The quality of cancer care initiative in the Netherlands

Organization of head and neck cancer rehabilitation care: a national survey among healthcare professionals in Dutch head and neck cancer centers

PURPOSE

Head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment often leads to physical and psychosocial impairments. Rehabilitation can overcome these limitations and improve quality of life. The aim of this study is to obtain an overview of rehabilitation care for HNC, and to investigate factors influencing rehabilitation provision, in Dutch HNC centers, and to some extent compare it to other countries.

METHODS

An online survey, covering five themes: organizational structure; rehabilitation interventions; financing; barriers and facilitators; satisfaction and future improvements, among HNC healthcare- and financial professionals of Dutch HNC centers.

RESULTS

Most centers (86%) applied some type of rehabilitation care, with variations in organizational structure. A speech language therapist, physiotherapist and dietitian were available in all centers, but other rehabilitation healthcare professionals in less than 60%. Facilitators for providing rehabilitation services included availability of a contact person, and positive attitude, motivation, and expertise of healthcare professionals. Barriers were lack of reimbursement, and patient related barriers including comorbidity, travel (time), low health literacy, limited financial capacity, and poor motivation.

CONCLUSION

Although all HNC centers included offer rehabilitation services, there is substantial practice variation, both nationally and internationally. Factors influencing rehabilitation are related to the motivation and expertise of the treatment team, but also to reimbursement aspects and patient related factors. More research is needed to investigate the extent to which practice variation impacts individual patient outcomes and how to integrate HNC rehabilitation into routine clinical pathways.

Association between surgical quality and long-term survival in lung cancer

OBJECTIVES

There are significant variations in both perioperative and long-term outcomes after lung cancer resection. While perioperative outcomes are often used as comparative measures of quality, they are unreliable, and their association with long-term outcomes remain unclear. In this context, we evaluated whether historical perioperative mortality after lung cancer resection is associated with 5-year survival.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried to identify patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in 2010-2016 who underwent surgical resection (n = 234200). Hospital-level reliability-adjusted 90-day mortality rate quartiles for 2010-2013 was used as the independent variable to analyze 5-year survival for patients diagnosed in 2014-2016 (n = 85396).

RESULTS

There were 85,396 patients in the 2014-2016 cohort across 1,086 hospitals. Overall observed 90-day mortality rate was 3.2% (SD 17.6%) with 2.6% (SD 16.0%) for the historically best performing quartile vs. 3.9% (SD 19.4%) for the worst performing quartile (p < 0.0001). Patients who underwent resection at hospitals with the best historical mortality rate had significantly better 5-year survival across all stages compared to those treated at hospitals in the worst performing quartile in multivariate Cox regression analysis (all stages - HR 1.21 [95% CI 1.15-1.26]; stage I - HR 1.19 [95% CI 1.12-1.25]; stage II - HR 1.20 [95% CI 1.09-1.32]; stage III - HR 1.36 [95% CI 1.20-1.54]) and Kaplan-Meier survival estimates (all stages - p < 0.0001, stage I - p < 0.0001; stage II - p = 0.0004; stage III - p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

With expanded lung cancer screening criteria and likely increase in early-stage detection, profiling performance is paramount to ensuring mortality benefits. We found that episodes surrounding surgical resection may be used to profile long-term outcomes that likely reflect quality across a broader context of care. Evaluating lung cancer care quality using perioperative outcomes may be useful in profiling provider performance and guiding value-based payment policies.

Textbook outcomes after oesophagectomy: a single-centre observational study

BACKGROUND

Textbook outcomes is a composite quality assurance tool assessing the ideal perioperative and postoperative course as a unified measure. Currently, its definition and application in the context of oesophagectomy in Australia is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the textbook outcomes after oesophagectomy in a single referral centre of Australia and investigate the association between textbook outcomes and patient, tumour, and treatment characteristics.

METHODS

An observational study was retrospectively performed on patients undergoing open, laparoscopic, or hybrid oesophagectomy between January 2010 and December 2019 in a single cancer referral centre. A textbook outcome was defined as the fulfillment of 10 criteria: R0 resection, retrieval of at least 15 lymph nodes, no intraoperative complications, no postoperative complications greater than Clavien-Dindo grade III, no anastomotic leak, no readmission to the ICU, no hospital stay beyond 21 days, no mortality within 90 days, no readmission related to the surgical procedure within 30 days from admission and no reintervention related to the surgical procedure. The proportion of patients who met each criterion for textbook outcome was calculated and compared. Selected patient-related parameters (age, gender, BMI, ASA score, CCI score), tumour-related factors (tumour location, tumour histology, AJCC clinical T and N stage and treatment-related factor [neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgical approach]) were assessed. Disease recurrence and one year survival were also evaluated.

RESULTS

110 patients who underwent oesophagectomy were included. The overall textbook outcome rate was 24%. The difference in rates across the years was not statistically significant. The most achieved textbook outcome parameters were 'no mortality in 90 days' (96%) and 'R0 resection' (89%). The least frequently met textbook outcome parameter was 'no severe postoperative complications' (58%), followed by 'no hospital stays over 21 days' (61%). No significant association was found between patient, tumour and treatment characteristics and the rate of textbook outcome. Tumour recurrence rate and overall long term survival was similar between textbook outcome and non-textbook outcome groups. Patients with R0 resection, no intraoperative complication and a hospital stay less than 21 days had reduced mortality rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Textbook outcome is a clinically relevant indicator and was achieved in 24% of patients. Severe complications and a prolonged hospital stay were the key criteria that limited the achievement of a textbook outcome. These findings provide meticulous evaluation of oesophagectomy perioperative care and provide a direction for the utilisation of this concept in identifying and improving surgical and oncological care across multiple healthcare levels.

