University hospital status and surgeon volume and risk of reoperation following surgery for esophageal cancer

University hospital status and gastric cancer mortality: A population-based nationwide study in Finland

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer remains a significant global health issue with increasing mortality, despite advancements in treatment. Previous studies have suggested that surgery performed at university hospitals may influence surgical outcomes and mortality rates, but evidence of its effect on gastric cancer remains limited. This study aimed to investigate whether gastrectomy performed at university hospitals reduces short-term and long-term mortality rates in Finland.

METHODS

This nationwide population-based retrospective cohort study analyzed patients with gastric cancer who underwent gastrectomy in Finland from 1987 to 2016, using data from the Finnish Cancer Registry, Finnish Patient Registry, and Finnish Death Registry. The study compared 5-year, 30-day, and 90-day all-cause mortality rates between patients treated at university hospitals and those treated at nonuniversity hospitals, with adjustments for confounders using multivariate Cox regression models.

RESULTS

Of 10,455 patients who underwent gastrectomy in Finland between 1987 and 2016, most were treated in nonuniversity hospitals. Patients who underwent gastrectomy at university hospitals were generally younger and had more comorbidities and more advanced cancer stages. Of note, 30-day, 90-day, and 5-year survival rates were higher in university hospitals than in nonuniversity hospitals, although the differences in 90-day and 5-year survival rates were not statistically significant in more recent years.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that gastrectomy performed at university hospitals in Finland is associated with lower short-term and long-term mortality rates than gastrectomy performed at nonuniversity hospitals. In addition, our findings support the potential benefits of centralizing gastric cancer surgical procedures at university hospitals. However, further research is needed to explore the underlying reasons.

Long-Term Impact of Regionalization of Thoracic Oncology Surgery

BACKGROUND

In 2007, Cancer Care Ontario created Thoracic Surgical Oncology Standards for the delivery of surgery, including lobectomy, esophagectomy, and pneumonectomy. These standards regionalized thoracic surgery into designated centers and mandated physical and human resources. This analysis sought to identify the impact of these standards, hereafter referred to as "regionalization," on outcomes after thoracic oncology surgery in Ontario, Canada.

METHODS

This study was a population-level analysis of patients undergoing lobectomy, esophagectomy, or pneumonectomy, and it used multilevel regression models to compare 30- and 90-day mortality and length of stay before, during, and after regionalization. Interrupted time series models were used to assess for an impact of regionalization while controlling for ongoing trends.

RESULTS

A total of 22,195 surgical procedures (14,902 lobectomies, 4958 esophagectomies, and 2408 pneumonectomies) were performed within the study period. A total of >99% of cases were performed at a designated center after regionalization. Mean annual volumes per designated center increased after regionalization for lobectomy and esophagectomy and decreased for pneumonectomy. The 30- and 90-day mortality and length of stay improved for lobectomy and esophagectomy over the study period, as did 90-day mortality for pneumonectomy. However, the interrupted time series analysis did not demonstrate any statistically significant effect of regionalization on these outcomes, separate from preexisting trends.

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent improvements in mortality and length of stay in thoracic surgical oncology occurred on a provincial level between 2003 and 2020, although this analysis does not attribute these improvements to implementation of Thoracic Surgical Oncology Standards including regionalization.

Association of clonal haematopoiesis with severe postoperative complications in patients undergoing radical oesophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Clonal haematopoiesis (CH) is an age-associated clonal expansion of blood cells driven by leukaemia-associated somatic mutations. Although CH has been reported to be a risk factor for leukaemia and a number of non-haematopoietic diseases, its role in perioperative medicine remains unexplored.

METHODS

This was a single-centre, prospective, observational study. Patients undergoing radical oesophagectomy were enrolled, and peripheral blood samples were collected for DNA sequencing. Patients with haematopoietic somatic mutations (variant allele frequencies ≥1%) in the DNMT3A gene, TET2 gene, or both were defined as CH carriers. The primary outcome was the incidence of severe postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo classification ≥3). The secondary outcomes included the major types of postoperative complications, mortality, and other common perioperative variables.

