Literature DB >> 28109569

Adhering to Quality Measures in Esophagectomy Is Associated With Improved Survival in All Stages of Esophageal Cancer.

Pamela Samson1, Varun Puri1, Stephen Broderick2, G Alexander Patterson1, Bryan Meyers1, Traves Crabtree3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Quality measures for patients with early and locally advanced esophageal cancer undergoing esophagectomy have been made by national organizations. The rate of adherence to these measures as well as their association with overall survival are unknown.
METHODS: Esophagectomy patients were abstracted from the National Cancer Database. Because neoadjuvant status was available since 2006, the analysis of locally advanced patients began at this time point. Selected measures included: R0 resection, evaluation of 15 or more lymph nodes, and induction therapy for locally advanced tumors. Multivariate models identified variables associated with achieving quality measures. A Cox proportional hazards model evaluated factors associated with mortality.
RESULTS: From 1998 to 2012, 4,908 of 16,040 (30.6%) early-stage esophageal cancer patients (clinical T1A to T2N0 <2cm, well-differentiated) underwent esophagectomy. Of 4,672 patients 4,518 (96.7%) achieved R0 resection and 1,395 of 4,686 (29.8%) had 15 or more lymph nodes sampled. High-volume center type (>20 esophagectomies/year) was independently associated with meeting both measures (odds ratio [OR] 2.2, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.9 to 2.5). From 2006 to 2012, 7,747 of 20,437 (37.9%) locally advanced patients (clinical Stage IIB to IIIB) received esophagectomy. Of 6,966 patients 5,977 (85.8%) received induction therapy, 6,394 (91.8%) had R0 resection, and 2,852 (40.9%) had 15 or more lymph nodes sampled. High-volume center type was, again, associated with increased likelihood of meeting all quality measures (OR 2.17, 95% CI: 1.92 to 2.46). Meeting all quality measures was associated with the largest decrease in mortality for both early-stage (hazard ratio [HR] 0.27, 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.39) and locally advanced (HR 0.54, 95% CI: 0.40 to 0.73) esophageal cancer patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to recommended quality measures is independently associated with improved overall survival in both early and locally advanced stages of esophageal cancer. Currently, few patients are receiving care in accordance with these recommendations.
Copyright © 2017 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28109569      PMCID: PMC5444909          DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.09.032

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg        ISSN: 0003-4975            Impact factor:   4.330


  18 in total

Review 1.  Surgery for esophageal cancer: goals of resection and optimizing outcomes.

Authors:  Nabil Rizk
Journal:  Thorac Surg Clin       Date:  2013-10-13       Impact factor: 1.750

2.  Significance of Microscopically Incomplete Resection Margin After Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer.

Authors:  Sheraz R Markar; Caroline Gronnier; Alain Duhamel; Arnaud Pasquer; Jérémie Théreaux; Mael Chalret du Rieu; Jérémie H Lefevre; Kathleen Turner; Guillaume Luc; Christophe Mariette
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 12.969

3.  Esophagectomy outcomes at low-volume hospitals: the association between systems characteristics and mortality.

Authors:  Luke M Funk; Atul A Gawande; Marcus E Semel; Stuart R Lipsitz; William R Berry; Michael J Zinner; Ashish K Jha
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  Hospital esophageal cancer resection volume does not predict patient mortality risk.

Authors:  Benjamin D Kozower; George J Stukenborg
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 4.330

5.  Worldwide Oesophageal Cancer Collaboration guidelines for lymphadenectomy predict survival following neoadjuvant therapy.

Authors:  Brendon M Stiles; Abu Nasar; Farooq A Mirza; Paul C Lee; Subroto Paul; Jeffrey L Port; Nasser K Altorki
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2012-04-04       Impact factor: 4.191

6.  Three-field lymphadenectomy for carcinoma of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction in 174 R0 resections: impact on staging, disease-free survival, and outcome: a plea for adaptation of TNM classification in upper-half esophageal carcinoma.

Authors:  T Lerut; P Nafteux; J Moons; W Coosemans; G Decker; P De Leyn; D Van Raemdonck; N Ectors
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 12.969

7.  Extended transthoracic resection compared with limited transhiatal resection for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus.

Authors:  Jan B F Hulscher; Johanna W van Sandick; Angela G E M de Boer; Bas P L Wijnhoven; Jan G P Tijssen; Paul Fockens; Peep F M Stalmeier; Fiebo J W ten Kate; Herman van Dekken; Huug Obertop; Hugo W Tilanus; J Jan B van Lanschot
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-11-21       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Total number of resected lymph nodes predicts survival in esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Nasser K Altorki; Xi Kathy Zhou; Brendon Stiles; Jeffrey L Port; Subroto Paul; Paul C Lee; Madhu Mazumdar
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 12.969

9.  Optimum lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Nabil P Rizk; Hemant Ishwaran; Thomas W Rice; Long-Qi Chen; Paul H Schipper; Kenneth A Kesler; Simon Law; Toni E M R Lerut; Carolyn E Reed; Jarmo A Salo; Walter J Scott; Wayne L Hofstetter; Thomas J Watson; Mark S Allen; Valerie W Rusch; Eugene H Blackstone
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 12.969

10.  Prognostic Value of the Circumferential Resection Margin in Esophageal Cancer Patients After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy.

Authors:  J B Hulshoff; Z Faiz; A Karrenbeld; G Kats-Ugurlu; J G M Burgerhof; J K Smit; J Th M Plukker
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 5.344

View more
  8 in total

1.  Optimal Therapy in Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer: a National Cancer Database Analysis.

Authors:  William M Whited; Jaimin R Trivedi; Emily R Bond; Victor H van Berkel; Matthew P Fox
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2017-09-22       Impact factor: 3.452

2.  Margin Positivity in Resectable Esophageal Cancer: Are there Modifiable Risk Factors?

Authors:  Cary Jo R Schlick; Rhami Khorfan; David D Odell; Ryan P Merkow; David J Bentrem
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-01-13       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 3.  Oncologic Quality Indicators in Thoracic Surgery.

Authors:  Jessica Hudson; Tara Semenkovich; Varun Puri
Journal:  Thorac Surg Clin       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 1.750

Review 4.  Positive circumferential resection margin in locally advanced esophageal cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jie Wu; Yuqian Hu; Liwei Xu
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2022-02-25

5.  Adherence to quality measures improves survival in esophageal cancer in a retrospective cohort study of the national cancer database from 2004 to 2016.

Authors:  Akash Adhia; Joseph Feinglass; Cary Jo Schlick; David Odell
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 2.895

6.  Textbook outcome for esophageal cancer surgery: an international consensus-based update of a quality measure.

Authors:  Marianne C Kalff; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Suzanne S Gisbertz
Journal:  Dis Esophagus       Date:  2021-07-12       Impact factor: 3.429

7.  The Impact of Adjuvant Therapy on Survival After Esophagectomy for Node-negative Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  A Justin Rucker; Vignesh Raman; Oliver K Jawitz; Soraya L Voigt; David H Harpole; Thomas A D'Amico; Betty C Tong
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 13.787

8.  Adequate Lymphadenectomy as a Quality Measure in Esophageal Cancer: Is there an Association with Treatment Approach?

Authors:  Cary Jo R Schlick; Rhami Khorfan; David D Odell; Ryan P Merkow; David J Bentrem
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-06-09       Impact factor: 4.339

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.