Hospital and surgeon variation in positive circumferential resection margin among rectal cancer patients

Disparities in Outcomes following Resection of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

Surgical margins following rectal cancer resection impact oncologic outcomes. We examined the relationship between margin status and race, ethnicity, region of care, and facility type. Patients undergoing resection of a stage II-III locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) between 2004 and 2018 were identified through the National Cancer Database. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed, with margin positivity rate as the outcome of interest, and race/ethnicity and region of care as the predictors of interest. In total, 58,389 patients were included. After IPTW adjustment, non-Hispanic Black (NHB) patients were 12% (p = 0.029) more likely to have margin positivity than non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients. Patients in the northeast were 9% less likely to have margin positivity compared to those in the south. In the west, NHB patients were more likely to have positive margins than NHW patients. Care in academic/research centers was associated with lower likelihood of positive margins compared to community centers. Within academic/research centers, NHB patients were more likely to have positive margins than non-Hispanic Other patients. Our results suggest that disparity in surgical management of LARC in NHB patients exists across regions of the country and facility types. Further research aimed at identifying drivers of this disparity is warranted.

Regionalizing ovarian cancer cytoreduction to high-volume centers and the impact on patient travel in New York State

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the theoretical impact of regionalizing cytoreductive surgery for ovarian cancer (OC) to high-volume facilities on patient travel.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified patients with OC who underwent cytoreduction between 1/1/2004-12/31/2018 from the New York State Cancer Registry and Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System. Hospitals were stratified by low-volume (<21 cytoreductive surgical procedures for OC annually) and high-volume centers (≥21 procedures annually). A simulation was performed; outcomes of interest were driving distance and time between the centroid of the patient's residence zip code and the treating facility zip code.

RESULTS

Overall, 60,493 patients met inclusion criteria. Between 2004 and 2018, 210 facilities were performing cytoreductive surgery for OC in New York; 159 facilities (75.7%) met low-volume and 51 (24.3%) met high-volume criteria. Overall, 10,514 patients (17.4%) were treated at low-volume and 49,979 (82.6%) at high-volume facilities. In 2004, 78.2% of patients were treated at high-volume facilities, which increased to 84.6% in 2018 (P < .0001). Median travel distance and time for patients treated at high-volume centers was 12.2 miles (IQR, 5.6-25.5) and 23.0 min (IQR, 15.2-37.0), and 8.2 miles (IQR, 3.7-15.9) and 16.8 min (IQR, 12.4-26.0) for patients treated at low-volume centers. If cytoreductive surgery was centralized to high-volume centers, median distance and time traveled for patients originally treated at low-volume centers would be 11.2 miles (IQR, 3.8-32.3; P < .001) and 20.2 min (IQR, 13.6-43.0; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Centralizing cytoreductive surgery for OC to high-volume centers in New York would increase patient travel burden by negligible amounts of distance and time for most patients.

The Doctors' Effect on Patients' Physical Health Outcomes Beyond the Intervention: A Methodological Review

Background

Previous research suggests that when a treatment is delivered, patients' outcomes may vary systematically by medical practitioner.

Objective

To conduct a methodological review of studies reporting on the effect of doctors on patients' physical health outcomes and to provide recommendations on how this effect could be measured and reported in a consistent and appropriate way.

Methods

The data source was 79 included studies and randomized controlled trials from a systematic review of doctors' effects on patients' physical health. We qualitatively assessed the studies and summarized how the doctors' effect was measured and reported.

Results

The doctors' effects on patients' physical health outcomes were reported as fixed effects, identifying high and low outliers, or random effects, which estimate the variation in patient health outcomes due to the doctor after accounting for all available variables via the intra-class correlation coefficient. Multivariable multilevel regression is commonly used to adjust for patient risk, doctor experience and other demographics, and also to account for the clustering effect of hospitals in estimating both fixed and random effects.

Conclusion

This methodological review identified inconsistencies in how the doctor's effect on patients' physical health outcomes is measured and reported. For grading doctors from worst to best performances and estimating random effects, specific recommendations are given along with the specific data points to report.