RESULTS

Clonal haematopoiesis was found in 21.2% (33/156) of the patients (mean age: 66 yr [range: 26-79 yr]; 83% males). Some 14/33 (42.4%) patients with CH had severe postoperative complications, compared with patients without CH carriers (28/123 [22.8%]; P=0.024). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that CH was associated with an increased risk of developing severe postoperative complications (odds ratio, 3.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.37-9.66; P=0.010). Among the major postoperative complications, the incidence of pulmonary complications was significantly higher in the patients with CH than in those without CH (15 in 33 [45.5%] vs 30 in 123 [24.4%], P=0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

Clonal haematopoiesis was associated with a higher incidence of severe postoperative complications in patients undergoing radical oesophagectomy, suggesting that clonal haematopoiesis can play an important role in perioperative medicine.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR2100044175 (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=123193).

Refining the thoracic surgical oncology regionalization standards for esophageal surgery in Ontario, Canada: Moving from good to better

BACKGROUND

The consolidation of surgical practices has been suggested to improve patient outcomes for complex surgeries. In 2005, Ontario Health-Cancer Care Ontario released the Thoracic Surgical Oncology Standards to facilitate the regionalization process at thoracic centers in Ontario, Canada. This work describes the quality-improvement process involved in updating the minimum surgical volume and supporting requirement recommendations for thoracic centers to further optimize patient care for esophageal cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a literature review to identify and synthesize evidence informing the volume-outcome relationship related to esophagectomy. The results of this review and esophageal cancer surgery common indicators (reoperation rate, unplanned visit rate, 30-day and 90-day mortality) from Ontario's Surgical Quality Indicator Report were presented and reviewed by a Thoracic Esophageal Standards Expert Panel and Surgical Oncology Program Leads at Ontario Health-Cancer Care Ontario. Hospital outliers were identified, and a subgroup analysis was conducted to determine the most appropriate minimum surgical volume threshold based on 30- and 90-day mortality rates data from the last 3 fiscal years.

RESULTS

Based on the finding that a significant decrease in mortality occurred at 12 to 15 esophagectomies per year, the Thoracic Esophageal Standards Expert Panel reached a consensus that thoracic centers should perform a minimum of 15 esophagectomies per year. The panel also recommended that any center performing esophagectomies have at least 3 thoracic surgeons to ensure continuity in clinical care.

CONCLUSIONS

We have described the process involved in updating the provincial minimum volume threshold and the appropriate support services for esophageal cancer surgery in Ontario.

Eugene Nicholas Myers' Lecture on Head and Neck Cancer, 2020: The Surgeon as a Prognostic Factor in Head and Neck Cancer Patients Undergoing Surgery

This paper is a transcript of the 29 th Eugene N. Myers, MD International Lecture on Head and Neck Cancer presented at the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) in 2020. By the end of the 19 th century, the survival rate in treated patients was 10%. With the improvements in surgical techniques, currently, about two thirds of patients survive for > 5 years. Teamwork and progress in surgical reconstruction have led to advancements in ablative surgery; the associated adjuvant treatments have further improved the prognosis in the last 30 years. However, prospective trials are lacking; most of the accumulated knowledge is based on retrospective series and some real-world data analyses. Current knowledge on prognostic factors plays a central role in an efficient treatment decision-making process. Although the influence of most tumor- and patient-related prognostic factors in head and neck cancer cannot be changed by medical interventions, some environmental factors-including treatment, decision-making, and quality-can be modified. Ideally, treatment strategy decisions should be taken in dedicated multidisciplinary team meetings. However, evidence suggests that surgeons and hospital volume and specialization play major roles in patient survival after initial or salvage head and neck cancer treatment. The metrics of surgical quality assurance (surgical margins and nodal yield) in neck dissection have a significant impact on survival in head and neck cancer patients and can be influenced by the surgeon's expertise. Strategies proposed to improve surgical quality include continuous performance measurement, feedback, and dissemination of best practice measures.

Comparable Esophagectomy Outcomes by Surgeon Specialty: A NSQIP Analysis

BACKGROUND

A few observational studies have found that outcomes after esophagectomies by thoracic surgeons are better than those by general surgeons.

