Frederik H W Jonker1, Jan A W Hagemans2, Jacobus W A Burger2, Cornelis Verhoef2, Wernard A A Borstlap3, Pieter J Tanis3. 1. Department of Surgery, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Tuinen 16, 8911 KD, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands. jonkerfrederik@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The association between hospital volume and outcome in rectal cancer surgery is still subject of debate. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of hospital volume on outcomes of rectal cancer surgery in the Netherlands in 2011. METHODS: In this collaborative research with a cross-sectional study design, patients who underwent rectal cancer resection in 71 Dutch hospitals in 2011 were included. Annual hospital volume was stratified as low (< 20), medium (20-50), and high (≥ 50). RESULTS: Of 2095 patients, 258 patients (12.3%) were treated in 23 low-volume hospitals, 1329 (63.4%) in 40 medium-volume hospitals, and 508 (24.2%) in 8 high-volume hospitals. Median length of follow-up was 41 months. Clinical tumor stage, neoadjuvant therapy, extended resections, circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity, and 30-day or in-hospital mortality did not differ significantly between volume groups. Significantly, more laparoscopic procedures were performed in low-volume hospitals, and more diverting stomas in high-volume hospitals. Three-year disease-free survival for low-, medium-, and high-volume hospitals was 75.0, 74.8, and 76.8% (p = 0.682). Corresponding 3-year overall survival rates were 75.9, 79.1, and 80.3% (p = 0.344). In multivariate analysis, hospital volume was not associated with long-term risk of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: No significant impact of hospital volume on rectal cancer surgery outcome could be observed among 71 Dutch hospitals after implementation of a national audit, with the majority of patients being treated at medium-volume hospitals.
PURPOSE: The association between hospital volume and outcome in rectal cancer surgery is still subject of debate. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of hospital volume on outcomes of rectal cancer surgery in the Netherlands in 2011. METHODS: In this collaborative research with a cross-sectional study design, patients who underwent rectal cancer resection in 71 Dutch hospitals in 2011 were included. Annual hospital volume was stratified as low (< 20), medium (20-50), and high (≥ 50). RESULTS: Of 2095 patients, 258 patients (12.3%) were treated in 23 low-volume hospitals, 1329 (63.4%) in 40 medium-volume hospitals, and 508 (24.2%) in 8 high-volume hospitals. Median length of follow-up was 41 months. Clinical tumor stage, neoadjuvant therapy, extended resections, circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity, and 30-day or in-hospital mortality did not differ significantly between volume groups. Significantly, more laparoscopic procedures were performed in low-volume hospitals, and more diverting stomas in high-volume hospitals. Three-year disease-free survival for low-, medium-, and high-volume hospitals was 75.0, 74.8, and 76.8% (p = 0.682). Corresponding 3-year overall survival rates were 75.9, 79.1, and 80.3% (p = 0.344). In multivariate analysis, hospital volume was not associated with long-term risk of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: No significant impact of hospital volume on rectal cancer surgery outcome could be observed among 71 Dutch hospitals after implementation of a national audit, with the majority of patients being treated at medium-volume hospitals.
Entities:
Keywords:
Hospital volume; Outcome; Rectal cancer; Surgery
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
Authors: Marit Kressner; Måns Bohe; Björn Cedermark; Michael Dahlberg; Lena Damber; Gudrun Lindmark; Björn Ojerskog; Rune Sjödahl; Robert Johansson; Lars Påhlman Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Deborah Schrag; Katherine S Panageas; Elyn Riedel; Laura D Cramer; Jose G Guillem; Peter B Bach; Colin B Begg Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Amanda C R K Bos; Felice N van Erning; Marloes A G Elferink; Harm J Rutten; Martijn G H van Oijen; Johannes H W de Wilt; Valery E P P Lemmens Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: J Engel; J Kerr; R Eckel; B Günther; M Heiss; W Heitland; J R Siewert; K-W Jauch; D Hölzel Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Jeong-Heum Baek; Abdulhadi Alrubaie; Eduardo A Guzman; Sun Keun Choi; Casandra Anderson; Steven Mills; Joseph Carmichael; Andy Dagis; Dajun Qian; Joseph Kim; Julio Garcia-Aguilar; Michael J Stamos; Lisa Bening; Alessio Pigazzi Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2012-07-29 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Sarah J Atkinson; Meghan C Daly; Emily F Midura; David A Etzioni; Daniel E Abbott; Shimul A Shah; Bradley R Davis; Ian M Paquette Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2016-04-23 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: David C Hodgson; Wei Zhang; Alan M Zaslavsky; Charles S Fuchs; William E Wright; John Z Ayanian Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2003-05-21 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jeffrey A Meyerhardt; Joel E Tepper; Donna Niedzwiecki; Donna R Hollis; Deborah Schrag; John Z Ayanian; Michael J O'Connell; Jane C Weeks; Robert J Mayer; Christopher G Willett; John S MacDonald; Al B Benson; Charles S Fuchs Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Julia Tessa van Groningen; Perla J Marang-van de Mheen; Daniel Henneman; Geerard L Beets; Michel W J M Wouters Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-09-24 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Edgar J B Furnée; Tjeerd S Aukema; Steven J Oosterling; Wernard A A Borstlap; Willem A Bemelman; Pieter J Tanis Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2018-09-05 Impact factor: 3.452