Global Cancer Surgery: pragmatic solutions to improve cancer surgery outcomes worldwide

The first Lancet Oncology Commission on Global Cancer Surgery was published in 2015 and serves as a landmark paper in the field of cancer surgery. The Commission highlighted the burden of cancer and the importance of cancer surgery, while documenting the many inadequacies in the ability to deliver safe, timely, and affordable cancer surgical care. This Commission builds on the first Commission by focusing on solutions and actions to improve access to cancer surgery globally, developed by drawing upon the expertise from cancer surgery leaders across the world. We present solution frameworks in nine domains that can improve access to cancer surgery. These nine domains were refined to identify solutions specific to the six WHO regions. On the basis of these solutions, we developed eight actions to propel essential improvements in the global capacity for cancer surgery. Our initiatives are broad in scope, pragmatic, affordable, and contextually applicable, and aimed at cancer surgeons as well as leaders, administrators, elected officials, and health policy advocates. We envision that the solutions and actions contained within the Commission will address inequities and promote safe, timely, and affordable cancer surgery for every patient, regardless of their socioeconomic status or geographic location.

A comprehensive systematic review of colorectal cancer screening clinical practices guidelines and consensus statements

High-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) are essential for evidence-based medicine. The purpose of this systematic review was to appraise the quality and reporting of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening CPGs and CSs. After prospective registration (Prospero no: CRD42021286156), a systematic review searched CRC guidances in duplicate without language restrictions in ten databases, 20 society websites, and grey literature from 2018 to 2021. We appraised quality with AGREE II (% of maximum score) and reporting with RIGHT (% of total 35 items) tools. Twenty-four CPGs and 5 CSs were analysed. The median overall quality and reporting were 54.0% (IQR 45.7-75.0) and 42.0% (IQR 31.4-68.6). The applicability had low quality (AGREE II score <50%) in 83% of guidances (24/29). Recommendations and conflict of interest were low-reported (RIGHT score <50%) in 62% guidances (18/29) and 69% (20/29). CPGs that deployed systematic reviews had better quality and reporting than CSs (AGREE: 68.5% vs. 35.5%; p = 0.001; RIGHT: 74.6% vs. 41.4%; p  =  0.001). In summary, CRC screening CPGs and CSs achieved low quality and reporting. It is necessary a revision and an improvement of the current guidances. Their development should apply a robust methodology using proper guideline development tools to obtain high-quality evidence-based documents.

Guidance documents for colorectal and anal cancer treatment: A systematic quality and reporting assessment

AIM

Evidence-based medicine is essential for clinical practice. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) ought to follow a consistent methodology to underpin high-quality healthcare. We systematically analysed the quality and reporting of colorectal (CRC) and anal cancer CPGs and CSs.

METHODS

Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and online sources (59 professional society websites and eight guideline databases) were systematically searched following prospective registration (PROSPERO no. CRD42021286146) by two reviewers independently, without language restrictions. CPGs and CSs about CRC and anal cancer treatment were included from January 2018 to November 2021 and were assessed using the AGREE II tool (per cent of maximum score) and the RIGHT tool (per cent of total 35 items) for quality and reporting respectively.

RESULTS

The median overall quality and reporting of the 59 guidelines analysed were 55.0% (interquartile range 47.0-62.0) and 58% (interquartile range 50.0-67.9), respectively, with a proportion scoring less than half (<50%) for quality (20/59, 33.9%) and reporting (15/59, 25.4%). Guidance reported that following AGREE II methodology scored better on average than that without (AGREE II 77.7% vs. 47.6%, P = 0.001; RIGHT 50.0% vs. 33.9%, P = 0.001). Guidelines based on systematic reviews had better quality and reporting on average than those based on consensus (AGREE II 56.5% vs. 46.6%, P = 0.001; RIGHT 36.9% vs. 35.4%, P = 0.019).

CONCLUSION

The quality and reporting of colorectal and anal cancer treatment CPGs and CSs were poor. Despite AGREE II and RIGHT inherent methodological limitations, few high-quality guidelines were found. Despite wide variability in scoring different domains, they merit urgent improvement in all areas. It has also been demonstrated that CPGs and CSs should be underpinned by systematic reviews collecting the best available clinical research findings.

Association between Surgical Patient Selection and Hospital Variation in Failure to Cure in Esophageal Cancer Surgery: A Nationwide Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Failure to cure describes: (1) nonresectional ("open-close") surgery, (2) non-radical surgery (R1-R2), and/or (3) postoperative mortality. This study aimed to investigate whether hospitals offering surgery to a large proportion of patients have higher failure-to-cure rates than hospitals operating fewer patients.

METHODS

From the Netherlands Cancer Registry, all cT1-cT4a/cTx-any cN-cM0 esophageal cancer patients diagnosed in 2015-2018 were included. For each center, the expected (E) proportion of patients undergoing surgery was established and divided by the observed (O) proportion. Hospitals were categorized into three groups: (1) hospitals treating relatively many patients with surgery, (2) average hospitals, and (3) hospitals treating relatively few patients with surgery. Multilevel multivariable regression investigated the association between these hospital groups and failure to cure.

RESULTS

Some 3,437 (53.2%) of 6,457 patients underwent surgery, ranging from 45 to 64% among 16 hospitals. The failure-to-cure rate was 15.0% (hospital variation [4.6-23.7%]). After categorizing, 1,003 patients underwent surgery in hospitals with low surgery rates (O/E ratio <0.94/corrected percentage <50%), 1,297 patients in average hospitals, and 1,137 patients in hospitals treating many patients surgically (O/E ratio >1.01/corrected percentage >54%). Failure-to-cure rates were 16.8%, 12.2%, and 14.0%, respectively. This was nonsignificant in multilevel analyses (aOR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.38-1.05; aOR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.46-1.24).

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

Failure-to-cure rates were similar in hospitals with a high surgery rate and hospitals with a low rate. Increasing the proportion of patients undergoing a resection may offer more patients, a chance for cure.

Conventional regression analysis and machine learning in prediction of anastomotic leakage and pulmonary complications after esophagogastric cancer surgery

Background and Objectives

With the current advanced data‐driven approach to health care, machine learning is gaining more interest. The current study investigates the added value of machine learning to linear regression in predicting anastomotic leakage and pulmonary complications after upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery.