METHODS

Non-emergent esophagectomy cases were identified in the 2016-2017 American College of Surgeons NSQIP database. Associations between patient characteristics and outcomes by thoracic versus general surgeons were evaluated with univariate and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 1,606 cases, 886 (55.2%) were performed by thoracic surgeons. Those patients differed from patients treated by general surgeons in race (other/unknown 19.3% vs 7.8%; P<.001) but not in other baseline characteristics (age, sex, BMI, and comorbidities). Thoracic surgeons performed an open approach more frequently (48.9% vs 30.8%, P<.001) and had operative times that were 30 minutes shorter (P<.001). General surgeons had lower rates of reoperation (11.8% vs 17.2%; P=.003) and were more likely to treat postoperative leak with interventional means (6.3% vs 3.4%, P=.01). Thoracic surgeons were more likely to treat postoperative leak with reoperation (5.9% vs 3.6%, P=.01). There were no other differences in univariate comparison of outcomes between the two groups, including leak, readmission, and death. General surgery specialty was associated with lower risk of reoperation. Our multivariable model also found no relationship between general surgeon and risk of any complication (odds ratio 1.10; 95% CI .86 to 1.42).

DISCUSSION

In our large, national database study, we found that outcomes of esophagectomies by general surgeons were comparable with those by thoracic surgeons. General surgeons managed postoperative leaks differently than thoracic surgeons.

Reoperative Surgery After Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to identify factors influencing reoperations following minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and associated mortality and hospital costs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 2013 and 2018, 125 patients were retrospectively analyzed. Outcomes included reoperations, mortality, and hospital costs. Multivariable logistic regression analyses determined factors associated with reoperations.

RESULTS

In-hospital reoperations (n=10) were associated with in-hospital mortality (n=3, P<0.01), higher hospital costs (P<0.01), and longer hospital stay (P<0.01). Conversely, reoperations after discharge were not associated with mortality. By multivariable analysis, baseline cardiovascular (P=0.02) and chronic kidney disease (P=0.01) were associated with reoperations. However, anastomotic leaks were not associated with reoperations nor mortality.

CONCLUSION

The majority of reoperations occur within 30 days often during index hospitalization. Reoperations were associated with increased in-hospital mortality and hospital costs. Notably, anastomotic leaks did not influence reoperations nor mortality. Efforts to optimize patient baseline comorbidities should be emphasized to minimize reoperations following minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.

Center-Level Procedure Volume Does Not Predict Failure-to-Rescue After Severe Complications of Oncologic Colon and Rectal Surgery

Background

The relationship between hospital surgical volume and outcome after colorectal cancer surgery has thoroughly been studied. However, few studies have assessed hospital surgical volume and failure-to-rescue (FTR) after colon and rectal cancer surgery. The aim of the current study is to evaluate FTR following colorectal cancer surgery between clinics based on procedure volume.

Methods

Patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery in Sweden from January 2015 to January 2020 were recruited through the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry. The primary endpoint was FTR, defined as the proportion of patients with 30-day mortality after severe postoperative complications in colorectal cancer surgery. Severe postoperative complications were defined as Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3. FTR incidence rate ratios (IRR) were calculated comparing center volume stratified in low-volume (≤ 200 cases/year) and high-volume centers (> 200 cases/year), as well as with an alternative stratification comparing low-volume (< 50 cases/year), medium-volume (50–150 cases/year) and high-volume centers (> 150 cases/year).

Results

A total of 23,351 patients were included in this study, of whom 2964 suffered severe postoperative complication(s). Adjusted IRR showed no significant differences between high- and low-volume centers with an IRR of 0.97 (0.75–1.26, p = 0.844) in high-volume centers in the first stratification and an IRR of 2.06 (0.80–5.31, p = 0.134) for high-volume centers and 2.15 (0.83–5.56, p = 0.116) for medium-volume centers in the second stratification.

Conclusion

This nationwide retrospectively analyzed cohort study fails to demonstrate a significant association between hospital surgical volume and FTR after colorectal cancer surgery. Future studies should explore alternative characteristics and their correlation with FTR to identify possible interventions for the improvement of quality of care after colorectal cancer surgery.

Hospital academic status is associated with failure-to-rescue after colorectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Failure-to-rescue is a quality indicator measuring the response to postoperative complications. The current study aims to compare failure-to-rescue in patients suffering severe complications after surgery for colorectal cancer between hospitals based on their university status.

METHODS

Patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery from January 2015 to January 2020 in Sweden were included through the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry in the current study. Severe postoperative complications were defined as Clavien-Dindo ≥3. Failure-to-rescue incidence rate ratios were calculated comparing university versus nonuniversity hospitals.