Evaluation of Racial Disparities in Quality of Care for Patients With Gastrointestinal Tract Cancer Treated With Surgery

IMPORTANCE

Racial disparities have been demonstrated in many facets of health care, but a comprehensive understanding of who is most at risk for substandard surgical care of gastrointestinal tract cancers is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To examine racial disparities in quality of care of patients with gastrointestinal tract cancers.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study of patients with gastrointestinal tract cancer included the US population as captured in the National Cancer Database with a diagnosis from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2017. Participants included 565 124 adults who underwent surgical resection of gastrointestinal tract cancers. Data were analyzed from June 21 to December 23, 2021.

EXPOSURES

Race and site of cancer.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Oncologic standard of care, as defined by negative resection margin, adequate lymphadenectomy, and receipt of indicated adjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy.

RESULTS

Among 565 124 adult patients who underwent surgical resection of a gastrointestinal tract cancer, 10.9% were Black patients, 83.5% were White patients, 54.7% were men, and 50.7% had Medicare coverage. The most common age range at diagnosis was 60 to 69 years (28.5%). Longer median survival was associated with negative resection margins (87.3 [IQR, 28.5-161.9] months vs 22.9 [IQR, 8.8-69.2] months; P < .001) and adequate lymphadenectomies (80.7 [IQR, 25.6 to not reached] months vs 57.6 [IQR, 17.7-153.8] months; P < .001). After adjustment for covariates, Black patients were less likely than White patients to have negative surgical margins overall (odds ratio [OR], 0.96 [95% CI, 0.93-0.98]) and after esophagectomy (OR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.58-0.87]), proctectomy (OR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.66-0.76]), and biliary resection (OR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.61-0.91]). Black patients were also less likely to have adequate lymphadenectomy overall (OR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.87-0.91]) and after colectomy (OR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.87-0.92]), esophagectomy (OR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.63-0.83]), pancreatectomy (OR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.85-0.96]), proctectomy (OR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.88-0.98]), proctocolectomy (OR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.81-1.00]), and enterectomy (OR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.65-0.79]). Black patients were more likely than White patients not to be recommended for chemotherapy (OR, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.10-1.21]) and radiotherapy (OR, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.35-1.64]) because of comorbidities and more likely not to receive recommended chemotherapy (OR, 1.68 [95% CI, 1.55-1.82]) and radiotherapy (OR, 2.18 [95% CI, 1.97-2.41]) for unknown reasons.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that there are significant racial disparities in surgical care of gastrointestinal tract cancers. Black patients are less likely than White patients to receive standard of care with respect to negative surgical margins, adequate lymphadenectomies, and use of adjuvant therapies. Both system- and physician-level reforms are needed to eradicate these disparities in health care.

Is There a Surgeons’ Effect on Patients’ Physical Health, Beyond the Intervention, That Requires Further Investigation? A Systematic Review

Objective

To find and review published papers researching surgeons’ effects on patients’ physical health. Clinical outcomes of surgery patients with similar prognoses cannot be fully explained by surgeon skill or experience. Just as there are “hospital” and “psychotherapist” effects, there may be “surgeons” effects that persist after controlling for known variables like patient health and operation riskiness.

Methods

Cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of any surgical intervention, which, after multivariate adjustment, either showed proportion of variance in patients’ physical health outcomes due to surgeons (random effects) or graded surgeons from best to worst (fixed effects). Studies with <15 surgeons or only ascribing surgeons’ effects to known variables excluded. Medline, PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO were used for search until June 2020. Manual search for papers referring/referred by resulting studies. Risk of bias assessed by Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Newcastle–Ottawa Scale.

