Associations Between Hospital and Surgeon Procedure Volumes and Patient Outcomes After Ovarian Cancer Resection

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10021, USA.
Journal of the National Cancer Institute (Impact Factor: 12.58). 03/2006; 98(3):163-71. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djj018
Source: PubMed


Strong associations between provider (i.e., hospital or surgeon) procedure volumes and patient outcomes have been demonstrated for many types of cancer operation. We performed a population-based cohort study to examine these associations for ovarian cancer resections.
We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database to identify 2952 patients aged 65 years or older who had surgery for a primary ovarian cancer diagnosed from 1992 through 1999. Hospital- and surgeon-specific procedure volumes were ascertained based on the number of claims submitted during the 8-year study period. Primary outcome measures were mortality at 60 days and 2 years after surgery, and overall survival. Length of hospital stay was also examined. Patient age at diagnosis, race, marital status, comorbid illness, cancer stage, and median income and population density in the area of residence were used to adjust for differences in case mix. All P values are two-sided.
Neither hospital- nor surgeon-specific procedure volume was statistically significantly associated with 60-day mortality following primary ovarian cancer resection. However, differences by hospital volume were seen with 2-year mortality; patients treated at the low-, intermediate-, and high-volume hospitals had 2-year mortality rates of 45.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 42.1% to 48.4%), 41.1% (95% CI = 38.1% to 44.3%), and 40.4% (95% CI = 37.4% to 43.4%), respectively. The inverse association between hospital procedure volume and 2-year mortality was statistically significant both before (P = .011) and after (P = .006) case-mix adjustment but not after adjustment for surgeon volume. Two-year mortality for patients treated by low-, intermediate-, and high-volume surgeons was 43.2% (95% CI = 40.7% to 45.8%), 42.9% (95% CI = 39.5% to 46.4%), and 39.5% (95% CI = 36.0% to 43.2%), respectively; there was no association between 2-year mortality and surgeon procedure volume, with or without case-mix adjustment. After case-mix adjustment, neither hospital volume (P = .031) nor surgeon volume (P = .062) was strongly associated with overall survival.
Hospital- and surgeon-specific procedure volumes are not strong predictors of survival outcomes following surgery for ovarian cancer among women aged 65 years or older.

0 Reads
  • Source
    • "This effect has been demonstrated for surgically managed gynecologic cancers, particularly ovarian, with high-volume surgeons and centers performing more standard of care therapy and reporting improved outcomes [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. However, other studies have reported contradictory findings and little attention has been given to non-surgically managed gynecologic cancers [23] [24] [25]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Chemosensitizing radiation with brachytherapy is standard of care for treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer, an increasingly rare disease. Treatment facility volume has been correlated with outcome in many diseases. Treatment outcome and likelihood of receiving standard therapy in locally-advanced cervical cancer based on facility volume were examined using a large national cancer database. The National Cancer Data Base was queried for patients with stage IIB - IIIB cervical cancer from 1/1998 through 12/2010. Facility volumes were tallied. Overall survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to determine variables affecting survival, receiving standard therapy, and total duration of radiotherapy. We identified a total of 27,660 patients who were treated at 1,361 facilities. Thirty of the facilities (2.2%) treated the highest quartile volume of patients (>9.4 patients annually) while 1,072 facilities (78.8%) treated <2.4 patients annually. The median age of patients was 53, the majority were Caucasian, treated in a metropolitan area, and of squamous cell histology. Median survival of patients treated at lowest- and highest-volume centers were 42.3 months (95% CI 39.8-44.8) and 53.8 months (50.1-57.5), respectively (p<0.001). The proportions of patients receiving brachytherapy and chemotherapy were 54.8% and 79.9%, respectively. On multivariable analysis, higher facility volume independently predicted improved survival (p=0.022), increased likelihood of receiving brachytherapy (p<0.0005) and chemotherapy (p=0.013), and shorter time to radiotherapy completion (p<0.0005). Patients with locally-advanced cervical cancer treated at high volume centers are more likely to receive standard therapy, complete therapy sooner, and experience better survival.
    Gynecologic Oncology 12/2013; 132(2). DOI:10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.12.013 · 3.77 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Canada Retrospective database 2,502 No Engelen 2006[26] Netherlands Retrospective database + chart review 632 Yes Goff 2006 and 2007[27,28] USA Retrospective database 10,432 n/a Kumpulainen 2006 and 2009[29] [30] Finland Prospective cohort 275 Yes Oberaigner 2006[31] Austria Retrospective database 911 Yes Paulsen 2006[32] Norway Prospective registry 198 Yes Schrag 2006[33] "
    01/2013; InTech Open Science., ISBN: 9789535110309
  • Source
    • "[11] Similar findings have been reported by studies conducted outside the United States.2 More recently, however, data from the National Cancer Institutes (NCI) Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-linked Medicare database suggests no benefit for ovarian cancer treated by gynecologists versus gynecological oncologist.[12] As well, SEER-linked Medicare has been used to demonstrate similar outcomes for the use of chemotherapy when administered by medical oncologists or gynecologic oncologists.[13] "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patient chances for cure and palliation for a variety of malignancies may be greatly affected by the care provided by a treating hospital. We sought to determine the effect of volume and teaching status on patient outcomes for five gynecologic malignancies: endometrial, cervical, ovarian and vulvar carcinoma and uterine sarcoma. The Florida Cancer Data System dataset was queried for all patients undergoing treatment for gynecologic cancers from 1990-2000. Overall, 48,981 patients with gynecologic malignancies were identified. Endometrial tumors were the most common, representing 43.2% of the entire cohort, followed by ovarian cancer (30.9%), cervical cancer (20.8%), vulvar cancer (4.6%), and uterine sarcoma (0.5%). By univariate analysis, although patients treated at high volume centers (HVC) were significantly younger, they benefited from an improved short-term (30-day and/or 90-day) survival for cervical, ovarian and endometrial cancers. Multivariate analysis (MVA), however, failed to demonstrate significant survival benefit for gynecologic cancer patients treated at teaching facilities (TF) or HVC. Significant prognostic factors at presentation by MVA were age over 65 (HR = 2.6, p<0.01), African-American race (HR = 1.36, p<0.01), and advanced stage (regional HR = 2.08, p<0.01; advanced HR = 3.82, p<0.01, respectively). Surgery and use of chemotherapy were each significantly associated with improved survival. No difference in patient survival was observed for any gynecologic malignancy based upon treating hospital teaching or volume status. Although instances of improved outcomes may occur, overall further regionalization would not appear to significantly improve patient survival.
    PLoS ONE 01/2009; 4(1):e4049. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0004049 · 3.23 Impact Factor
Show more