RESULTS

A total of 23,351 patients were included in this study, of whom 2,964 suffered severe postoperative complication(s). University hospitals had lower failure-to-rescue rates with an incidence rate ratios of 0.62 (0.46-0.84, P = .002) compared with nonuniversity hospitals. There were significantly lower failure-to-rescue rates in almost all types of severe postoperative complications at university than nonuniversity hospitals.

CONCLUSION

University hospitals have a lower risk for failure-to-rescue compared with nonuniversity hospitals. The exact mechanisms behind this finding are unknown and warrant further investigation to identify possible improvements that can be applied to all hospitals.

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: Meticulous surgery minimizing postoperative complications

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been reported to reduce postoperative complications especially pulmonary complications and have equivalent long-term survival outcomes as compared to open esophagectomy. Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) using da Vinci surgical system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, USA) is rapidly gaining attention because it helps surgeons to perform meticulous surgical procedures. McKeown RAMIE has been preferably performed in East Asia where squamous cell carcinoma which lies in more proximal esophagus than adenocarcinoma is a predominant histological type of esophageal cancer. On the other hand, Ivor Lewis RAMIE has been preferably performed in the Western countries where adenocarcinoma including Barrett esophageal cancer is the most frequent histology. Average rates of postoperative complications have been reported to be lower in Ivor Lewis RAMIE than those in McKeown RAMIE. Ivor Lewis RAMIE may get more attention for thoracic esophageal cancer. The studies comparing RAMIE and MIE where recurrent nerve lymphadenectomy was thoroughly performed reported that the rate of recurrent nerve injury is lower in RAMIE than in MIE. Recurrent nerve injury leads to serious complications such as aspiration pneumonia. It seems highly probable that RAMIE is beneficial in performing recurrent nerve lymphadenectomy. Surgery for esophageal cancer will probably be more centralized in hospitals with surgical robots, which enable accurate lymph node dissection with less complications, leading to improved outcomes for patients with esophageal cancer. RAMIE might occupy an important position in surgery for esophageal cancer.

Cohort profile: a nationwide population-based retrospective assessment of oesophageal cancer in the Finnish National Esophago-Gastric Cancer Cohort (FINEGO)

PURPOSE

The Finnish National Esophago-Gastric Cancer Cohort (FINEGO) was established to combine the available registry data with detailed patient information to form a comprehensive, retrospective, population-based research platform of surgically treated oesophageal and gastric cancer in Finland. This cohort profile describes the 2045 surgically treated patients with oesophageal cancer included in the FINEGO cohort.

PARTICIPANTS

Registry data were collected from the National Cancer, Patient, Education and Death Registries from 1 January 1987 to 31 December 2016. All patients over 18 years of age, who had either curative surgery, palliative surgery or salvage surgery for primary cancer in the oesophagus are included in this study.

FINDINGS TO DATE

2045 patients had surgery for oesophageal cancer in the selected time period. 67.2% were man, and the majority had only minor comorbidities. The proportions of adenocarcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas were 43.1% and 44.4%, respectively, and 12.5% had other or missing histology. Only about 23% of patients received neoadjuvant therapy. Oesophagectomy was the treatment of choice and most patients were treated at low-volume centres, but median annual hospital volume increased over time. Median overall survival was 23 months, 5-year survival for all patients in the cohort was 32.9% and cancer-specific survival was 36.5%.

FUTURE PLANS

Even though Finland only has a population of 5.5 million, surgery for oesophageal carcinoma has not been centralised and therefore previously reported results have mostly been small, single-centre cohorts. Because of FINEGO, we now have a population-based, unselected cohort of surgically treated patients, enabling research on national trends over time regarding oesophageal cancer, including patient characteristics, tumour histology, stage and neoadjuvant treatment, surgical techniques, hospital volumes and patient mortality. Data collection is ongoing, and the cohort will be expanded to include more detailed data from patient records and national biobanks.

