Karl-Heinrich Link1,2, Peter Coy3, Mark Roitman1, Carola Link2, Marko Kornmann2,4, Ludger Staib2,5. 1. Department of Surgery, Asklepios Paulinen Klinik, Wiesbaden, Germany. 2. Forschungsgruppe Onkologie Gastrointestinale Tumoren (FOGT), University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany. 3. Department of Health Economics, RheinMain University of Applied Sciences, Wiesbaden, Germany. 4. Department of General and Visceral Surgery, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany. 5. Department of General and Visceral Surgery, Klinikum Esslingen, Esslingen, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To answer the question whether minimum caseloads need to be stipulated in the German S3 (or any other) guidelines for colorectal cancer, we analyzed the current representative literature. The question is important regarding medical quality as well as health economics and policy. METHODS: A literature research was conducted in PubMed for papers concerning 'colon cancer' (CC), 'rectal cancer' (RC), and 'colorectal cancer' (CRC), with 'results', 'quality', and 'mortality' between the years 2000 and 2016 being relevant factors. We graded the recommendations as 'pro', 'maybe', or 'contra' in terms of a significant correlation between hospital volume (HV) or surgeon volume (SV) and treatment quality. We also listed the recommended numbers suggested for HV or SV as minimum caseloads and calculated and discussed the socio-economic impact of setting minimum caseloads for CRC. RESULTS: The correlations of caseloads of hospitals or surgeons turned out to be highly controversial concerning the influence of HV or SV on short- and long-term surgical treatment quality of CRC. Specialized statisticians made the point that the reports in the literature might not use the optimal biometrical analytical/reporting methods. A Dutch analysis showed that if a decision towards minimum caseloads, e.g. >50 for CRC resections, would be made, this would exclude a lot of hospitals with proven good treatment quality and include hospitals with a treatment quality below average. Our economic analysis envisioned that a yearly loss of EUR <830,000 might ensue for hospitals with volumes <50 per year. CONCLUSIONS: Caseload (HV, SV) definitely is an inconsistent surrogate parameter for treatment quality in the surgery of CC, RC, or CRC. If used at all, the lowest tolerable numbers but the highest demands for structural, process and result quality in the surgical/interdisciplinary treatment of CC and RC must be imposed and independently controlled. Hospitals fulfilling these demands should be medically and socio-economically preferred concerning the treatment of CC and RC patients.
BACKGROUND: To answer the question whether minimum caseloads need to be stipulated in the German S3 (or any other) guidelines for colorectal cancer, we analyzed the current representative literature. The question is important regarding medical quality as well as health economics and policy. METHODS: A literature research was conducted in PubMed for papers concerning 'colon cancer' (CC), 'rectal cancer' (RC), and 'colorectal cancer' (CRC), with 'results', 'quality', and 'mortality' between the years 2000 and 2016 being relevant factors. We graded the recommendations as 'pro', 'maybe', or 'contra' in terms of a significant correlation between hospital volume (HV) or surgeon volume (SV) and treatment quality. We also listed the recommended numbers suggested for HV or SV as minimum caseloads and calculated and discussed the socio-economic impact of setting minimum caseloads for CRC. RESULTS: The correlations of caseloads of hospitals or surgeons turned out to be highly controversial concerning the influence of HV or SV on short- and long-term surgical treatment quality of CRC. Specialized statisticians made the point that the reports in the literature might not use the optimal biometrical analytical/reporting methods. A Dutch analysis showed that if a decision towards minimum caseloads, e.g. >50 for CRC resections, would be made, this would exclude a lot of hospitals with proven good treatment quality and include hospitals with a treatment quality below average. Our economic analysis envisioned that a yearly loss of EUR <830,000 might ensue for hospitals with volumes <50 per year. CONCLUSIONS: Caseload (HV, SV) definitely is an inconsistent surrogate parameter for treatment quality in the surgery of CC, RC, or CRC. If used at all, the lowest tolerable numbers but the highest demands for structural, process and result quality in the surgical/interdisciplinary treatment of CC and RC must be imposed and independently controlled. Hospitals fulfilling these demands should be medically and socio-economically preferred concerning the treatment of CC and RC patients.
Authors: Rachelle N Damle; Christopher W Macomber; Julie M Flahive; Jennifer S Davids; W Brian Sweeney; Paul R Sturrock; Justin A Maykel; Heena P Santry; Karim Alavi Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2014-03-12 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Rocco Ricciardi; Patricia L Roberts; Thomas E Read; Nancy N Baxter; Peter W Marcello; David J Schoetz Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: K H Link; M Kornmann; R Bittner; F Köckerling; R Arbogast; I Gastinger; W Heitland; D Henne-Bruns; H Lang; H Lippert; M Mann; H J Meyer; M-J Polonius; S Post; R Raab; T Schiedeck; V Schumpelick Journal: Chirurg Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 0.955
Authors: M Kornmann; A Formentini; C Ette; D Henne-Bruns; M Kron; S Sander; W Baumann; E-D Kreuser; L Staib; K H Link Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2008-03-03 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Nikki E Kolfschoten; Perla J Marang-van de Mheen; Michel W J M Wouters; Eric-Hans Eddes; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Theo Stijnen; Job Kievit Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Felix Walther; Jochen Schmitt; Maria Eberlein-Gonska; Ralf Kuhlen; Peter Scriba; Olaf Schoffer; Martin Roessler Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-07-25 Impact factor: 3.006