Results

Included studies: 52 cohort studies and three RCTs of 52,436+ surgeons covering 102 outcomes (33 unique). Studies either graded surgeons from best to worst or calculated the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), the percentage of patients’ variation due to surgeons, in diverse ways. Sixteen studies showed exceptionally good and/or bad performers with confidence intervals wholly above or below the average performance. ICCs ranged from 0 to 47%, median 4.0%. There are no well-established reporting standards; highly heterogeneous reporting, therefore no meta-analysis.

Discussion

Interpretation: There is a surgeons' effect on patients’ physical health for many types of surgeries and outcomes, ranging from small to substantial. Surgeons with exceptional patient outcomes appear regularly even after accounting for all known confounding variables. Many existing cohort studies and RCTs could be reanalyzed for surgeons’ effects especially after methodological reporting guidelines are published.

Conclusion

In terms of patient outcomes, it can matter which surgeon is chosen. Surgeons with exceptional patient outcomes are worth studying further.

Point your SmartPhone at the code above. If you have a QR code reader the video abstract will appear. Or use:

https://youtu.be/pL-eGyAGhSk

Variation in the volume-outcome relationship after rectal cancer surgery in the United States: Retrospective study with implications for regionalization

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have demonstrated improved outcomes for patients with rectal cancer treated at higher-volume hospitals. However, little is known whether heterogeneity in this effect exists. The objective was to test whether the effect of increased annual rectal cancer resection volume on outcomes is consistent across all hospitals treating rectal cancer.

METHODS

Adult stage I to III patients who underwent surgical resection for rectal adenocarcinoma from 2004 to 2016 were identified in the National Cancer Database.

RESULTS

We included 120,522 patients treated at 763 hospitals in this retrospective cohort study. Higher volume was linearly and incrementally related to outcomes in unadjusted analyses. In adjusted models, for an average patient at the average hospital, the effect of increasing the annual caseload of rectal cancer resections by 20 resections per year was associated with 8%, (hazard ratio = 0.92, 95% confidence interval = 0.87, 0.97), 18% (odds ratio = 0.82, 95% confidence interval = 0.70, 0.98), and 16% (odds ratio = 0.84, 95% confidence interval = 0.73, 0.95) relative reductions in 5-year overall survival, 30-, and 90-day mortality, respectively, and with a 19% (odds ratio = 1.19, 95% confidence interval = 1.04, 1.36) relative increase in the rate of neoadjuvant chemoradiation. These effects varied by individual hospitals such that 39% of hospitals do not see any benefit in 5-year overall survival associated with higher volumes. Increased volume was associated with lower positive circumferential resection margin rates at 19% of the hospitals.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms that higher-volume hospitals have improved outcomes after rectal cancer surgery. However, there exists significant variation in these effects induced by individual within-hospital effects. Regionalization policies may need to be flexible in identifying the hospitals that would achieve enhanced benefits from treating a larger volume of patients.

Robotic and robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: A meta-analysis of short-term and long-term results

The usage of robotic surgery in rectal cancer (RC) is increasing, but there is an ongoing debate as to whether it provides any benefit. This study conducted a meta-analysis of rectal cancer surgery for short-term and long-term outcome by Robotic and robotic-assisted surgery (RS) vs laparoscopic surgery (LS).Pubmed, Embase, Ovid, CNKI, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases were searched. Studies clearly documenting a comparison of short-term and long-term effect between RS and LS for RC were selected. Lymph node harvested, operation time, hospital stay, circumferential resection margins（CRM), complications, 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 5-year DFS parameters were evaluated. All data were performed by Review Manager 5.3 software. Nine studies were collected that included 1436 cases in total, 716 (49.86%) in the RS group, 720(50.14%) in the LS group. Compared with LS, RS was associated with longer operation time (MD 35.19, 95%CI [7.57, 62.81]; P = 0.01), but similar hospital stay (MD -0.43, 95%CI [-0.87,0.01]; P = 0.05).Lymph node harvested, CRM, complications, 3-year DFS, 5-year DFS had no significance difference between RS and LS groups（MD -0.67，95%CI[-1.53，0.19]；P = 0.13；MD 0.86，95%CI[0.54,1.37]；P = 0.52；MD 0.97，95%CI [0.73,1.29]；P = 0.86；MD 0.94，95%CI[0.60,1.48]；P = 0.79；MD 0.88，95%CI[0.52,1.47]；P = 0.61 respectively）.RS is feasible and safe for RC. It has an advantage in short -term outcome and a similar effect in long-term outcome compared with LS.

