Shreyas S Joshi1, Elizabeth A Handorf2, Matthew Zibelman3, Elizabeth R Plimack3, Robert G Uzzo1, Alexander Kutikov1, Marc C Smaldone1, Daniel M Geynisman4. 1. Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 2. Department of Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. Department of Hematology/Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. Department of Hematology/Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: daniel.geynisman@fccc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Higher treatment facility (TF) volume has been linked with improved oncologic treatment outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between TF volume and overall survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for all patients with mRCC with survival data available (2004-2013, cohort A). Overall survival was assessed based on TF volumes, and increasingly narrow inclusion criteria were used to confirm the cohort A association: cohort B=mRCC patients with active treatment; cohort C=mRCC patients with systemic therapy; cohort D=mRCC patients with systemic therapy at the reporting institution; and cohort E=mRCC patients with systemic therapy at the reporting institution with known liver and lung metastatic status. Sensitivity analyses were also performed on subcohorts of mRCC who never underwent a nephrectomy (C1, D1, and E1). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The effect of volume on time to death (from any cause) was determined using Cox regression models, adjusting for multiple clinical pathologic factors. Volume effects (assessed continuously) were modeled using flexible cubic splines, and adjusted 1-yr survivals were obtained from the model. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 41 836 mRCC patients were treated at 1222 TFs. The median age was 65 yr. Of the patients, 66% were men and 79% had clear cell mRCC. Median TF volume was 2.2 patients per year (pts/yr). Across all cohorts, higher TF volume was associated with improved outcomes. Adjusted 1-yr survival in cohort A was 0.36 at 2 pts/yr, 0.39 at 5 pts/yr, 0.42 at 10 pts/yr, and 0.46 at 20 pts/yr, with similar magnitudes of effect in cohorts B-E. Limitations include the retrospective nature of NCDB analysis and the lack of information on treatment regimens used at specific facilities, which may explain mechanisms of effects. CONCLUSIONS: Higher facility volume is associated with improvements in survival for patients being treated for mRCC. Steps should be taken to standardize management of mRCC patients, such as evidence-based pathway development, clinical trial access, and multidisciplinary resource availability at lower-volume TFs. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we analyzed a large cancer database and found that patients with metastatic kidney cancer survived longer if they were managed at facilities that treated a higher volume of such patients. This information can help find the best treatment environment for patients with metastatic kidney cancer.
BACKGROUND: Higher treatment facility (TF) volume has been linked with improved oncologic treatment outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between TF volume and overall survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for all patients with mRCC with survival data available (2004-2013, cohort A). Overall survival was assessed based on TF volumes, and increasingly narrow inclusion criteria were used to confirm the cohort A association: cohort B=mRCC patients with active treatment; cohort C=mRCC patients with systemic therapy; cohort D=mRCC patients with systemic therapy at the reporting institution; and cohort E=mRCC patients with systemic therapy at the reporting institution with known liver and lung metastatic status. Sensitivity analyses were also performed on subcohorts of mRCC who never underwent a nephrectomy (C1, D1, and E1). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The effect of volume on time to death (from any cause) was determined using Cox regression models, adjusting for multiple clinical pathologic factors. Volume effects (assessed continuously) were modeled using flexible cubic splines, and adjusted 1-yr survivals were obtained from the model. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 41 836 mRCC patients were treated at 1222 TFs. The median age was 65 yr. Of the patients, 66% were men and 79% had clear cell mRCC. Median TF volume was 2.2 patients per year (pts/yr). Across all cohorts, higher TF volume was associated with improved outcomes. Adjusted 1-yr survival in cohort A was 0.36 at 2 pts/yr, 0.39 at 5 pts/yr, 0.42 at 10 pts/yr, and 0.46 at 20 pts/yr, with similar magnitudes of effect in cohorts B-E. Limitations include the retrospective nature of NCDB analysis and the lack of information on treatment regimens used at specific facilities, which may explain mechanisms of effects. CONCLUSIONS: Higher facility volume is associated with improvements in survival for patients being treated for mRCC. Steps should be taken to standardize management of mRCC patients, such as evidence-based pathway development, clinical trial access, and multidisciplinary resource availability at lower-volume TFs. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we analyzed a large cancer database and found that patients with metastatic kidney cancer survived longer if they were managed at facilities that treated a higher volume of such patients. This information can help find the best treatment environment for patients with metastatic kidney cancer.
Authors: Alexander P Cole; Maxine Sun; Stuart R Lipsitz; Akshay Sood; Adam S Kibel; Quoc-Dien Trinh Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-02-06 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jason D Wright; Yongmei Huang; Cande V Ananth; Ana I Tergas; Cassandra Duffy; Israel Deutsch; William M Burke; June Y Hou; Alfred I Neugut; Dawn L Hershman Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-07-12 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Martin F Casey; Tal Gross; Juan Wisnivesky; Kristian D Stensland; William K Oh; Matthew D Galsky Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-01-23 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Tim Eisen; Cora N Sternberg; Caroline Robert; Peter Mulders; Lynda Pyle; Stephan Zbinden; Hassan Izzedine; Bernard Escudier Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2012-01-10 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Quoc-Dien Trinh; Marco Bianchi; Jens Hansen; Zhe Tian; Firas Abdollah; Shahrokh F Shariat; Francesco Montorsi; Paul Perrotte; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Maxine Sun Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-09-07 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Amy Downing; Eva Ja Morris; Neil Corrigan; David Sebag-Montefiore; Paul J Finan; James D Thomas; Michael Chapman; Russell Hamilton; Helen Campbell; David Cameron; Richard Kaplan; Mahesh Parmar; Richard Stephens; Matt Seymour; Walter Gregory; Peter Selby Journal: Gut Date: 2016-10-19 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Alberto Diaz de Leon; Ali Pirasteh; Daniel N Costa; Payal Kapur; Hans Hammers; James Brugarolas; Ivan Pedrosa Journal: Radiographics Date: 2019-06-14 Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Brian T Kadow; Shreyas S Joshi; Alexander Kutikov; Elizabeth Handorf; Marc C Smaldone; Robert G Uzzo; Daniel M Geynisman Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2019-12