Vanessa M Welten1,2, Kerollos N Wanis3, Arin L Madenci4, Adam C Fields4, Pamela W Lu4, Robert A Malizia4, James Yoo4, Joel E Goldberg4, Jennifer L Irani4, Ronald Bleday4, Nelya Melnitchouk4,5. 1. Division of General and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, MA, 02115, Boston, USA. vwelten@partners.org. 2. Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 1620 Tremont St, MA, 02120, Boston, USA. vwelten@partners.org. 3. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, MA, 02115, Boston, USA. 4. Division of General and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, MA, 02115, Boston, USA. 5. Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 1620 Tremont St, MA, 02120, Boston, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prior studies assessing colorectal cancer survival have reported better outcomes when operations are performed at high-volume centers. These studies have largely been cross-sectional, making it difficult to interpret their estimates. We aimed to assess the effect of facility volume on survival following proctectomy for rectal cancer. METHODS: Using data from the National Cancer Database, we included all patients with complete baseline information who underwent proctectomy for non-metastatic rectal cancer between 2004 and 2016. Facility volume was defined as the number of rectal cancer cases managed at the treating center in the calendar year prior to the patient's surgery. Overall survival estimates were obtained for facility volumes ranging from 10 to 100 cases/year. Follow-up began on the day of surgery and continued until loss to follow-up or death. RESULTS: A total of 52,822 patients were eligible. Patients operated on at hospitals with volumes of 10, 30, and 50 cases/year had similar distributions of grade, clinical stage, and neoadjuvant therapies. 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival all improved with increasing facility volume. One-year survival was 94.0% (95% CI: 93.7, 94.3) for hospitals that performed 10 cases/year, 94.5% (95% CI: 94.2, 94.7) for 30 cases/year, and 94.8% (95% CI: 94.5, 95.0) for 50 cases/year. Five-year survival was 68.9% (95% CI: 68.0, 69.7) for hospitals that performed 10 cases/year, 70.8% (95% CI: 70.1, 71.5) for 30 cases/year, and 72.0% (95% CI: 71.2, 72.8) for 50 cases/year. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment at a higher volume facility results in improved survival following proctectomy for rectal cancer, though the small benefits are less profound than previously reported.
BACKGROUND: Prior studies assessing colorectal cancer survival have reported better outcomes when operations are performed at high-volume centers. These studies have largely been cross-sectional, making it difficult to interpret their estimates. We aimed to assess the effect of facility volume on survival following proctectomy for rectal cancer. METHODS: Using data from the National Cancer Database, we included all patients with complete baseline information who underwent proctectomy for non-metastatic rectal cancer between 2004 and 2016. Facility volume was defined as the number of rectal cancer cases managed at the treating center in the calendar year prior to the patient's surgery. Overall survival estimates were obtained for facility volumes ranging from 10 to 100 cases/year. Follow-up began on the day of surgery and continued until loss to follow-up or death. RESULTS: A total of 52,822 patients were eligible. Patients operated on at hospitals with volumes of 10, 30, and 50 cases/year had similar distributions of grade, clinical stage, and neoadjuvant therapies. 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival all improved with increasing facility volume. One-year survival was 94.0% (95% CI: 93.7, 94.3) for hospitals that performed 10 cases/year, 94.5% (95% CI: 94.2, 94.7) for 30 cases/year, and 94.8% (95% CI: 94.5, 95.0) for 50 cases/year. Five-year survival was 68.9% (95% CI: 68.0, 69.7) for hospitals that performed 10 cases/year, 70.8% (95% CI: 70.1, 71.5) for 30 cases/year, and 72.0% (95% CI: 71.2, 72.8) for 50 cases/year. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment at a higher volume facility results in improved survival following proctectomy for rectal cancer, though the small benefits are less profound than previously reported.
Authors: D W Borowski; D M Bradburn; S J Mills; B Bharathan; R G Wilson; A A Ratcliffe; S B Kelly Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: W van Gijn; G A Gooiker; M W J M Wouters; P N Post; R A E M Tollenaar; C J H van de Velde Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2010-07-07 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Ane L Appelt; John Pløen; Henrik Harling; Frank S Jensen; Lars H Jensen; Jens C R Jørgensen; Jan Lindebjerg; Søren R Rafaelsen; Anders Jakobsen Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-07-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Jennie K Lee; Aristithes G Doumouras; Jeremy E Springer; Cagla Eskicioglu; Nalin Amin; Margherita Cadeddu; Dennis Hong Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-06-10 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Karl Y Bilimoria; David J Bentrem; Joseph M Feinglass; Andrew K Stewart; David P Winchester; Mark S Talamonti; Clifford Y Ko Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-06-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Angelita Habr-Gama; Joaquim Gama-Rodrigues; Guilherme P São Julião; Igor Proscurshim; Charles Sabbagh; Patricio B Lynn; Rodrigo O Perez Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: René Vonlanthen; Peter Lodge; Jeffrey S Barkun; Olivier Farges; Xavier Rogiers; Kjetil Soreide; Henrik Kehlet; John V Reynolds; Samuel A Käser; Peter Naredi; Inne Borel-Rinkes; Sebastiano Biondo; Hugo Pinto-Marques; Michael Gnant; Philippe Nafteux; Miroslav Ryska; Wolf O Bechstein; Guillaume Martel; Justin B Dimick; Marek Krawczyk; Attila Oláh; Antonio D Pinna; Irinel Popescu; Pauli A Puolakkainen; Georgius C Sotiropoulos; Erkki J Tukiainen; Henrik Petrowsky; Pierre-Alain Clavien Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 12.969