Association of certification, improved quality and better oncological outcomes for rectal cancer in a specialized colorectal unit

PURPOSE

Centralization of cancer care is expected to yield superior results. In Germany, the national strategy is based on a voluntary certification process. The effect of centre certification is difficult to prove because quality data are rarely available prior to certification. This observational study aims to assess outcomes for rectal cancer patients before and after implementation of a certified cancer centre.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All consecutive patients treated for rectal cancer in our certified centre from 2009 to 2017 were retrieved from a prospective database. The dataset was analyzed according to a predefined set of 19 quality indicators comprising 36 quality goals. The results were compared to an identical cohort of patients, treated from 2000 to 2008 just before centre implementation.

RESULTS

In total, 1059 patients were included, 481 in the 2009-2017 interval and 578 in the 2000-2008 interval. From 2009 to 2017, 25 of 36 quality goals were achieved (vs. 19/36). The proportion of anastomotic leaks in low anastomoses was improved (13.5% vs. 22.1%, p = 0.018), as was the local 5-year recurrence rate for stage (y)pIII rectal cancers (7.7% vs. 17.8%, p = 0.085), and quality of mesorectal excision (0.3% incomplete resections vs. 5.5%, p = 0.002). Furthermore, a decrease of abdominoperineal excisions was noted (47.1% vs. 60.0%, p = 0.037). For the 2009-2017 interval, local 5-year recurrence rate in stages (y)p0-III was 4.6% and 5-year overall survival was 80.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

Certification as specialized centre and regular audits were associated with an improvement of various quality parameters. The formal certification process has the potential to enhance quality of care for rectal cancer patients.

Predicting Positive Margins in Pancreatic Head Adenocarcinoma After Neoadjuvant Therapy: Investigating Disparities in Quality Care Using the National Cancer Database

BACKGROUND

In pancreatic cancer, surgical resection with neoadjuvant therapy improves survival, but survival relies significantly on the margin status of the resected tissue. This study aimed to develop a model that predicts margin positivity, and then to identify facility-specific factors that influence the observed-to-expected (O/E) ratio for positive margins among facilities.

METHODS

This retrospective review analyzed patients in the National Cancer Database (2004-2016) with pancreatic head adenocarcinoma [tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage 1 or 2] who received neoadjuvant therapy for a pancreaticoduodenectomy. Logistic regression was used to develop a model that predicts margin positivity. This model then was used to identify outlier facilities with regard to the O/E ratio. Hospital volume was defined as the total number of pancreaticoduodenectomies per year.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 4085 patients, and 16.8% of these patients had positive margins. Most of the patients (64%) had a tumor size of 2 to 4 cm, and approximately 51% of the patients did not have positive lymph nodes at resection. A logistic regression model showed that the predictors of positive margins after resection with neoadjuvant therapy were male sex, larger tumor size, and positive lymph nodes. This model was validated to yield a bootstrap-corrected concordance index of 0.632. The study calculated O/E ratios with the model, identifying 12 low- and 17 high O/E-ratio outlier facilities among 401 studied hospitals. The outlier hospitals did not differ in facility type (i.e., academic vs integrated network), but did differ significantly in terms of yearly hospital volume (low outlier of 20.6 vs high outlier of 10.7; p = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

An association of lower-volume facilities with higher than expected rates of positive margins was found to indicate a disparity in care. This disparity was identified via an O/E ratio as a quality indicator for facilities. Facilities can gauge the efficiency of their own practices by referencing their O/E ratios, and they also can improve their practices by analyzing the framework of low O/E-ratio facilities.

Centralizing Rectal Cancer Surgery: What Is the Impact of Travel on Patients?