Methods

All patients in the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit undergoing curatively intended esophageal or gastric cancer surgeries from 2011 to 2017 were included. Anastomotic leakage was defined as any clinically or radiologically proven anastomotic leakage. Pulmonary complications entailed: pneumonia, pleural effusion, respiratory failure, pneumothorax, and/or acute respiratory distress syndrome. Different machine learning models were tested. Nomograms were constructed using Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator.

Results

Between 2011 and 2017, 4228 patients underwent surgical resection for esophageal cancer, of which 18% developed anastomotic leakage and 30% a pulmonary complication. Of the 2199 patients with surgical resection for gastric cancer, 7% developed anastomotic leakage and 15% a pulmonary complication. In all cases, linear regression had the highest predictive value with the area under the curves varying between 61.9 and 68.0, but the difference with machine learning models did not reach statistical significance.

Conclusion

Machine learning models can predict postoperative complications in upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery, but they do not outperform the current gold standard, linear regression

Quality as an Intermediate Goal of the Dutch Healthcare System: Presentation and Evaluation of the Quality of Cancer Care

Cancer care represents a challenge for the healthcare systems of OECD member states. This also applies to the Netherlands, as cancer is the leading cause of death. High quality of care is essential to effectively tackle the burden of disease caused by cancer. According to the WHO health systems framework, quality is an intermediate goal of health systems, alongside safety, access and coverage. This study aimed to assess the quality of cancer care in the Netherlands, especially in terms of effectiveness. To assess the quality of cancer care in the Netherlands, participation rates in screening and 5-year survival rates for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer were used. The Netherlands is interested in ensuring quality healthcare, and quality is one of the three main objectives of the healthcare system. The 5-year survival rates for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer were above the respective OECD averages in 2014, but some countries are better positioned. Participation in screening for cervical cancer was relatively low in the Netherlands in 2017, below the OECD average. It can be concluded that the Netherlands has high-quality, effective cancer care and is striving to continuously improve it. However, there is room for improvement , especially with regard to participation in cervical cancer screening, transparency about the quality of healthcare and regional differences in the quality of care.

Clinical practice guidelines and consensus for the screening of breast cancer: A systematic appraisal of their quality and reporting

INTRODUCTION

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) are being promoted to provide high-quality healthcare guidance. This systematic review has assessed the breast cancer (BC) screening CPGs and CSs quality and reporting.

METHODS

A search of bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and CDSR), 12 guideline databases and 51 professional society websites was performed without language restrictions from January 2017 to June 2020, following prospective registration (Prospero no.: CRD42020203807). AGREE II (% of maximum score) and RIGHT (% of total 35 items) appraised quality and reporting individually, extracting data in duplicate; reviewer agreement was 98% and 93%, respectively.

RESULTS

Forty guidances with median overall quality and reporting 51% (interquartile range [IQR] 39-63) and 48% (IQR 35-65), respectively. Twenty-two (55%) and 20 (50%) did not reach the minimum standards (scores <50%). The guidances that deployed systematic reviews had better quality (74.2% vs. 46.9%; p = 0.001) and reporting (80.5% vs. 42.6%; p = 0.001). Guidances reporting a tool referral scored better (AGREE II: 72.8% vs. 43.1%, p = 0.002; RIGHT: 75.0% vs. 46.9%, p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

BC screening CPGs and CSs suffered poor quality and reporting. More than half did not reach the minimum standards. They would improve if systematic reviews were used to underpin the recommendations made.

Patient-Related Prognostic Factors for Anastomotic Leakage, Major Complications, and Short-Term Mortality Following Esophagectomy for Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to identify preoperative patient-related prognostic factors for anastomotic leakage, mortality, and major complications in patients undergoing oncological esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomy is a high-risk procedure with an incidence of major complications around 25% and short-term mortality around 4%.

METHODS

We systematically searched the Medline and Embase databases for studies investigating the associations between patient-related prognostic factors and anastomotic leakage, major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ IIIa), and/or 30-day/in-hospital mortality after esophagectomy for cancer.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine eligible studies identifying 37 prognostic factors were included. Cardiac comorbidity was associated with anastomotic leakage, major complications, and mortality. Male sex and diabetes were prognostic factors for anastomotic leakage and major complications. Additionally, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score > III and renal disease were associated with anastomotic leakage and mortality. Pulmonary comorbidity, vascular comorbidity, hypertension, and adenocarcinoma tumor histology were identified as prognostic factors for anastomotic leakage. Age > 70 years, habitual alcohol usage, and body mass index (BMI) 18.5-25 kg/m² were associated with increased risk for mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Various patient-related prognostic factors are associated with anastomotic leakage, major postoperative complications, and postoperative mortality following oncological esophagectomy. This knowledge may define case-mix adjustment models used in benchmarking or auditing and may assist in selection of patients eligible for surgery or tailored perioperative care.

Preoperative risk factors for major postoperative complications after complex gastrointestinal cancer surgery: A systematic review

Patients undergoing complex gastrointestinal surgery are at high risk of major postoperative complications (e.g., anastomotic leakage, sepsis), classified as Clavien-Dindo (CD) ≥ IIIa. Identification of preoperative risk factors can lead to the identification of high-risk patients. These risk factors can also be used to design personalized perioperative care. This systematic review focuses on the identification of these factors. The Medline and Embase databases were searched for prospective, retrospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of risk factors on the occurrence of major postoperative complications and/or mortality after complex gastrointestinal cancer surgery. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool. The level of evidence was graded based on the number of studies reporting a significant association between risk factors and major complications. A total of 207 eligible studies were retrieved, identifying 33 risk factors for major postoperative complications and 13 preoperative laboratory results associated with postoperative complications. The present systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of preoperative risk factors associated with major postoperative complications. A wide range of risk factors are amenable to actions in perioperative care and prehabilitation programs, which may lead to improved outcomes for high-risk patients. Additionally, the knowledge of this study is important for benchmarking surgical outcomes.

Defining High-Quality Integrated Head and Neck Cancer Care Through a Composite Outcome Measure: Textbook Outcome

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

To further improve the quality of head and neck cancer (HNC) care, we developed a composite measure defined as "textbook outcome" (TO).

