Volume-Based Referral for Cancer Surgery: Informing the Debate
- 1 January 2007
- journal article
- surgical oncology
- Published by American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Vol. 25 (1), 91-96
- https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2006.07.2454
Abstract
Purpose: Mounting evidence suggests a relationship between hospital volume and outcomes after major cancer surgery; however, the absolute benefits of volume-based referral on a national basis are unclear. Patients and Methods: Data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample were used to measure the likelihood of operative mortality and a prolonged length of stay (LOS) after six cancer surgeries (prostatectomy, cystectomy, esophagectomy, pancreatectomy, pneumonectomy, and liver resection) between 1993 and 2003. Using sampling weights, the adjusted likelihood of the outcomes was used to calculate the number of lives saved (or prolonged LOS avoided) in the United States. Results: The magnitude of the volume–operative mortality effect varied from an adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 1.3 (95% CI, 0.8 to 2.3) for cystectomy to 4.9 (95% CI, 2.4 to 10.1) for pancreatectomy. After accounting for varying rates of procedure utilization, the lives saved per 100 surgeries regionalized ranged from 0.2 (95% CI, 0.12 to 0.24 lives saved) for prostatectomy to 9.2 (95% CI, 6.7 to 10.4 lives saved) for pancreatectomy. The volume–prolonged LOS effect varied from an adjusted OR of 0.9 (95% CI, 0.5 to 1.6) for liver resection to 4.8 (95% CI, 3.5 to 6.7) for prostatectomy. After accounting for procedure use, the number of prolonged hospitalizations avoided ranged from −1.7 (95% CI, −11.3 to 3.6 hospitalizations) to 14.3 (95% CI, 12.9 to 15.4 hospitalizations) per 100 surgeries regionalized for liver resection and prostatectomy, respectively. Conclusion: For patients undergoing major cancer surgery, the benefits of volume-based referral depend on the interplay between procedure utilization, the magnitude of effect, and the outcome chosen.Keywords
This publication has 23 references indexed in Scilit:
- Strategies for Improving Surgical Quality — Should Payers Reward Excellence or Effort?New England Journal of Medicine, 2006
- Associations Between Hospital and Surgeon Procedure Volumes and Patient Outcomes After Ovarian Cancer ResectionJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2006
- IMPACT OF HOSPITAL AND SURGEON VOLUME ON IN-HOSPITAL MORTALITY FROM RADICAL CYSTECTOMY: DATA FROM THE HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION PROJECTJournal of Urology, 2005
- National trends in the use and outcomes of hepatic resection1Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 2004
- Potential benefits of the new Leapfrog standards: effect of process and outcomes measuresSurgery, 2004
- Increased Spending On Health Care: How Much Can The United States Afford?Health Affairs, 2003
- Surgeon volume compared to hospital volume as a predictor of outcome following primary colon cancer resectionJournal of Surgical Oncology, 2003
- Hospital Volume and Surgical Mortality in the United StatesNew England Journal of Medicine, 2002
- The Influence of Hospital Volume on Survival after Resection for Lung CancerNew England Journal of Medicine, 2001
- Variation in outcome of surgical proceduresBritish Journal of Surgery, 1994