Jason D Wright1, Yongmei Huang2, Cande V Ananth3, Ana I Tergas4, Cassandra Duffy5, Israel Deutsch6, William M Burke7, June Y Hou7, Alfred I Neugut8, Dawn L Hershman8. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, United States; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, United States; New York Presbyterian Hospital, United States. Electronic address: jw2459@columbia.edu. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, United States. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, United States; Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, United States. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, United States; Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, United States; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, United States; New York Presbyterian Hospital, United States. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, United States; New York Presbyterian Hospital, United States. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, United States; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, United States; New York Presbyterian Hospital, United States. 7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, United States; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, United States; New York Presbyterian Hospital, United States. 8. Department of Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, United States; Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, United States; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, United States; New York Presbyterian Hospital, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Procedural volume is associated with outcomes for many surgical interventions. Little is known about the association between volume and outcomes of radiation. We examined the association between treatment center and hospital volume and outcomes for women with locally advanced cervical cancer treated with radiation. METHODS: Women with stage IIB-IVA cervical cancer treated with primary radiation from 1998 to 2011 and recorded in the National Cancer Database were examined. Hospital volume was estimated as the mean annualized volume, while center-specific effects on care were examined using a hospital-specific random effect. Multivariable regression models adjusted for metrics of treatment quality were used to estimate survival. RESULTS: 20,766 patients treated at 1115 hospitals were identified. The median follow-up was 24.2months while 5-year survival was 36.5% (95% CI, 35.6-37.4%). Higher hospital volume was associated with receipt of brachytherapy (P<0.05), but had no effect on use of chemotherapy. In a multivariable model accounting for clinical and demographic factors as well as quality of care, hospital volume was not associated with survival (P=0.25). The specific hospital in which patients received care was the strongest predictor of survival (P<0.0001) followed by stage, year of diagnosis and treatment quality (P<0.0001 for all). The hospital-specific effect on mortality expressed as a hazard ratio, ranged from 0.66 to 1.53 across hospitals. CONCLUSION: For locally advanced cervical cancer, hospital volume has a minimal impact on outcome; however, the specific center in which care is delivered is strongly associated with survival.
OBJECTIVE: Procedural volume is associated with outcomes for many surgical interventions. Little is known about the association between volume and outcomes of radiation. We examined the association between treatment center and hospital volume and outcomes for women with locally advanced cervical cancer treated with radiation. METHODS:Women with stage IIB-IVA cervical cancer treated with primary radiation from 1998 to 2011 and recorded in the National Cancer Database were examined. Hospital volume was estimated as the mean annualized volume, while center-specific effects on care were examined using a hospital-specific random effect. Multivariable regression models adjusted for metrics of treatment quality were used to estimate survival. RESULTS: 20,766 patients treated at 1115 hospitals were identified. The median follow-up was 24.2months while 5-year survival was 36.5% (95% CI, 35.6-37.4%). Higher hospital volume was associated with receipt of brachytherapy (P<0.05), but had no effect on use of chemotherapy. In a multivariable model accounting for clinical and demographic factors as well as quality of care, hospital volume was not associated with survival (P=0.25). The specific hospital in which patients received care was the strongest predictor of survival (P<0.0001) followed by stage, year of diagnosis and treatment quality (P<0.0001 for all). The hospital-specific effect on mortality expressed as a hazard ratio, ranged from 0.66 to 1.53 across hospitals. CONCLUSION: For locally advanced cervical cancer, hospital volume has a minimal impact on outcome; however, the specific center in which care is delivered is strongly associated with survival.
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: M Morris; P J Eifel; J Lu; P W Grigsby; C Levenback; R E Stevens; M Rotman; D M Gershenson; D G Mutch Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-04-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Colin B Begg; Elyn R Riedel; Peter B Bach; Michael W Kattan; Deborah Schrag; Joan L Warren; Peter T Scardino Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-04-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: John D Birkmeyer; Therese A Stukel; Andrea E Siewers; Philip P Goodney; David E Wennberg; F Lee Lucas Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-11-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Shreyas S Joshi; Elizabeth A Handorf; Matthew Zibelman; Elizabeth R Plimack; Robert G Uzzo; Alexander Kutikov; Marc C Smaldone; Daniel M Geynisman Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-06-05 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Rosa Drago-Ferrante; Riccardo Di Fiore; Fathi Karouia; Yashwanth Subbannayya; Saswati Das; Begum Aydogan Mathyk; Shehbeel Arif; Ana Paula Guevara-Cerdán; Allen Seylani; Aman Singh Galsinh; Weronika Kukulska; Joseph Borg; Sherif Suleiman; David Marshall Porterfield; Andrea Camera; Lane K Christenson; April Elizabeth Ronca; Jonathan G Steller; Afshin Beheshti; Jean Calleja-Agius Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-07-05 Impact factor: 6.208
Authors: Michael D Toboni; Alexander Cohen; Zachary L Gentry; Stuart A Ostby; Zhixin Wang; Sejong Bae; Charles Leath Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2022-06-06 Impact factor: 4.661