METHODS

We analyzed a retrospective cohort of patients after curvative-intent primary surgery, radiotherapy (RT), or chemoradiation (CRT) for HNC between 2015 and 2018 at the Netherlands Cancer Institute. TO was defined as 1) the start of treatment within 30 days, 2a) satisfactory pathologic outcomes, without 30-day postoperative complications, for the surgically treated group, and 2b), for RT and CRT patients, no unexpected or prolonged hospitalization and toxicity after the completion of treatment as planned.

RESULTS

In total, 392 patients with HNC were included. An overall TO was achieved in 9.6% of patients after surgery, 20.6% after RT, and 2.2% after CRT. Two indicators (margins >5 mm and start treatment <30 days) reduced TO radically for both groups.

CONCLUSION

TO can aid the evaluation of the quality of care for HNC patients and guide improvement processes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Laryngoscope, 2021.

Textbook outcome after rectal cancer surgery as a composite measure for quality of care: A population-based study

BACKGROUND

Textbook outcome is a composite measure of combined outcome indicators, which has been suggested to be of additional value over single outcome parameters in clinical auditing of surgical treatment. This study aimed to assess textbook outcome after rectal cancer surgery as short-term marker for quality of care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent elective rectal cancer surgery between 2012 and 2019 and registered in the Dutch ColoRectal Audit were included. Textbook outcome was achieved when the following criteria were met: 30-day and primary hospital admission survival, no reintervention, tumour-free margins, no postoperative complications, a hospital stay of less than 14 days and no readmission. Hospital variation was evaluated in case-mix corrected funnel-plots. A multilevel logistic regression analysis was performed to identify associated factors with textbook outcome.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 20,521 patients who underwent primary rectal cancer surgery, of whom 56.3% achieved textbook outcome. Postoperative complications were the main contributor to not achieving textbook outcome. Case-mix corrected funnel plots demonstrated that underperforming hospitals in 2012-2015 were no underperformers in 2016-2019 anymore. Female sex, laparoscopic surgery, and rectal resection without defunctioning stoma creation were positively associated with textbook outcome.

CONCLUSION

Textbook outcome after rectal cancer resection is mainly driven by postoperative complications. Although textbook outcome showed some discriminating value for identifying underperforming hospitals, it does not fit the plan-do-check-act cycle of clinical auditing. In our opinion, textbook outcome has little added value to the current outcome indicators for rectal cancer surgery.

Failure to Cure in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Gastric Cancer: A Nationwide Cohort Study

Background

This study aimed to describe the incidence of failure to cure (a composite outcome measure defined as surgery not meeting its initial aim), and the impact of hospital variation in the administration of neoadjuvant therapy on this outcome measure.

Methods

All patients in the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit undergoing curatively intended gastric cancer surgery in 2011–2019 were included. Failure to cure was defined as (1) ‘open-close’ surgery; (2) irradical surgery (R1/R2); or (3) 30-day/in-hospital mortality. Case-mix-corrected funnel plots, based on multivariable logistic regression analyses, investigated hospital variation. The impact of a hospital’s tendency to administer neoadjuvant chemotherapy on the heterogeneity in failure to cure between hospitals was assessed based on median odds ratios and multilevel logistic regression analyses.

Results

Some 3862 patients from 28 hospitals were included. Failure to cure was noted in 22.3% (hospital variation: 14.5–34.8%). After case-mix correction, two hospitals had significantly higher-than-expected failure to cure rates, and one hospital had a lower-than-expected rate. The failure to cure rate was significantly higher in hospitals with a low tendency to administer neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Approximately 29% of hospital variation in failure to cure could be attributed to different hospital policies regarding neoadjuvant therapy.

Conclusions

Failure to cure has an incidence of 22% in patients undergoing gastric cancer surgery. Higher failure to cure rates were seen in centers administering less neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which confirms the Dutch guideline recommendation on the administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Failure to cure provides short loop feedback and can be used as a quality indicator in surgical audits.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1245/s10434-020-09510-6.

Failure to Cure in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Esophageal Carcinoma: Hospital of Surgery Influences Prospects for Cure: A Nation-wide Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to describe failure to cure in terms of incidence, hospital variation, and as an outcome parameter for salvage esophagectomy.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Failure to cure is a composite outcome measure that could be used for hospital comparison in esophageal carcinoma care.

METHODS

All patients registered in the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit who underwent potentially curative esophageal carcinoma surgery in 2011 to 2018, were included in this nationwide cohort study. Failure to cure was defined as: 1) no surgical resection due to intraoperative metastasis or locally irresectable tumor, 2) macroscopically or microscopically incomplete resection, or 3) 30-day/in-hospital mortality. Association of baseline characteristics with failure to cure was analyzed using multivariable logistic regression in the total population and in salvage patients.

RESULTS

Some 5894 patients from 22 hospitals were included, of whom 630 (10.7%) had failure to cure (hospital variation [5.5%-19.1%]). Higher age, preoperative weight loss, higher ASA-score, higher N-stage, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, or no neoadjuvant therapy (compared with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy), open surgery, and resection before 2014 were associated with failure to cure. After case-mix correction, 2 hospitals had statistically significant higher failure to cure percentages, whereas 2 had lower percentages. Of 151 salvage esophagectomy patients, 32.5% had failure to cure. The failure to cure rate after salvage surgery was 27.6% in high-volume hospitals and 47.6% in medium-volume hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of failure to cure was 10.7%. Given the significant hospital variation in the percentage of failure to cure, improvement is needed. Since salvage procedures are more often successful in high-volume hospitals, further centralization of this procedure is warranted.

Length of hospital stay after uncomplicated esophagectomy. Hospital variation shows room for nationwide improvement

BACKGROUND

Within the scope of value-based health care, this study aimed to analyze Dutch hospital performance in terms of length of hospital stay after esophageal cancer surgery and its association with 30-day readmission rates. Since both parameters are influenced by the occurrence of complications, this study only included patients with an uneventful recovery after esophagectomy.

