Hospital Esophageal Cancer Resection Volume Does Not Predict Patient Mortality Risk

Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
The Annals of thoracic surgery (Impact Factor: 3.85). 05/2012; 93(5):1690-6; discussion 1696-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.01.111
Source: PubMed


Insurers often seek to direct esophageal cancer patients to hospitals with high volumes of esophageal resection. However, controversy exists regarding the strength and validity of evidence for the volume-outcome association. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the volume-outcome relationship for esophageal cancer resection in a large population dataset and to compare 3alternative techniques for measuring the effect of volume.
Esophageal cancer resection patients were identified in the 2007 Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Hospital volume was measured using a continuous linear function, a nonlinear function using restricted cubic splines, and using quintiles of volume. The statistical significance of the relationship between hospital volume and mortality risk was assessed, and adjusted for patient age, for comorbid disease, and for correlated events within hospitals.
A total of 6,248 esophageal cancer resection patients from 217 hospitals were identified. All 3 models demonstrated excellent performance characteristics (C index=0.94, Nagelkerke R2=0.62). However, no significant association was demonstrated between hospital procedure volume and in-hospital mortality in any model. Important predictors of mortality included age, hypertension, weight loss, and peripheral vascular disease (p<0.001).
Esophageal cancer resection volume is not a significant predictor of mortality and should not be used as a proxy measure for surgical quality.

8 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) General Thoracic Surgery Database (GTSD) is the largest clinical thoracic surgical database in the United States. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether the GTSD esophagectomy outcomes are representative of nationwide outcomes by comparing them with other national clinical and administrative databases. From 2002 to 2008, esophageal cancer resection outcomes from the GTSD were compared with those from the National Surgery Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) and Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS). The observed differences in patient characteristics and postoperative events were also analyzed. Annual esophageal resection volumes have increased over time. However, as of 2008, the GTSD and NSQIP only capture a small proportion of resections performed nationally (36% and 11%, respectively). The median patient age and female gender were similar in all 3 databases. Mortality was significantly lower within the GTSD (3.2%) and NSQIP (2.6%) compared with the NIS (6.1%, P < .001). The median length of stay was lower in the GTSD (10 days) than in either the NSQIP (12 days) and NIS (12 days, P < .001). The STS GTSD reports outstanding mortality results and hospital length of stay for esophageal cancer resection. However, the surgical outcomes from the STS GTSD are not representative of the national results from programs not participating in the database. These results establish a reference for future esophagectomy comparisons and highlight the importance of increased participation and use of the STS GTSD.
    The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery 08/2012; 144(5):1152-9. DOI:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.08.010 · 4.17 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: : The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Leapfrog Group use hospital procedure volume as a quality measure for pancreatic resection (PR), abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair, esophageal resection (ER), and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). However, controversy exists regarding the strength and validity of the evidence for the volume-outcome association. The purpose of this study was to reevaluate the volume-outcome relationship for these procedures. : Discharge data for 261,412 patients were extracted from the 2008 Nationwide Inpatient Sample. The relationship between hospital procedure volume and mortality was rigorously assessed using hierarchical general linear modeling with restricted cubic splines, adjusted for patient demographics, comorbid disease, and elective procedure status. : Unadjusted mortality rates were PR (4.7%), AAA (12.7%), ER (5.8%), and CABG (2.2%), and the majority of operations were elective. Hospital procedure volume was not a statistically significant predictor of in-hospital mortality for any of the 4 procedures. Strong predictors of mortality included age, elective procedure status, renal failure, and malnutrition (P < 0.001). Each of the models demonstrated excellent performance in estimating the probability of death. : Hospital procedure volume is not a significant predictor of mortality for the performance of pancreatectomy, AAA repair, esophagectomy, or CABG. Procedure volume by itself should not be used as a proxy measure for surgical quality. Patient mortality risk is primarily attributable to patient-level characteristics such as age and comorbidity.
    Annals of surgery 09/2012; 256(4):606-15. DOI:10.1097/SLA.0b013e31826b4be6 · 8.33 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: This study assessed the associations between hospital volume, resection rate and survival of oesophageal and gastric cancer patients in England. Design: 62,811 patients diagnosed with oesophageal or gastric cancer between 2004 and 2008 were identified from a national population-based cancer registration and Hospital Episode Statistics-linked dataset. Cox regression analyses were used to assess all-cause mortality according to hospital volume and resection rate, adjusting for case-mix variables (sex, age, socioeconomic deprivation, comorbidity and type of cancer). HRs and 95% CIs, according to hospital volume, were evaluated for three predefined periods following surgery: <30, 30-365, and >365 days. Analysis of mortality in relation to resection rate was performed among all patients and among the 13 189 (21%) resected patients. Results: Increasing hospital volume was associated with lower mortality (p trend=0.0001; HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95 for hospitals resecting 80+ and compared with <20 patients a year). In relative terms, the association between increasing hospital volume and lower mortality was particularly strong in the first 30 days following surgery (p trend<0.0001; HR 0.52, (0.39 to 0.70)), but a clinically relevant association remained beyond 1 year (p trend=0.0011; HR 0.82, (0.72 to 0.95)). Increasing resection rates were associated with lower mortality among all patients (p trend<0.0001; HR 0.86, (0.84 to 0.89) for the highest, compared with the lowest resection quintile). Conclusions: With evidence of lower short-term and longer-term mortality for patients resected in high-volume hospitals, this study supports further centralisation of oesophageal and gastric cancer surgical services in England.
    Gut 10/2012; 62(7). DOI:10.1136/gutjnl-2012-303008 · 14.66 Impact Factor
Show more