BACKGROUND

It is unclear what impact centralizing rectal cancer surgery may have on travel burden for patients.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the impact of centralizing rectal cancer surgery to high-volume centers on patient travel distance.

DESIGN

This is a population-based study.

SETTINGS

The New York State Cancer Registry and Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System were queried for patients with rectal cancer undergoing proctectomy.

PATIENTS

Patients with stage I to III rectal cancer who underwent surgical resection between 2004 and 2014 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The outcome of interest was travel distance calculated as the straight-line distance between the centroid of the patient residence zip code and the hospital zip code. Mean distance was compared by using the Student t test.

RESULTS

A total of 5860 patients met inclusion criteria. The total number of hospitals performing proctectomies for rectal cancer decreased between 2004 and 2014. The average number of proctectomies performed at high-volume centers (20+ resections/year) increased from 16.6 to 24.4 during this time. The average number of miles traveled by patients was 12.1 miles in 2004, and this increased to 15.4 in 2014. If proctectomies were centralized to high-volume centers, there would be 11 facilities. The mean distance traveled would be 24.5 miles.

LIMITATIONS

This study is subject to the limitations of an administrative data set. There are no patient preference or referral data.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of hospitals performing rectal cancer resections in New York State is decreasing and volume by center is increasing. There was a statistically significant difference in the mean distance traveled by patients over time. If rectal cancer resections were centralized to high-volume centers, the mean travel distance would increase by 9.5 miles. There would be a 321% increase in the number of patients having to travel 50+ miles for surgery. Any plan for centralization in New York State will require careful planning to avoid placing undue travel burden on patients. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B138. CENTRALIZACIÓN DE LA CIRUGÍA DE CÁNCER RECTAL: ¿CUÁL ES EL IMPACTO DEL VIAJE PARA LOS PACIENTES?: No está claro qué impacto puede tener la centralización de la cirugía de cáncer rectal en la carga de viaje para los pacientes.Determinar el impacto de centralizar la cirugía de cáncer rectal en centros de alto volumen sobre la distancia de viaje del paciente.Este es un estudio basado en cohorte poblacional.El Registro de Cáncer del Estado de Nueva York y el Sistema Cooperativo de Planificación e Investigación Estatal fueron consultados para pacientes con cáncer rectal sometidos a proctectomía.Pacientes con cáncer rectal en estadio I-III que se sometieron a resección quirúrgica entre 2004-2014.El resultado de interés fue la distancia de viaje calculada como la distancia en línea recta entre el centroide de la residencia del paciente y el código postal del hospital. La distancia media se comparó mediante la prueba t de Student.Un total de 5,860 pacientes cumplieron los criterios de inclusión. El número total de hospitales que realizaron proctectomías para cáncer rectal disminuyó entre 2004-2014. El número promedio de proctectomías realizadas en centros de alto volumen (más de 20 resecciones/año) aumentó de 16.6 a 24.4 durante este tiempo. El número promedio de millas recorridas por los pacientes fue de 12.1 millas en 2004 y esto aumentó a 15.4 en 2014. Si las proctectomías se centralizaran en centros de alto volumen, habría 11 instalaciones. La distancia media recorrida sería de 24.5 millas.Limitaciones inherentes a un conjunto de datos administrativos. No existen datos sobre preferencia del paciente o sobre referencia de los mismos.El número de hospitales que realizan resecciones de cáncer rectal en Nueva York está disminuyendo y el volumen por centro está aumentando. Hubo una diferencia estadísticamente significativa en la distancia media recorrida por los pacientes a lo largo del tiempo. Si las resecciones por cáncer rectal se centralizaran en centros de gran volumen, la distancia media de viaje aumentaría 9.5 millas. Habría un aumento del 321% en el número de pacientes que tienen que viajar más de 50 millas para la cirugía. Cualquier plan de centralización en Nueva York requerirá una planificación cuidadosa para evitar imponer una carga de viaje excesiva a los pacientes. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B138.