METHODS

All patients registered in the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) who underwent a potentially curative esophagectomy between 2015 and 2018 were considered for inclusion. Patients were excluded in case of an intraoperative/post-operative complication, readmission to the intensive care unit, or any re-intervention. Length of hospital stay was dichotomized around the national median into 'short admissions' and 'long admissions'. Hospital variation was evaluated using a case-mix-corrected funnel plot based on multivariable logistic regression analyses. Association of length of hospital stay with 30-day readmission rates was investigated using the χ2-statistic.

RESULTS

A total of 1007 patients was included. National median length of hospital stay was 9 days, ranging from 6.5 to 12.5 days among 17 hospitals. The percentage of 'short admissions' per hospital ranged from 7.7 to 93.5%. After correction for case-mix variables, 3 hospitals had significantly higher 'short admission' rates and 4 hospitals had significantly lower 'short admission' rates. Overall, 6.2% [hospital variation (0.0-13.2%)] of patients were readmitted. Hospital 30-day readmission rates were not significantly different between patients with a short length of hospital stay and those with a long length of hospital stay (5.5% versus 7.6%; p = 0.19).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these nationwide audit data, median length of hospital stay after an uncomplicated esophagectomy was 9 days ranging from 6.5 to 12.5 days among Dutch hospitals. There was no association between length of hospital stay and readmission rates. Nationwide improvement might lead to a substantial reduction of hospital costs.

Quality and reporting of clinical guidelines for breast cancer treatment: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

High-quality, well-reported clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) underpinned by systematic reviews are needed. We appraised the quality and reporting of CPGs and CSs for breast cancer (BC) treatment.

METHODS

Following protocol registration (Prospero no: CRD42020164801), CPGs and CSs on BC treatment were identified, without language restrictions, through a systematic search of bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, CDSR) and online sources (12 guideline databases and 51 professional society websites) from January 2017 to June 2020. Data were extracted in duplicate assessing overall quality using AGREE II (% of maximum score) and reporting compliance using RIGHT (% of total 35 items); reviewer agreement was 98% and 96% respectively.

RESULTS

There were 59 relevant guidance documents (43 CPGs, 16 CSs), of which 20 used systematic reviews for evidence synthesis. The median overall quality was 54.0% (IQR 35.9-74.3) and the median overall reporting compliance was 60.9% (IQR 44.5-84.4). The correlation between quality and reporting was 0.9. Compared to CSs, CPGs had better quality (55.4% vs 44.2%; p = 0.032) and reporting (67.18% vs 44.5%; p = 0.005). Compared to subjective methods of evidence analysis, guidance documents that used systematic reviews had better quality (76.3% vs 51.4%; p = 0.001) and reporting (87.1% vs 59.4%; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The quality and reporting of CPGs and CSs in BC treatment were moderately strong. Systematic reviews should be used to improve the quality and reporting of CPGs and CSs.

Textbook Outcome: Nationwide Analysis of a Novel Quality Measure in Pancreatic Surgery

BACKGROUND

Textbook outcome (TO) is a multidimensional measure for quality assurance, reflecting the "ideal" surgical outcome.

METHODS

Post-hoc analysis of patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) or distal pancreatectomy (DP) for all indications between 2014 and 2017, queried from the nationwide prospective Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. An international survey was conducted among 24 experts from 10 countries to reach consensus on the requirements for TO in pancreatic surgery. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify TO predictors. Between-hospital variation in TO rates was compared using observed-versus-expected rates.

RESULTS

Based on the survey (92% response rate), TO was defined by the absence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, bile leak, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (all ISGPS grade B/C), severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥III), readmission, and in-hospital mortality. Overall, 3341 patients were included (2633 (79%) PD and 708 (21%) DP) of whom 60.3% achieved TO; 58.3% for PD and 67.4% for DP. On multivariable analysis, ASA class 3 predicted a worse TO rate after PD (ASA 3 OR 0.59 [0.44-0.80]), whereas a dilated pancreatic duct (>3 mm) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) were associated with a better TO rate (OR 2.22 [2.05-3.57] and OR 1.36 [1.14-1.63], respectively). For DP, female sex and the absence of neoadjuvant therapy predicted better TO rates (OR 1.38 [1.01-1.90] and OR 2.53 [1.20-5.31], respectively). When comparing institutions, the observed-versus-expected rate for achieving TO varied from 0.71 to 1.46 per hospital after casemix-adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

TO is a novel quality measure in pancreatic surgery. TO varies considerably between pancreatic centers, demonstrating the potential benefit of quality assurance programs.

Effect of Hospital Volume With Respect to Performing Gastric Cancer Resection on Recurrence and Survival: Results From the CRITICS Trial

OBJECTIVE

We examined the association between surgical hospital volume and both overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) using data obtained from the international CRITICS (ChemoRadiotherapy after Induction chemotherapy In Cancer of the Stomach) trial.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

In the CRITICS trial, patients with resectable gastric cancer were randomized to receive preoperative chemotherapy followed by adequate gastrectomy and either chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy.

METHODS

Patients in the CRITICS trial who underwent a gastrectomy with curative intent in a Dutch hospital were included in the analysis. The annual number of gastric cancer surgeries performed at the participating hospitals was obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry; the hospitals were then classified as low-volume (1-20 surgeries/year) or high-volume (≥21 surgeries/year) and matched with the CRITICS trial data. Univariate and multivariate analyses were then performed to evaluate the hazard ratio (HR) between hospital volume and both OS and DFS.

RESULTS

From 2007 through 2015, 788 patients were included in the CRITICS trial. Among these 788 patients, 494 were eligible for our study; the median follow-up was 5.0 years. Five-year OS was 59.2% and 46.1% in the high-volume and low-volume hospitals, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that undergoing surgery in a high-volume hospital was associated with higher OS [HR = 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.50-0.94, P = 0.020] and DFS (HR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.54-0.99, P = 0.040).

CONCLUSIONS

In the CRITICS trial, hospitals with a high annual volume of gastric cancer surgery were associated with higher overall and DFS. These findings emphasize the value of centralizing gastric cancer surgeries in the Western world.

