Jiafu Ji1,2, Leiyu Shi3, Xiangji Ying1, Xinpu Lu4, Fei Shan1. 1. Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, China. 2. Department of Health Policy and Management, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. 3. Department of Health Policy and Management, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. lshi2@jhu.edu. 4. Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Procedural volume is an important determinant of outcomes in cancer surgery. There is a lack of a comprehensive and updated assessment of hospital and surgeon volumes in relation to short- and long-term outcomes after gastrectomy for cancer. METHODS: The PubMed and Embase databases were searched on January 2021. We conducted meta-analyses and meta-regressions assuming a random effects model to assess the associations of procedural volumes with outcomes after gastrectomy. Effect sizes included hazard ratios (HRs), odds ratios (ORs), and standardized mean differences (SMDs). Heterogeneity was evaluated with the I2 statistic and explored by subgroup analyses. The risk of publication bias, risk of bias, and certainty of evidence were also assessed. RESULTS: We identified 53 primary publications on the effect of hospital (n = 48) or surgeon (n = 11) volume on 11 gastrectomy outcomes. Patients operated on in high-volume centers had better overall survival (HR 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75-0.90), lower short-term mortality (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.58-0.75), more adequate lymphadenectomy (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.76-2.59), and shorter length of stay (SMD - 0.08, 95% CI - 0.12 to - 0.04). The meta-analysis showed no significant associations of hospital volume with surgical complications, R0 or negative margin resection, or disease-free survival (all p > 0.05). A higher surgeon volume was associated with lower 30-day mortality (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: The current study suggested with high confidence that gastric cancer patients operated on in high-volume centers had better overall survival. Centralization of gastrectomy in high-volume centers might lead to an overall improvement in other outcomes, but more studies, especially on surgeon volume, are needed.
BACKGROUND: Procedural volume is an important determinant of outcomes in cancer surgery. There is a lack of a comprehensive and updated assessment of hospital and surgeon volumes in relation to short- and long-term outcomes after gastrectomy for cancer. METHODS: The PubMed and Embase databases were searched on January 2021. We conducted meta-analyses and meta-regressions assuming a random effects model to assess the associations of procedural volumes with outcomes after gastrectomy. Effect sizes included hazard ratios (HRs), odds ratios (ORs), and standardized mean differences (SMDs). Heterogeneity was evaluated with the I2 statistic and explored by subgroup analyses. The risk of publication bias, risk of bias, and certainty of evidence were also assessed. RESULTS: We identified 53 primary publications on the effect of hospital (n = 48) or surgeon (n = 11) volume on 11 gastrectomy outcomes. Patients operated on in high-volume centers had better overall survival (HR 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75-0.90), lower short-term mortality (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.58-0.75), more adequate lymphadenectomy (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.76-2.59), and shorter length of stay (SMD - 0.08, 95% CI - 0.12 to - 0.04). The meta-analysis showed no significant associations of hospital volume with surgical complications, R0 or negative margin resection, or disease-free survival (all p > 0.05). A higher surgeon volume was associated with lower 30-day mortality (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: The current study suggested with high confidence that gastric cancer patients operated on in high-volume centers had better overall survival. Centralization of gastrectomy in high-volume centers might lead to an overall improvement in other outcomes, but more studies, especially on surgeon volume, are needed.
Authors: Russell L Gruen; Veronica Pitt; Sally Green; Anne Parkhill; Donald Campbell; Damien Jolley Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2009 May-Jun Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Matthew J Page; David Moher; Patrick M Bossuyt; Isabelle Boutron; Tammy C Hoffmann; Cynthia D Mulrow; Larissa Shamseer; Jennifer M Tetzlaff; Elie A Akl; Sue E Brennan; Roger Chou; Julie Glanville; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Manoj M Lalu; Tianjing Li; Elizabeth W Loder; Evan Mayo-Wilson; Steve McDonald; Luke A McGuinness; Lesley A Stewart; James Thomas; Andrea C Tricco; Vivian A Welch; Penny Whiting; Joanne E McKenzie Journal: BMJ Date: 2021-03-29
Authors: Waddah B Al-Refaie; Greer Gay; Beth A Virnig; Jennifer F Tseng; Andrew Stewart; Selwyn M Vickers; Todd M Tuttle; Barry W Feig Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-01-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Karl Y Bilimoria; Mark S Talamonti; Jeffrey D Wayne; James S Tomlinson; Andrew K Stewart; David P Winchester; Clifford Y Ko; David J Bentrem Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2008-07
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396