Daniel E Abbott1, Grace Martin2, David A Kooby3, Nipun B Merchant4, Malcolm H Squires3, Shishir K Maithel3, Sharon M Weber5, Emily R Winslow5, Clifford S Cho5, David J Bentrem6, Hong Jin Kim7, Charles R Scoggins8, Robert C Martin8, Alexander A Parikh9, William G Hawkins10, Syed A Ahmad2. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, United States. Electronic address: abbottdl@ucmail.uc.edu. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, United States. 3. Department of Surgery, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States. 4. Department of Surgery, Miami University, Miami, FL, United States. 5. Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, United States. 6. Department of Surgery, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States. 7. Department of Surgery, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States. 8. Department of Surgery, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, United States. 9. Department of Surgery, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States. 10. Department of Surgery, Washington University, St Louis, MO, United States.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Several groups have defined pancreatic surgery quality metrics that identify centers delivering quality care. Although these metrics are perceived to be associated with good outcomes, their relationship with actual outcomes has not been established. METHODS: A national cadre of pancreatic surgeons was surveyed regarding perceived quality metrics, which were evaluated against the Central Pancreas Consortium (CPC) database to determine actual performance and relationships with long-term outcomes. RESULTS: The most important metrics were perceived to be participation in clinical trials, appropriate clinical staging, perioperative mortality, and documentation of receipt of adjuvant therapy. Subsequent analysis of 1399 patients in the CPC dataset demonstrated that a R0 retroperitoneal and neck margin was obtained in 79% (n = 1109) and 91.4% (n = 1278) of cases, respectively. 74% of patients (n = 1041) had >10 lymph nodes harvested, and LN positivity was 65% (n = 903). 76% (n = 960) of eligible patients (surgery first approach) received adjuvant therapy within 60 days of surgery. Multivariate analysis demonstrated margin status, identification of >10 lymph nodes, nodal status, tumor grade and delivery of adjuvant therapy within 60 days to be associated with improved overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses demonstrate that systematic monitoring of surgeons' perceived quality metrics provides critical prognostic information, which is associated with patient survival.
INTRODUCTION: Several groups have defined pancreatic surgery quality metrics that identify centers delivering quality care. Although these metrics are perceived to be associated with good outcomes, their relationship with actual outcomes has not been established. METHODS: A national cadre of pancreatic surgeons was surveyed regarding perceived quality metrics, which were evaluated against the Central Pancreas Consortium (CPC) database to determine actual performance and relationships with long-term outcomes. RESULTS: The most important metrics were perceived to be participation in clinical trials, appropriate clinical staging, perioperative mortality, and documentation of receipt of adjuvant therapy. Subsequent analysis of 1399 patients in the CPC dataset demonstrated that a R0 retroperitoneal and neck margin was obtained in 79% (n = 1109) and 91.4% (n = 1278) of cases, respectively. 74% of patients (n = 1041) had >10 lymph nodes harvested, and LN positivity was 65% (n = 903). 76% (n = 960) of eligible patients (surgery first approach) received adjuvant therapy within 60 days of surgery. Multivariate analysis demonstrated margin status, identification of >10 lymph nodes, nodal status, tumor grade and delivery of adjuvant therapy within 60 days to be associated with improved overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses demonstrate that systematic monitoring of surgeons' perceived quality metrics provides critical prognostic information, which is associated with patient survival.
Authors: Angela M Ingraham; Mark E Cohen; Karl Y Bilimoria; Justin B Dimick; Karen E Richards; Mehul V Raval; Lee A Fleisher; Bruce L Hall; Clifford Y Ko Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Andrew W Dick; Eli N Perencevich; Monika Pogorzelska-Maziarz; Jack Zwanziger; Elaine L Larson; Patricia W Stone Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: David A Kooby; Neha L Lad; Malcolm H Squires; Shishir K Maithel; Juan M Sarmiento; Charles A Staley; N Volkan Adsay; Bassel F El-Rayes; Sharon M Weber; Emily R Winslow; Clifford S Cho; Kathryn A Zavala; David J Bentrem; Mark Knab; Syed A Ahmad; Daniel E Abbott; Jeffrey M Sutton; Hong Jin Kim; Jen Jen Yeh; Rachel Aufforth; Charles R Scoggins; Robert C Martin; Alexander A Parikh; Jamie Robinson; Yassar M Hashim; Ryan C Fields; William G Hawkins; Nipun B Merchant Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Karl Y Bilimoria; David J Bentrem; Keith D Lillemoe; Mark S Talamonti; Clifford Y Ko Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2009-06-09 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Zeling Chau; James K West; Zheng Zhou; Theodore McDade; Jillian K Smith; Sing-Chau Ng; Tara S Kent; Mark P Callery; A James Moser; Jennifer F Tseng Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2013-11-07 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: J Picot; J Jones; J L Colquitt; E Gospodarevskaya; E Loveman; L Baxter; A J Clegg Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Allison R Dahlke; Jeanette W Chung; Jane L Holl; Clifford Y Ko; Ravi Rajaram; Lynn Modla; Martin A Makary; Karl Y Bilimoria Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2013-11-27 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Danielle K DePeralta; Takuya Ogami; Jun-Min Zhou; Michael J Schell; Benjamin D Powers; Pamela J Hodul; Mokenge P Malafa; Jason B Fleming Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2019-09-25 Impact factor: 3.647