PURPOSE: Margin positivity after rectal cancer resection is associated with poorer outcomes. We previously developed an instrument for calculating hospital risk-adjusted margin positivity rate (RAMP) that allows identification of performance-based outliers and may represent a rectal cancer surgery quality metric. METHODS: This was an observational cohort study of patients with rectal cancer within the National Cancer Data Base (2003 to 2005). Hospital performance was categorized as low outlier (better than expected), high outlier (worse than expected), or non-RAMP outlier using standard observed-to-expected methodology. The association between outlier status and overall risk of death at 5 years was evaluated using Cox shared frailty modeling. RESULTS: Among 32,354 patients with cancer (mean age, 63.8 +/-13.2 years; 56.7% male; 87.3% white) treated at 1,349 hospitals (4.9% high outlier, 0.7% low outlier), 5.6% of patients were treated at high outliers and 3.0% were treated at low outliers. Various structural (academic status and volume), process (pathologic nodal evaluation and neoadjuvant radiation therapy use), and outcome (sphincter preservation, readmission, and 30-day postoperative mortality) measures were significantly associated with outlier status. Five-year overall survival was better at low outliers (79.9%) compared with high outliers (64.9%) and nonoutliers (68.9%; log-rank test, P < .001). Risk of death was lower at low outliers compared with high outliers (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.75) and nonoutliers (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.83). Risk of death was higher at high outliers compared with nonoutliers (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.23). CONCLUSION: Hospital RAMP outlier status is a rectal cancer surgery composite metric that reliably captures hospital quality across all levels of care and could be integrated into existing quality improvement initiatives for hospital performance.
PURPOSE: Margin positivity after rectal cancer resection is associated with poorer outcomes. We previously developed an instrument for calculating hospital risk-adjusted margin positivity rate (RAMP) that allows identification of performance-based outliers and may represent a rectal cancer surgery quality metric. METHODS: This was an observational cohort study of patients with rectal cancer within the National Cancer Data Base (2003 to 2005). Hospital performance was categorized as low outlier (better than expected), high outlier (worse than expected), or non-RAMP outlier using standard observed-to-expected methodology. The association between outlier status and overall risk of death at 5 years was evaluated using Cox shared frailty modeling. RESULTS: Among 32,354 patients with cancer (mean age, 63.8 +/-13.2 years; 56.7% male; 87.3% white) treated at 1,349 hospitals (4.9% high outlier, 0.7% low outlier), 5.6% of patients were treated at high outliers and 3.0% were treated at low outliers. Various structural (academic status and volume), process (pathologic nodal evaluation and neoadjuvant radiation therapy use), and outcome (sphincter preservation, readmission, and 30-day postoperative mortality) measures were significantly associated with outlier status. Five-year overall survival was better at low outliers (79.9%) compared with high outliers (64.9%) and nonoutliers (68.9%; log-rank test, P < .001). Risk of death was lower at low outliers compared with high outliers (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.75) and nonoutliers (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.83). Risk of death was higher at high outliers compared with nonoutliers (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.23). CONCLUSION: Hospital RAMP outlier status is a rectal cancer surgery composite metric that reliably captures hospital quality across all levels of care and could be integrated into existing quality improvement initiatives for hospital performance.
Authors: E Kapiteijn; C A Marijnen; I D Nagtegaal; H Putter; W H Steup; T Wiggers; H J Rutten; L Pahlman; B Glimelius; J H van Krieken; J W Leer; C J van de Velde Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-08-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Caprice K Christian; Michael L Gustafson; Rebecca A Betensky; Jennifer Daley; Michael J Zinner Journal: World J Surg Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Mark A Keroack; Barbara J Youngberg; Julie L Cerese; Cathleen Krsek; Leslie W Prellwitz; Eoin W Trevelyan Journal: Acad Med Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Iris D Nagtegaal; Cornelius J H van de Velde; Corrie A M Marijnen; Jan H J M van Krieken; Philip Quirke Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-12-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Karl Y Bilimoria; David J Bentrem; Andrew K Stewart; David P Winchester; Clifford Y Ko Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-07-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Phil Quirke; Robert Steele; John Monson; Robert Grieve; Subhash Khanna; Jean Couture; Chris O'Callaghan; Arthur Sun Myint; Eric Bessell; Lindsay C Thompson; Mahesh Parmar; Richard J Stephens; David Sebag-Montefiore Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-03-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Aaron S Rickles; David W Dietz; George J Chang; Steven D Wexner; Mariana E Berho; Feza H Remzi; Frederick L Greene; James W Fleshman; Maher A Abbas; Walter Peters; Katia Noyes; John R T Monson; Fergal J Fleming Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Lawrence Lee; Justin Kelly; George J Nassif; Sam B Atallah; Matthew R Albert; Ravi Shridhar; John R T Monson Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-08-17 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Keith A Lawson; Olli Saarela; Zhihui Liu; Luke T Lavallée; Rodney H Breau; Lori Wood; Michael A S Jewett; Anil Kapoor; Simon Tanguay; Ronald B Moore; Ricardo Rendon; Frederic Pouliot; Peter C Black; Jun Kawakami; Darrel Drachenberg; Antonio Finelli Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 1.862