justine V Ngo; Florette K Gray-Hazard; S V Subramanian; R Adams Dudley Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Cary P Gross; Jessica B Long; Joseph S Ross; Maysa M Abu-Khalaf; Rong Wang; Brigid K Killelea; Heather T Gold; Anees B Chagpar; Xiaomei Ma Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-02-11 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Kenneth B Roberts; Pamela R Soulos; Jeph Herrin; James B Yu; Jessica B Long; Edward Dostaler; Cary P Gross Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-11-20 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Andrew C Birkeland; Andrew J Rosko; Steven B Chinn; Mark E Prince; Gordon H Sun; Matthew E Spector Journal: ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec Date: 2016-02-25 Impact factor: 1.538