BACKGROUND: The relationship of volume and travel distance to patient outcomes after resection of gallbladder cancer (GBC) remains poorly defined. METHODS: The 2004-2015 National Cancer Database was used to identify GBC resection patients and examine the impact of travel distance, hospital volume and both on overall survival (OS) and quality of care indicators. RESULTS: Among 10,174 patients undergoing surgery for GBC, the majority of patients were Caucasian (N = 8,175, 80%) and had a Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score of 0 (N = 6,785, 67%). On unadjusted survival analysis increasing travel distance and hospital volume were associated with improved OS (both p < 0.001). After controlling for competing risk factors, the 4th quartile of hospital volume was associated with a decreased hazard of death (HR 0.831, 95% CI 0.751-0.920, p < 0.001). When both hospital volume and travel distance were included, the association with improved OS persisted only for hospital volume (4th quartile HR 0.835, 95% CI 0.753-0.925, p < 0.001), whereas there was no independent association of increasing travel distance with OS. CONCLUSIONS: Both increasing travel distance and hospital volume were associated with improved OS; however, adjusted models demonstrated that the impact of travel distance was mediated through hospital volume.
BACKGROUND: The relationship of volume and travel distance to patient outcomes after resection of gallbladder cancer (GBC) remains poorly defined. METHODS: The 2004-2015 National Cancer Database was used to identify GBC resection patients and examine the impact of travel distance, hospital volume and both on overall survival (OS) and quality of care indicators. RESULTS: Among 10,174 patients undergoing surgery for GBC, the majority of patients were Caucasian (N = 8,175, 80%) and had a Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score of 0 (N = 6,785, 67%). On unadjusted survival analysis increasing travel distance and hospital volume were associated with improved OS (both p < 0.001). After controlling for competing risk factors, the 4th quartile of hospital volume was associated with a decreased hazard of death (HR 0.831, 95% CI 0.751-0.920, p < 0.001). When both hospital volume and travel distance were included, the association with improved OS persisted only for hospital volume (4th quartile HR 0.835, 95% CI 0.753-0.925, p < 0.001), whereas there was no independent association of increasing travel distance with OS. CONCLUSIONS: Both increasing travel distance and hospital volume were associated with improved OS; however, adjusted models demonstrated that the impact of travel distance was mediated through hospital volume.