Lucas W Thornblade1, Douglas E Wood1, Michael S Mulligan1, Alexander S Farivar2, Michal Hubka3, Kimberly E Costas4, Bahirathan Krishnadasan5, Farhood Farjah6. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash. 2. Division of Thoracic Surgery, Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, Wash. 3. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Wash. 4. Division of Thoracic Surgery, Providence Regional Medical Center, Everett, Wash. 5. General Thoracic Surgery, CHI Franciscan Health System, Tacoma, Wash. 6. Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash. Electronic address: ffarjah@uw.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Prior studies have reported underuse of-but not variability in-invasive mediastinal staging in the pretreatment evaluation of patients with lung cancer. We sought to compare rates of invasive mediastinal staging for lung cancer across hospitals participating in a regional quality improvement and research collaborative. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study (2011-2013) of patients undergoing resected lung cancer from the Surgical Clinical Outcomes and Assessment Program in Washington State. Invasive mediastinal staging included mediastinoscopy and/or endobronchial/esophageal ultrasound-guided nodal aspiration. We used a mixed-effects model to mitigate the influence of small sample sizes at any 1 hospital on rates of invasive staging and to adjust for hospital-level differences in the frequency of clinical stage IA disease. RESULTS: A total of 406 patients (mean age, 68 years; 69% clinical stage IA; and 67% lobectomy) underwent resection at 5 hospitals (4 community and 1 academic). Invasive staging occurred in 66% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 61%-71%). CI inspection revealed that 2 hospitals performed invasive staging significantly more often than the overall average (94%, [95% CI, 89%-96%] and 84% [95% CI, 78%-88%]), whereas 2 hospitals performed invasive staging significantly less often than overall average (31% [95% CI, 21%-44%] and 17% [95% CI, 7%-36%]). CONCLUSIONS: Rates of invasive mediastinal staging varied significantly across hospitals providing surgical care for patients with lung cancer. Future studies that aim to understand the reasons underlying variability in care may inform quality improvement initiatives or lead to the development of novel staging algorithms.
OBJECTIVE: Prior studies have reported underuse of-but not variability in-invasive mediastinal staging in the pretreatment evaluation of patients with lung cancer. We sought to compare rates of invasive mediastinal staging for lung cancer across hospitals participating in a regional quality improvement and research collaborative. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study (2011-2013) of patients undergoing resected lung cancer from the Surgical Clinical Outcomes and Assessment Program in Washington State. Invasive mediastinal staging included mediastinoscopy and/or endobronchial/esophageal ultrasound-guided nodal aspiration. We used a mixed-effects model to mitigate the influence of small sample sizes at any 1 hospital on rates of invasive staging and to adjust for hospital-level differences in the frequency of clinical stage IA disease. RESULTS: A total of 406 patients (mean age, 68 years; 69% clinical stage IA; and 67% lobectomy) underwent resection at 5 hospitals (4 community and 1 academic). Invasive staging occurred in 66% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 61%-71%). CI inspection revealed that 2 hospitals performed invasive staging significantly more often than the overall average (94%, [95% CI, 89%-96%] and 84% [95% CI, 78%-88%]), whereas 2 hospitals performed invasive staging significantly less often than overall average (31% [95% CI, 21%-44%] and 17% [95% CI, 7%-36%]). CONCLUSIONS: Rates of invasive mediastinal staging varied significantly across hospitals providing surgical care for patients with lung cancer. Future studies that aim to understand the reasons underlying variability in care may inform quality improvement initiatives or lead to the development of novel staging algorithms.
Authors: Farhood Farjah; Leah M Backhus; Thomas K Varghese; James P Manning; Aaron M Cheng; Michael S Mulligan; Douglas E Wood Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Michael T Vest; Lynn Tanoue; Pamela R Soulos; Anthony W Kim; Frank Detterbeck; Daniel Morgensztern; Cary P Gross Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Bryan F Meyers; Fabio Haddad; Barry A Siegel; Jennifer Bell Zoole; Richard J Battafarano; Nirmal Veeramachaneni; Joel D Cooper; G Alexander Patterson Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2006-03-02 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Frank C Detterbeck; Michael A Jantz; Michael Wallace; Johan Vansteenkiste; Gerard A Silvestri Journal: Chest Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Renato G Martins; Thomas A D'Amico; Billy W Loo; Mary Pinder-Schenck; Hossein Borghaei; Jamie E Chaft; Apar Kishor P Ganti; Feng-Ming Spring Kong; Mark G Kris; Inga T Lennes; Douglas E Wood Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Vignesh Raman; Oliver K Jawitz; Chi-Fu J Yang; Soraya L Voigt; Hanghang Wang; Thomas A D'Amico; David H Harpole; Betty C Tong Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2019-09-09 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Francys C Verdial; Kathleen S Berfield; Douglas E Wood; Michael S Mulligan; Joshua A Roth; David O Francis; Farhood Farjah Journal: Chest Date: 2019-10-09 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Louise M Henderson; Farhood Farjah; Frank Detterbeck; Robert A Smith; Gerard A Silvestri; M Patricia Rivera Journal: Chest Date: 2021-11-18 Impact factor: 10.262
Authors: Lucas W Thornblade; Michael S Mulligan; Katherine Odem-Davis; Billanna Hwang; Rachel L Waworuntu; Erika M Wolff; Larry Kessler; Douglas E Wood; Farhood Farjah Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2018-07-19 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Jelle E Bousema; Fieke Hoeijmakers; Marcel G W Dijkgraaf; Jouke T Annema; Frank J C van den Broek; M Elske van den Akker-van Marle Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2021-09-22 Impact factor: 2.711