Literature DB >> 26576696

High volume improves outcomes: The argument for centralization of rectal cancer surgery.

Christopher T Aquina1, Christian P Probst2, Adan Z Becerra2, James C Iannuzzi2, Kristin N Kelly2, Bradley J Hensley2, Aaron S Rickles2, Katia Noyes2, Fergal J Fleming2, John R T Monson2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Centralization of care to "centers of excellence" in Europe has led to improved oncologic outcomes; however, little is known regarding the impact of nonmandated regionalization of rectal cancer care in the United States.
METHODS: The Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) was queried for elective abdominoperineal and low anterior resections for rectal cancer from 2000 to 2011 in New York with the use of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes. Surgeon volume and hospital volume were grouped into quartiles, and high-volume surgeons (≥ 10 resections/year) and hospitals (≥ 25 resections/year) were defined as the top quartile of annual caseload of rectal cancer resection and compared with the bottom 3 quartiles during analyses. Bivariate and multilevel regression analyses were performed to assess factors associated with restorative procedures, 30-day mortality, and temporal trends in these endpoints.
RESULTS: Among 7,798 rectal cancer resections, the overall rate of no-restorative proctectomy and 30-day mortality decreased by 7.7% and 1.2%, respectively, from 2000 to 2011. In addition, there was a linear increase in the proportion of cases performed by both high-volume surgeons and high-volume hospitals and a decrease in the number of surgeons and hospitals performing rectal cancer surgery. High-volume surgeons at high-volume hospitals were associated independently with both less nonrestorative proctectomies (odds ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.48-0.89) and mortality (odds ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.21-0.87) rates. No patterns of significant improvement within the volume strata of the surgeon and hospitals were observed over time.
CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the current trend toward regionalization of rectal cancer care to high-volume surgeons and high-volume centers has led to improved outcomes. These findings have implications regarding the policy of health care delivery in the United States, supporting referral to high-volume centers of excellence.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26576696     DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2015.09.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surgery        ISSN: 0039-6060            Impact factor:   3.982


  38 in total

1.  Do Diagnostic and Procedure Codes Within Population-Based, Administrative Datasets Accurately Identify Patients with Rectal Cancer?

Authors:  Reilly P Musselman; Tara Gomes; Deanna M Rothwell; Rebecca C Auer; Husein Moloo; Robin P Boushey; Carl van Walraven
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2018-12-03       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 2.  Health Care Policy and Outcomes after Colon and Rectal Surgery: What Is the Bigger Picture?-Cost Containment, Incentivizing Value, Transparency, and Centers of Excellence.

Authors:  Anuradha R Bhama; Stefan D Holubar; Conor P Delaney
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2019-04-02

3.  Real-world impact of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a population-based analysis.

Authors:  A E Drohan; C M Hoogerboord; P M Johnson; G J Flowerdew; G A Porte
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 3.677

4.  Predicting opportunities to increase utilization of laparoscopy for rectal cancer.

Authors:  Deborah S Keller; Jiejing Qiu; Anthony J Senagore
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-09-15       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Impact of Travel Time on Health Care Costs and Resource Use by Phase of Care for Older Patients With Cancer.

Authors:  Gabrielle B Rocque; Courtney P Williams; Harold D Miller; Andres Azuero; Stephanie B Wheeler; Maria Pisu; Olivia Hull; Rodney P Rocconi; Kelly M Kenzik
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Inaccurate Clinical Stage Is Common for Gastric Adenocarcinoma and Is Associated with Undertreatment and Worse Outcomes.

Authors:  Michelle R Ju; John D Karalis; James-Michael Blackwell; John C Mansour; Patricio M Polanco; Mathew Augustine; Adam C Yopp; Herbert J Zeh; Sam C Wang; Matthew R Porembka
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-01-02       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  Prognostic impact of hospital volume on familial adenomatous polyposis: a nationwide multicenter study.

Authors:  Masahiro Tanaka; Yukihide Kanemitsu; Hideki Ueno; Hirotoshi Kobayashi; Tsuyoshi Konishi; Fumio Ishida; Tatsuro Yamaguchi; Takao Hinoi; Yasuhiro Inoue; Naohiro Tomita; Hideyuki Ishida; Kenichi Sugihara
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2017-08-22       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  Predicting opportunities to increase utilization of laparoscopy for colon cancer.

Authors:  Deborah S Keller; Niraj Parikh; Anthony J Senagore
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-08-29       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 9.  Minimum Volume Discussion in the Treatment of Colon and Rectal Cancer: A Review of the Current Status and Relevance of Surgeon and Hospital Volume regarding Result Quality and the Impact on Health Economics.

Authors:  Karl-Heinrich Link; Peter Coy; Mark Roitman; Carola Link; Marko Kornmann; Ludger Staib
Journal:  Visc Med       Date:  2017-04-20

10.  Robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy versus open simple prostatectomy: a New York statewide analysis of early adoption and outcomes between 2009 and 2017.

Authors:  Krishna T Ravivarapu; Olamide Omidele; John Pfail; Nir Tomer; Alexander C Small; Michael A Palese
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2020-10-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.