Literature DB >> 27568321

Institutional variation in short- and long-term outcomes after surgery for gastric or esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma: correlative study of two randomized phase III trials (JCOG9501 and JCOG9502).

Yukinori Kurokawa1, Takuhiro Yamaguchi2, Mitsuru Sasako3, Takeshi Sano4, Junki Mizusawa5, Kenichi Nakamura5, Haruhiko Fukuda5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A critical issue in multicenter randomized trials focusing on surgical techniques is quality control, as the quality of the surgery usually varies widely if the procedure employed is complicated. Few studies have evaluated interinstitutional variation in randomized trials in order to check not only the generalizability of the results but also the reliability of the study group itself.
METHODS: Two randomized phase III trials (JCOG9501 and JCOG9502) were conducted that compared standard and experimental surgery for gastric and esophagogastric junction adenocarcinomas. Mixed effects models were used to examine short- and long-term outcome data for 521 patients from 23 hospitals in JCOG9501 and 157 patients from 21 hospitals in JCOG9502.
RESULTS: In both trials, some variation was observed in the number of dissected lymph nodes, the operative time, and the volume of blood lost. Estimated 5-year overall survival after standard surgery differed among hospitals (JCOG9501, 58.0-75.1 %; JCOG9502, 49.1-58.7 %), while there was little variation in the hazard ratio for overall survival (OS) for experimental versus standard surgery (JCOG9501, 1.05-1.48; JCOG9502, 1.44-1.48). Higher hospital gastrectomy volume was significantly correlated with a lower proportion of postoperative complications in JCOG9501 (ρ = -0.524, P = 0.010) and reduced blood loss in JCOG9502 (ρ = -0.442, P = 0.045). OS was not correlated with hospital or surgeon volume.
CONCLUSIONS: There was some degree of interinstitutional variation in outcomes after standard surgery, but there was little variation in the hazard ratio for OS for experimental surgery, indicating that the final conclusions of the two randomized phase III trials can be generalized to their respective target populations.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gastric cancer; Generalizability; Heterogeneity; Hospital volume; Institutional variation; Surgeon volume

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27568321     DOI: 10.1007/s10120-016-0636-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastric Cancer        ISSN: 1436-3291            Impact factor:   7.370


  29 in total

1.  Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States.

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

2.  Effect of hospital volume on postoperative mortality and survival after oesophageal and gastric cancer surgery in the Netherlands between 1989 and 2009.

Authors:  Johan L Dikken; Anneriet E Dassen; Valery E P Lemmens; Hein Putter; Pieta Krijnen; Lydia van der Geest; Koop Bosscha; Marcel Verheij; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Michel W J M Wouters
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2012-03-27       Impact factor: 9.162

3.  The influence of hospital and surgeon volume on in-hospital mortality for colectomy, gastrectomy, and lung lobectomy in patients with cancer.

Authors:  Edward L Hannan; Mark Radzyner; David Rubin; James Dougherty; Murray F Brennan
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 3.982

4.  Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2010 (ver. 3).

Authors: 
Journal:  Gastric Cancer       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 7.370

Review 5.  Assessment of the quality of surgery within randomised controlled trials for the treatment of gastro-oesophageal cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  Sheraz R Markar; Tom Wiggins; Melody Ni; Ewout W Steyerberg; J Jan B Van Lanschot; Mitsuru Sasako; George B Hanna
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2014-12-29       Impact factor: 41.316

6.  Postoperative morbidity and mortality after D1 and D2 resections for gastric cancer: preliminary results of the MRC randomised controlled surgical trial. The Surgical Cooperative Group.

Authors:  A Cuschieri; P Fayers; J Fielding; J Craven; J Bancewicz; V Joypaul; P Cook
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1996-04-13       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Quantitative assessment of the advantages of laparoscopic gastrectomy and the impact of volume-related hospital characteristics on resource use and outcomes of gastrectomy patients in Japan.

