Sujay Kulshrestha1,2, Patrick J Sweigert2, Celsa Tonelli2,3, Corinne Bunn1,2, Fred A Luchette2,3, Zaid M Abdelsattar4, Timothy M Pawlik5, Marshall S Baker2,3. 1. Burn and Shock Trauma Research Institute, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Illinois, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, Edward Hines Jr. Veterans Affair Hospital, Hines, Illinois, USA. 4. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Loyola, University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois, USA. 5. Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Few empiric studies evaluate the effects of regionalization on pancreatic cancer care. METHODS: We queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy for clinical stage I/II pancreatic adenocarcinoma between 2006 and 2015. Facilities were categorized by annual pancreatectomy volume. Textbook oncologic outcome was defined as a margin negative resection, appropriate lymph node assessment, no prolonged hospitalization, no 30-day readmission, no 90-day mortality, and timely receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy. Multivariable regression adjusted for comorbid disease, pathologic stage, and facility characteristics was used to evaluate the relationship between facility volume and textbook outcome. RESULTS: Sixteen thousand six hundred and two patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy; 3566 (21.5%) had a textbook outcome. Operations performed at high volume centers increased each year (45.8% in 2006 to 64.2% in 2015, p < 0.001) as did textbook outcome rates (14.3%-26.2%, p < 0.001). Surgical volume was associated with textbook outcome. High volume centers demonstrated higher unadjusted rates of textbook outcome (25.4% vs. 11.8% p < 0.01) and increased adjusted odds of textbook outcome relative to low volume centers (odds ratio: 2.39, [2.02, 2.85], p < 0.001). Textbook outcome was associated with improved overall survival independent of volume. CONCLUSIONS: Regionalization of care for pancreaticoduodenectomy to high volume centers is ongoing and is associated with improved quality of care.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Few empiric studies evaluate the effects of regionalization on pancreatic cancer care. METHODS: We queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy for clinical stage I/II pancreatic adenocarcinoma between 2006 and 2015. Facilities were categorized by annual pancreatectomy volume. Textbook oncologic outcome was defined as a margin negative resection, appropriate lymph node assessment, no prolonged hospitalization, no 30-day readmission, no 90-day mortality, and timely receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy. Multivariable regression adjusted for comorbid disease, pathologic stage, and facility characteristics was used to evaluate the relationship between facility volume and textbook outcome. RESULTS: Sixteen thousand six hundred and two patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy; 3566 (21.5%) had a textbook outcome. Operations performed at high volume centers increased each year (45.8% in 2006 to 64.2% in 2015, p < 0.001) as did textbook outcome rates (14.3%-26.2%, p < 0.001). Surgical volume was associated with textbook outcome. High volume centers demonstrated higher unadjusted rates of textbook outcome (25.4% vs. 11.8% p < 0.01) and increased adjusted odds of textbook outcome relative to low volume centers (odds ratio: 2.39, [2.02, 2.85], p < 0.001). Textbook outcome was associated with improved overall survival independent of volume. CONCLUSIONS: Regionalization of care for pancreaticoduodenectomy to high volume centers is ongoing and is associated with improved quality of care.
Authors: Patrick J Sweigert; Emanuel Eguia; Marshall S Baker; Anghela Z Paredes; Diamantis I Tsilimigras; Mary Dillhoff; Aslam Ejaz; Jordan Cloyd; Allan Tsung; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2020-03-02 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Paul D Colavita; Victor B Tsirline; Igor Belyansky; Ryan Z Swan; Amanda L Walters; Amy E Lincourt; David A Iannitti; B Todd Heniford Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2014-01-16 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Justin B Dimick; Douglas O Staiger; Nicholas H Osborne; Lauren H Nicholas; John D Birkmeyer Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2012-03-30 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: S Jane Henley; Elizabeth M Ward; Susan Scott; Jiemin Ma; Robert N Anderson; Albert U Firth; Cheryll C Thomas; Farhad Islami; Hannah K Weir; Denise Riedel Lewis; Recinda L Sherman; Manxia Wu; Vicki B Benard; Lisa C Richardson; Ahmedin Jemal; Kathleen Cronin; Betsy A Kohler Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-03-12 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Roheena Z Panni; Usman Y Panni; Jingxia Liu; Gregory A Williams; Ryan C Fields; Dominic E Sanford; William G Hawkins; Chet W Hammill Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2020-09-28 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Alessandro Paro; Daniel R Rice; J Madison Hyer; Elizabeth Palmer; Aslam Ejaz; Chanza Fahim Shaikh; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2022-07-27 Impact factor: 4.339