Identification of the clinically most relevant postoperative complications after gastrectomy: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Postoperative complications frequently occur after gastrectomy for gastric cancer and are associated with poor clinical outcomes, such as mortality and reoperations. The aim of study was to identify the clinically most relevant complications after gastrectomy, using the population-attributable fraction (PAF).

METHODS

Between 2011 and 2017, all patients who underwent potentially curative gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma were included from the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit. Postoperative outcomes (morbidity, mortality, recovery and hospitalization) were evaluated. The prevalence of postoperative complications (e.g., anastomotic leakage and pneumonia) and of the study outcomes were calculated. The adjusted relative risk and Confidence Interval (CI) for each complication-outcome pair were calculated. Subsequently, the PAF was calculated, which represents the percentage of a given outcome occurring in the population, caused by individual complications, taking both the relative risk and the frequency in which a complication occurs into account.

RESULTS

In total, 2176 patients were analyzed. Anastomotic leakage and pulmonary complications had the greatest overall impact on postoperative mortality (PAF 29.2% [95% CI 19.3-39.1] and 21.6% [95% CI 10.5-32.7], respectively) and prolonged hospitalization (PAF 12.9% [95% CI 9.7-16.0] and 14.7% [95% CI 11.0-18.8], respectively). Anastomotic leakage had the greatest overall impact on re-interventions (PAF 25.1% [95% CI 20.5-29.7]) and reoperations (PAF 30.3% [95% CI 24.3-36.3]). Intra-abdominal abscesses had the largest impact on readmissions (PAF 7.0% [95% CI 3.2-10.9]). Other complications only had a small effect on these outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Surgical improvement programs should focus on preventing or managing anastomotic leakage and pulmonary complications, since these complications have the greatest overall impact on clinical outcomes after gastrectomy.

Impact of postoperative complications on outcomes after oesophagectomy for cancer

BACKGROUND

To allocate healthcare resources optimally, complication-related quality initiatives should target complications that have the greatest overall impact on outcomes after surgery. The aim of this study was to identify the most clinically relevant complications after oesophagectomy for cancer in a nationwide cohort study.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent oesophagectomy for cancer between January 2011 and December 2016 were identified from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit. The adjusted population attributable fraction (PAF) was used to estimate the impact of specific postoperative complications on the clinical outcomes postoperative mortality, reoperation, prolonged hospital stay and readmission to hospital in the study population. The PAF represents the percentage reduction in the frequency of a given outcome (such as death) that would occur in a theoretical scenario where a specific complication (for example anastomotic leakage) was able to be prevented completely in the study population.

RESULTS

Some 4096 patients were analysed. Pulmonary complications and anastomotic leakage had the greatest overall impact on postoperative mortality (risk-adjusted PAF 44·1 and 30·4 per cent respectively), prolonged hospital stay (risk-adjusted PAF 31·4 and 30·9 per cent) and readmission to hospital (risk-adjusted PAF 7·3 and 14·7 per cent). Anastomotic leakage had the greatest impact on reoperation (risk-adjusted PAF 47·1 per cent). In contrast, the impact of other complications on these outcomes was relatively small.

CONCLUSION

Reducing the incidence of pulmonary complications and anastomotic leakage may have the greatest clinical impact on outcomes after oesophagectomy.

What drives centralisation in cancer care?

BACKGROUND

To improve quality of care, centralisation of cancer services in high-volume centres has been stimulated. Studies linking specialisation and high (surgical) volumes to better outcomes already appeared in the 1990's. However, actual centralisation was a difficult process in many countries. In this study, factors influencing the centralisation of cancer services in the Netherlands were determined.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Centralisation patterns were studied for three types of cancer that are known to benefit from high surgical caseloads: oesophagus-, pancreas- and bladder cancer. The Netherlands Cancer Registry provided data on tumour and treatment characteristics from 2000-2013 for respectively 8037, 4747 and 6362 patients receiving surgery. By plotting timelines of centralisation of cancer surgery, relations with the appearance of (inter)national scientific evidence, actions of medical specialist societies, specific regulation and other important factors on the degree of centralisation were ascertained.

RESULTS

For oesophagus and pancreas cancer, a gradual increase in centralisation of surgery is seen from 2005 and 2006 onwards following (inter)national scientific evidence. Centralisation steps for bladder cancer surgery can be seen in 2010 and 2013 anticipating on the publication of norms by the professional society. The most influential stimulus seems to have been regulations on minimum volumes.

CONCLUSION

Scientific evidence on the relationship between volume and outcome lead to the start of centralisation of surgical cancer care in the Netherlands. Once a body of evidence has been established on organisational change that influences professional practice, in addition some form of regulation is needed to ensure widespread implementation.

Using textbook outcome as a measure of quality of care in oesophagogastric cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Textbook outcome is a multidimensional measure representing an ideal course after oesophagogastric cancer surgery. It comprises ten perioperative quality-of-care parameters and has been developed recently using population-based data. Its association with long-term outcome is unknown. The objectives of this study were to validate the clinical relevance of textbook outcome at a hospital level, and to assess its relation with long-term survival after treatment for oesophagogastric cancer.

METHODS

All patients with oesophageal or gastric cancer scheduled for surgery with curative intent between January 2009 and June 2015 were selected from an institutional database. A Cox model was used to study the association between textbook outcome and survival.

RESULTS

A textbook outcome was achieved in 58 of 144 patients (40·3 per cent) with oesophageal cancer and in 48 of 105 (45·7 per cent) with gastric cancer. Factors associated with not achieving a textbook outcome were failure to achieve a lymph node yield of at least 15 (after oesophagectomy) and postoperative complications of grade II or more. After oesophagectomy, median overall survival was longer for patients with a textbook outcome than for patients without (median not reached versus 33 months; P = 0·012). After gastrectomy, median survival was 54 versus 33 months respectively (P = 0·018). In multivariable analysis, textbook outcome was associated with overall survival after oesophagectomy (hazard ratio 2·38, 95 per cent c.i. 1·29 to 4·42) and gastrectomy (hazard ratio 2·58, 1·25 to 5·32).