Authors:  Kazuaki Kuwabara; Shinya Matsuda; Kiyohide Fushimi; Koichi B Ishikawa; Hiromasa Horiguchi; Kenji Fujimori; Hideo Yasunaga; Hiroaki Miyata
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 12.969

8.  A decade of mortality reductions in major oncologic surgery: the impact of centralization and quality improvement.

Authors:  Peter A Learn; Peter B Bach
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  Gastric cancer surgery: morbidity and mortality results from a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing D2 and extended para-aortic lymphadenectomy--Japan Clinical Oncology Group study 9501.

Authors:  Takeshi Sano; Mitsuru Sasako; Seiichiro Yamamoto; Atsushi Nashimoto; Akira Kurita; Masahiro Hiratsuka; Toshimasa Tsujinaka; Taira Kinoshita; Kuniyoshi Arai; Yoshitaka Yamamura; Kunio Okajima
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2004-06-15       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Population-based study of relationship between hospital surgical volume and 5-year survival of stomach cancer patients in Osaka, Japan.

Authors:  Etsuko Nomura; Hideaki Tsukuma; Wakiko Ajiki; Akira Oshima
Journal:  Cancer Sci       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 6.716

View more
  8 in total

1.  Surgical Strategies for Siewert Type II Esophagogastric Junction Carcinomas: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Kai Tao; Jianhong Dong; Songbing He; Yingying Xu; Fan Yang; Guolin Han; Masanobu Abe; Liang Zong
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-06-23       Impact factor: 5.738

2.  Prognostic Significance of CIP2A in Esophagogastric Junction Adenocarcinoma: A Study of 65 Patients and a Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Yanhong Li; Mei Wang; Xueping Zhu; Xu Cao; Yi Wu; Fang Fang
Journal:  Dis Markers       Date:  2019-08-22       Impact factor: 3.434

3.  Institutional variation in survival and morbidity in laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer: From the data of a randomized controlled trial comparing open and laparoscopic surgery (JCOG0404).

Authors:  Hiroshi Katayama; Masafumi Inomata; Junki Mizusawa; Kenichi Nakamura; Masahiko Watanabe; Tomonori Akagi; Seiichiro Yamamoto; Masaaki Ito; Yusuke Kinugasa; Masazumi Okajima; Ichiro Takemasa; Junji Okuda; Dai Shida; Yukihide Kanemitsu; Seigo Kitano
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol Surg       Date:  2021-07-12

Review 4.  Recent advances in multidisciplinary therapy for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction.

Authors:  Yi-Han Zheng; En-Hao Zhao
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2022-08-21       Impact factor: 5.374

5.  Prognostic performance of three lymph node staging schemes for patients with Siewert type II adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction.

Authors:  Jinming Xu; Jinlin Cao; Luming Wang; Zhitian Wang; Yiqing Wang; Yihua Wu; Wang Lv; Jian Hu
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-08-31       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Are treatment outcomes in gastric cancer associated with either hospital volume or surgeon volume?

Authors:  Yosuke Mukai; Yukinori Kurokawa; Shuji Takiguchi; Masaki Mori; Yuichiro Doki
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol Surg       Date:  2017-08-31

Review 7.  Recent advancements in esophageal cancer treatment in Japan.

Authors:  Yoshihiro Tanaka; Kazuhiro Yoshida; Tomonari Suetsugu; Takeharu Imai; Nobuhisa Matsuhashi; Kazuya Yamaguchi
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol Surg       Date:  2018-05-28

8.  Proximal Gastrectomy versus Total Gastrectomy for Siewert Type II Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagogastric Junction: A Comprehensive Analysis of Data from the SEER Registry.

Authors:  Kaixuan Zhu; Yingying Xu; Jiaxin Fu; Farah Abdidahir Mohamud; Zongkui Duan; Siyuan Tan; Zekun Zhao; Ping Chen; Liang Zong
Journal:  Dis Markers       Date:  2019-12-31       Impact factor: 3.434

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.