Chemoradiotherapy With or Without Surgery for Esophageal Squamous Cancer According to Hospital Volume

PURPOSE

Esophageal squamous cell cancer (ESCC) is still associated with a dismal prognosis. However, surgical series have shown that high-volume hospitals have better outcomes and that the impact of center volume on definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) or CRT plus surgery (CRT + S) remains unknown.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with locally advanced stage II-III (non-T4) ESCC treated with dCRT or CRT + S in São Paulo state, Brazil. Descriptive variables were assessed with the χ2 test after categorization of hospital volume (high-volume [HV] center, top 5 higher volume, or low-volume [LV] center). Overall survival (OS) was assessed with Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, and Cox proportional hazards. Finally, an interaction test between each facility's treatments was performed.

RESULTS

Between 2000 and 2013, 1,347 patients were analyzed (77% treated with dCRT and 65.7% in HV centers) with a median follow-up of 23.7 months. The median OS for dCRT was 14.1 months (95% CI, 13.3 to 15.3 months) and for CRT + S, 20.6 months (95% CI, 16.1 to 24.9 months). In the multivariable analysis, dCRT was associated with worse OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.38; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.61; P < .001) compared with CRT + S. HV hospitals were associated with better OS (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.94; P = .004) compared with LV hospitals. Importantly, CRT + S superiority was restricted to HV hospitals (dCRT v CRT + S: HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.29 to 1.89; P < .001), while in LV hospitals, there was no statistically significant difference (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.43; P = .350), with a significant interaction test (Pinteraction = .035).

CONCLUSION

Our data show that CRT + S is superior to dCRT in the treatment of ESCC exclusively in HV hospitals, which favors the literature trend to centralize the treatment of ESCC in HV centers.

Essential Updates 2018/2019: Essential Updates for esophageal cancer surgery

Key papers to treatment of esophageal cancer surgery and reduction of postoperative complications after esophagectomy published between 2018 and 2019 were reviewed. Within this review there was a focus on minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), robot-assisted MIE (RAMIE), and centralization to high-volume center. Advantages of MIE, irrespectively of hybrid or total MIE, to prevent postoperative complications, especially pneumonia, were shown in comparison to open procedure. However, whether total MIE has evident effects or not, as compared to hybrid MIEs, still remains unclear. Differences between RAMIE and MIE were reported to be marginal, though the advantage of lymphadenectomy, especially along recurrent laryngeal nerve, has been suggested. Centralization to high-volume center evidently benefits esophageal cancer patients by improving short-term outcomes. The definition of high-volume center has not been established yet, though institutional structure and quality are thought to be important. Transmediastinal esophagectomy, currently developed, has a potential to be one radical option of MIE for esophageal cancer.

The incidence and long-term outcomes of esophageal perforations in Finland between 1996 and 2017 - a national registry-based analysis of 1106 esophageal perforations showing high early and late mortality rates and better outcomes in patients treated at high-volume centers

Background: Esophageal perforations cause severe life-threatening diseases with significant mortality and morbidity. The national incidence and long-term prognosis of these patients is incompletely described in the current literature.Methods: Information regarding each treatment episode for esophageal perforations that had occurred in Finland between 1996 and 2017 and survival data of each patient was obtained from national registries. The occurrence of the disease, related interventions, the number and type of later treatment episodes, as well as the prognosis of these patients was analyzed.Results: The total number of patients with esophageal perforations was 1106 (median age 65, 38% female) and the median follow-up time was 113 months. The overall incidence of the disease was 0.95 (95% CI ± 0.12) per 100,000 person years with male predominance and a trend for slightly increasing occurrence. Esophageal cancer was present in 5.8% of cases. Altogether 41% of patients underwent invasive treatment (31% endoscopic stenting, 69% surgery). Particularly stenting was more frequent later in the series. The median number of disease-related hospitalizations was two and later out-patient clinic visits four. The overall 30-day, 90-day, 1-year and 5-year mortality rates were 14%, 22%, 31% and 46%, respectively, and significantly higher in malignancy-associated cases. There were no clear improvements in the mortality rates over the study period, but the prognosis was better in patients that were treated in higher volume hospitals.Conclusion: There is a slightly increasing trend in the occurrence of esophageal perforations. Contemporary treatment is less invasive with similar results. Patients treated in high-volume hospitals have better prognosis.

Do the 2018 Leapfrog Group Minimal Hospital and Surgeon Volume Thresholds for Esophagectomy Favor Specific Patient Demographics?