CONCLUSION

Textbook outcome is a clinically relevant measure in patients undergoing oesophagogastric cancer surgery as it can identify underperforming parameters in a hospital setting. Overall survival in patients with a textbook outcome is better than in patients without a textbook outcome.

Impact of Weekday of Esophagectomy on Short-term and Long-term Oncological Outcomes: A Nationwide Population-based Cohort Study in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine whether weekday of esophagectomy impacts 30-day mortality, and short- and long-term oncologic outcomes in esophageal cancer.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Recent literature suggests a relationship between the weekday of esophagectomy and overall survival. This finding could impact clinical practice, but has not yet been validated in other studies.

METHODS

The Netherlands Cancer Registry database (2005-2013) identified all patients who underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. The impact of weekday on 30-day mortality, the total number of resected lymph nodes, and R0 resection rates was evaluated with multivariable logistic regression analyses and for overall survival with Cox regression analyses.

RESULTS

In total, 3840 patients were included. Weekday was not significantly associated with 30-day mortality (P > 0.05), nor the total number of resected lymph nodes (P > 0.05), nor with R0 resection rates (P > 0.05). Also, weekday did not significantly influence overall survival using weekday as discrete variable [Monday-Friday, hazard ratio (HR) 0.98, P = 0.140), as 2 weekday categories (Wednesday-Friday vs Monday-Tuesday, HR 0.97, P = 0.434), or with separate weekday categories (Tuesday vs Monday, HR 0.99, P = 0.826; Wednesday vs Monday, HR 1.06, P = 0.430; Thursday vs Monday, HR 0.92, P = 0.206; Friday vs Monday, HR 0.91, P = 0.140).

CONCLUSIONS

This large population-based cohort study in the Netherlands refutes the finding from a previous report that suggests that the weekday of esophagectomy in patients diagnosed with potentially curable esophageal cancer impacts overall survival. In addition, this study demonstrates that weekday of esophagectomy does not influence other outcomes including the 30-day mortality, total number of resected lymph nodes, and R0 resection rates.

Textbook outcome as a composite measure in oesophagogastric cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Quality assurance is acknowledged as a crucial factor in the assessment of oncological surgical care. The aim of this study was to develop a composite measure of multiple outcome parameters defined as 'textbook outcome', to assess quality of care for patients undergoing oesophagogastric cancer surgery.

METHODS

Patients with oesophagogastric cancer, operated on with the intent of curative resection between 2011 and 2014, were identified from a national database (Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit). Textbook outcome was defined as the percentage of patients who underwent a complete tumour resection with at least 15 lymph nodes in the resected specimen and an uneventful postoperative course, without hospital readmission. Hospital variation in textbook outcome was analysed after adjustment for case-mix factors.

RESULTS

In total, 2748 patients with oesophageal cancer and 1772 with gastric cancer were included in this study. A textbook outcome was achieved in 29·7 per cent of patients with oesophageal cancer and 32·1 per cent of those with gastric cancer. Adjusted textbook outcome rates varied from 8·5 to 52·4 per cent between hospitals. The outcome parameter 'at least 15 lymph nodes examined' had the greatest negative impact on a textbook outcome both for patients with oesophageal cancer and for those with gastric cancer.

CONCLUSION

Most patients did not achieve a textbook outcome and there was wide variation between hospitals.

Early outcomes from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit

Background

In 2011, the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) group began nationwide registration of all patients undergoing surgery with the intention of resection for oesophageal or gastric cancer. The aim of this study was to describe the initiation and implementation of this process along with an overview of the results.

Methods

The DUCA is part of the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing. The audit provides (surgical) teams with reliable, weekly updated, benchmarked information on process and (case mix-adjusted) outcome measures. To accomplish this, a web-based registration was designed, based on a set of predefined quality measures.

Results

Between 2011 and 2014, a total of 2786 patients with oesophageal cancer and 1887 with gastric cancer were registered. Case ascertainment approached 100 per cent for patients registered in 2013. The percentage of patients with oesophageal cancer starting treatment within 5 weeks of diagnosis increased significantly over time from 32·5 per cent in 2011 to 41·0 per cent in 2014 (P &lt; 0·001). The percentage of patients with a minimum of 15 examined lymph nodes in the resected specimen also increased significantly for both oesophageal cancer (from 50·3 per cent in 2011 to 73·0 per cent in 2014; P &lt; 0·001) and gastric cancer (from 47·5 per cent in 2011 to 73·6 per cent in 2014; P &lt; 0·001). Postoperative mortality remained stable (around 4·0 per cent) for patients with oesophageal cancer, and decreased for patients with gastric cancer (from 8·0 per cent in 2011 to 4·0 per cent in 2014; P = 0·031).

Conclusion

Nationwide implementation of the DUCA has been successful. The results indicate a positive trend for various process and outcome measures.

Medical Oncology Patients: Are They Offered Help and Does It Provide Relief?

CONTEXT

Identifying modifiable gaps in the symptom management pathway, as perceived by patients, is the first step to relieving patient suffering.

OBJECTIVES

The objective is to describe the proportion of patients experiencing treatable cancer-related symptoms who reported 1) a health care provider at the treatment center offered assistance for their symptom, 2) they accepted the assistance offered, and 3) the assistance relieved suffering. Variation in symptom management among treatment centers also was examined.

METHODS

A survey was done with 528 medical oncology outpatients recruited from six treatment centers. Eight items explored management of prevalent, burdensome, and treatable cancer-related symptoms: pain, fatigue, other physical side effects, and emotional distress. Participants were asked about symptom management provided at the clinic from where they were recruited. Questions referred to the last occasion the patient experienced the symptom.

RESULTS

Fewer patients were offered help to relieve fatigue (44%) and emotional distress (57%), than pain (90%) and other physical side effects (84%). In most cases, help was not offered as clinic staff were not aware of the patient's symptom. Although the vast majority of patients accepted the help that was offered, more patients accepted help for physical symptoms (pain, 97%; fatigue, 95%; and other side effects, 98%) than emotional symptoms (87%). When care was provided, most patients experienced at least a little relief from pain (99%), fatigue (94%), and emotional distress (96%). Symptom management did not vary significantly by treatment center (P = 0.073).

