AIM: To study the "hospital type-outcome" and "volume-outcome" relationships in patients with esophageal cancer who receive non-surgical treatments. METHODS: A total of 6106 patients with esophageal cancer diagnosed between 2008 and 2011 were identified from a national population-based cancer registry in Taiwan. The hospital types were defined as medical center and non-medical center. The threshold for high-volume hospitals was based on a median volume of 225 cases between 2008 and 2011 (annual volume, >56 cases) or an upper quartile (>75%) volume of 377 cases (annual volume>94 cases). Cox regression analyses were used to determine the effects of hospital type and volume outcome on patient survival. RESULTS: A total of 3955 non-surgically treated patients were included in the survival analysis. In the unadjusted analysis, the significant prognostic factors included cT, cN, cM stage, hospital type and hospital volume (annual volume, >94 vs ≤94). The 1- and 3-year overall survival rates in the non-medical centers (36.2% and 13.2%, respectively) were significantly higher than those in the medical centers (33.5% and 11.3%, respectively; P=0.027). The 1- and 3-year overall survival rates in hospitals with an annual volume of ≤94 (35.3% and 12.6%, respectively) were significantly higher than those with an annual volume of >94 (31.1% and 9.4%, respectively; P=0.001). However, in the multivariate analysis, the hospital type was not statistically significant. Only cT, cN, and cM stages and hospital volume (annual volume>94 vs ≤94) were independent prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: Whether the treatment occurs in medical centers is not a significant prognostic factor. High-volume hospitals were not associated with better survival rates compared with low-volume hospitals.
AIM: To study the "hospital type-outcome" and "volume-outcome" relationships in patients with esophageal cancer who receive non-surgical treatments. METHODS: A total of 6106 patients with esophageal cancer diagnosed between 2008 and 2011 were identified from a national population-based cancer registry in Taiwan. The hospital types were defined as medical center and non-medical center. The threshold for high-volume hospitals was based on a median volume of 225 cases between 2008 and 2011 (annual volume, >56 cases) or an upper quartile (>75%) volume of 377 cases (annual volume>94 cases). Cox regression analyses were used to determine the effects of hospital type and volume outcome on patient survival. RESULTS: A total of 3955 non-surgically treated patients were included in the survival analysis. In the unadjusted analysis, the significant prognostic factors included cT, cN, cM stage, hospital type and hospital volume (annual volume, >94 vs ≤94). The 1- and 3-year overall survival rates in the non-medical centers (36.2% and 13.2%, respectively) were significantly higher than those in the medical centers (33.5% and 11.3%, respectively; P=0.027). The 1- and 3-year overall survival rates in hospitals with an annual volume of ≤94 (35.3% and 12.6%, respectively) were significantly higher than those with an annual volume of >94 (31.1% and 9.4%, respectively; P=0.001). However, in the multivariate analysis, the hospital type was not statistically significant. Only cT, cN, and cM stages and hospital volume (annual volume>94 vs ≤94) were independent prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: Whether the treatment occurs in medical centers is not a significant prognostic factor. High-volume hospitals were not associated with better survival rates compared with low-volume hospitals.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer registry; Esophageal cancer; Hospital type; Hospital volume; Survival
Authors: M W J M Wouters; H E Karim-Kos; S le Cessie; B P L Wijnhoven; L P S Stassen; W H Steup; H W Tilanus; R A E M Tollenaar Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-04-16 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Christian Verhoef; Rens van de Weyer; Michael Schaapveld; Esther Bastiaannet; John Th M Plukker Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2007-02-09 Impact factor: 5.344