OBJECTIVE

We examine how esophagectomy volume thresholds reflect outcomes relative to patient characteristics.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Esophagectomy outcomes are associated with surgeon and hospital operative volumes, leading the Leapfrog Group to recommend minimum annual volume thresholds of 7 and 20 respectively.

METHODS

Patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer were identified from the 2007-2013 New York and Florida Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's State Inpatient Databases. Logit models adjusted for patient characteristics evaluated in-hospital mortality, complications, and prolonged length of stay (PLOS). Median surgeon and hospital volumes were compared between young-healthy (age 18-57, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index [ECI] <2) and older-sick patients (age ≥71, ECI >4).

RESULTS

Of 4330 esophagectomy patients, 3515 (81%) were male, median age was 64 (interquartile range 58-71), and mortality was 4.0%. Patients treated by both low-volume surgeons and hospitals had the greatest mortality risk (5.0%), except in the case of older-sick patients mortality was highest at high-volume hospitals with high-volume surgeons (12%). For mortality <1%, annual hospital and surgeon volumes needed were 23 and 8, respectively; mortality rose to 4.2% when volumes dropped to the Leapfrog thresholds of 20 and 7, respectively. Complication rose from 53% to 63% when hospital and surgeon volumes decreased from 28 and 10 to 19 and 7, respectively. PLOS rose from 19% to 27% when annual hospital and surgeon volumes decreased from 27 and 8 to 20 and 7, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Current Leapfrog Group esophagectomy volume guidelines may not predict optimal outcomes for all patients, especially at extremes of age and comorbidities.

Regionalization of esophagectomy: where are we now?

The morbidity and mortality benefits of performing high-risk operations in high-volume centers by high-volume surgeons are evident. Regionalization is a proposed strategy to leverage high-volume centers for esophagectomy to improve quality outcomes. Internationally, regionalization occurs under national mandates. Those mandates do not exist in the United States and spontaneous regionalization of esophagectomy has only modestly occurred in the U.S. Regionalization must strike a careful balance and not limit access to optimal oncologic care to our most vulnerable cancer patient populations in rural and disadvantaged socioeconomic areas. We reviewed the recent literature highlighting: the justification of hospital and surgeon annual esophagectomy volumes for regionalization; how safety performance metrics could influence regionalization; whether regionalization is occurring in the US; what impact regionalization may have on esophagectomy costs; and barriers to patients traveling to receive oncologic treatment at regionalized centers of excellence.

Population-Based Study on Risk Factors for Tumor-Positive Resection Margins in Patients with Gastric Cancer

Background

Radical gastrectomy is the cornerstone of the treatment of locally advanced gastric cancer. This study was designed to evaluate factors associated with a tumor-positive resection margin after gastrectomy and to evaluate the influence of hospital volume.

Methods

In this Dutch cohort study, patients with junctional or gastric cancer who underwent curative gastrectomy between 2011 and 2017 were included. The primary outcome was incomplete tumor removal after the operation defined as the microscopic presence of tumor cells at the resection margin. The association of patient and disease characteristics with incomplete tumor removal was tested with multivariable regression analysis. The association of annual hospital volume with incomplete tumor removal was tested and adjusted for the patient- and disease characteristics.

Results

In total, 2799 patients were included. Incomplete tumor removal was seen in 265 (9.5%) patients. Factors associated with incomplete tumor removal were: tumor located in the entire stomach (odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.38 [1.91–5.96] reference: gastroesophageal junction), cT3, cT4, cTx (1.75 [1.20–2.56], 2.63 [1.47–4.70], 1.60 [1.03–2.48], reference: cT0-2), pN+ (2.73 [1.96–3.80], reference: pN−), and diffuse and unknown histological subtype (3.15 [2.14–4.46] and 2.05 [1.34–3.13], reference: intestinal). Unknown differentiation grade was associated with complete tumor removal (0.50 [0.30–0.83], reference: poor/undifferentiated). Compared with a hospital volume of < 20 resections/year, 20–39, and > 39 resections were associated with lower probability for incomplete tumor removal (OR 0.56 [0.42–0.76] and 0.34 [0.18–0.64]).

Conclusions

Tumor location, cT, pN, histological subtype, and tumor differentiation are associated with incomplete tumor removal. The association of incomplete tumor removal with an annual hospital volume of < 20 resections may underline the need for further centralization of gastric cancer care in the Netherlands.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1245/s10434-019-07381-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.