CONCLUSION

Quality improvement initiatives must focus primarily on improving providers' awareness of their patients' symptoms and ensuring that patients are subsequently offered help.

Nonclinical Factors Associated with 30-Day Mortality after Lung Cancer Resection: An Analysis of 215,000 Patients Using the National Cancer Data Base

BACKGROUND

Clinical variables associated with 30-day mortality after lung cancer surgery are well known. However, the effects of nonclinical factors, including insurance coverage, household income, education, type of treatment center, and area of residence, on short-term survival are less appreciated. We studied the National Cancer Data Base, a joint endeavor of the Commission on Cancer of the American College of Surgeons and the American Cancer Society, to identify disparities in 30-day mortality after lung cancer resection based on these nonclinical factors.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of patients undergoing lung cancer resection from 2003 to 2011 using the National Cancer Data Base. Data were analyzed using a multivariable logistic regression model to identify risk factors for 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

During our study period, 215,645 patients underwent lung cancer resection. We found that clinical variables, such as age, sex, comorbidity, cancer stage, preoperative radiation, extent of resection, positive surgical margins, and tumor size were associated with 30-day mortality after resection. Nonclinical factors, including living in lower-income neighborhoods with a lesser proportion of high school graduates, and receiving cancer care at a nonacademic medical center were also independently associated with increased 30-day postoperative mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

This study represents the largest analysis of 30-day mortality for lung cancer resection to date from a generalizable national cohort. Our results demonstrate that, in addition to known clinical risk factors, several nonclinical factors are associated with increased 30-day mortality after lung cancer resection. These disparities require additional investigation to improve lung cancer patient outcomes.

Reducing persistent postoperative pain and disability 1 year after breast cancer surgery: a randomized, controlled trial comparing thoracic paravertebral block to local anesthetic infiltration

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to compare the effect of thoracic paravertebral block (TPVB) and local anesthetic (LA) on persistent postoperative pain (PPP) 1 year following breast cancer surgery. Secondary objectives were to compare the effect on arm morbidity and quality of life.

METHODS

Women scheduled for elective breast cancer surgery were randomly assigned to either TPVB or LA followed by general anesthesia. An NRS value of >3 at rest or with movement 1 year following surgery defined PPP. Blinded interim analysis suggested rates of PPP much lower than anticipated, making detection of the specified 20 % absolute reduction in the primary outcome impossible. Recruitment was stopped, and all enrolled patients were followed to 1 year.

RESULTS

A total of 145 participants were recruited; 65 were randomized to TPVB and 64 to LA. Groups were similar with respect to demographic and treatment characteristics. Only 9 patients (8 %; 95 % CI 4-14 %) met criteria for PPP 1 year following surgery; 5 were in the TPVB and 4 in the LA group. Brief Pain Inventory severity and interference scores were low in both groups. Arm morbidity and quality of life were similar in both groups. The 9 patients with PPP reported shoulder-arm morbidity and reduced quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reports a low incidence of chronic pain 1 year following major breast cancer surgery. Although PPP was uncommon at 1 year, it had a large impact on the affected patients' arm morbidity and quality of life.

The volume-outcome relation in the surgical treatment of esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This study was undertaken to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on the relation between procedural volume and outcome of esophagectomies. A systematic search was carried out to identify articles investigating effects of hospital or surgeon volume on short-term and long-term outcomes published between 1995 and 2010. Articles were scrutinized for methodological quality, and after inclusion of only high-quality studies, a meta-analysis assuming a random effects model was done to estimate the effect of higher volume on patient outcome. Heterogeneity in study results was evaluated with an I(2) -test and risk of publication bias with an Egger regression intercept. Forty-three studies were found. Sixteen studies met the strict inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis on hospital volume and postoperative mortality and 4 studies on hospital volume and survival. The pooled estimated effect size was significant for high-volume providers in the analysis of postoperative mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.89-2.80) and in the survival analysis (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.05-1.30). The meta-analysis of surgical volume and outcome showed no significant results. Studies in which the results were adjusted not only for patient characteristics but also for tumor characteristics and urgency of the operation showed a stronger correlation between hospital volume and mortality. Also, studies performed on data from the United States showed higher effect sizes. The evidence for hospital volume as an important determinant of outcome in esophageal cancer surgery is strong. Concentration of procedures in high-volume hospitals with a dedicated setting for the treatment of esophageal cancer might lead to an overall improvement in patient outcome.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the volume-outcome relationship in pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

Many studies have shown lower mortality and higher survival rates after pancreatic surgery with high-volume providers, suggesting that centralization of pancreatic surgery can improve outcomes. The methodological quality of these studies is open to question. This study involves a systematic review of the volume-outcome relationship for pancreatic surgery with a meta-analysis of studies considered to be of good quality.

METHODS

A systematic search of electronic databases up to February 2010 was performed to identify all primary studies examining the effects of hospital or surgeon volume on postoperative mortality and survival after pancreatic surgery. All articles were critically appraised with regard to methodological quality and risk of bias. After strict inclusion, meta-analysis assuming a random-effects model was done to estimate the effect of higher surgeon or hospital volume on patient outcome.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed a significant association between hospital volume and postoperative mortality (odds ratio 0.32, 95 per cent confidence interval 0.16 to 0.64), and between hospital volume and survival (hazard ratio 0.79, 0.70 to 0.89).The effect of surgeon volume on postoperative mortality was not significant (odds ratio 0.46, 0.17 to 1.26). Significant heterogeneity was seen in the analysis of hospital volume and mortality. Sensitivity analysis showed no correlation with the extent of risk adjustment or study country; after removing one outlier study, the result was homogeneous. The data did not suggest publication bias.

CONCLUSION

There was a consistent association between high hospital volume and lower postoperative mortality rates with improved long-term survival.