Travel to a high volume hospital to undergo resection of gallbladder cancer: does it impact quality of care and long-term outcomes?

Travel to High-Volume Centers and Survival After Esophagectomy for Cancer

Importance

Ongoing efforts have encouraged the regionalization of esophageal adenocarcinoma treatment to high-volume centers (HVCs). Yet such centralization has been linked with increased patient travel burden and reduced postoperative continuity of care.

Objective

To determine whether traveling to undergo esophagectomy at HVCs is linked with superior overall survival compared with receiving care locally at low-volume centers (LVC).

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study considered data for all patients diagnosed with stage I through III esophageal adenocarcinoma in the 2010-2021 National Cancer Database. Patients were stratified based on distance traveled to receive care and the annual esophagectomy volume at the treating hospital: the travel-HVC cohort included patients in the top 25th percentile of travel burden who received care at centers in the top volume quartile, and the local-LVC cohort represented those in the bottom 25th percentile of travel burden who were treated at centers in the lowest volume quartile. Data were analyzed from July 2023 to January 2024.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end points were overall survival at 1 year and 5 years. Secondary end points included perioperative outcomes and factors linked with traveling to receive care.

Results

Of 17 970 patients, 2342 (13%) comprised the travel-HVC cohort, and 1969 (11%), the local-LVC cohort. The median (IQR) age was 65 (58-71) years; 3748 (87%) were male and 563 (13%) were female. After risk adjustment and with care at local LVCs as the reference, traveling to HVC was associated with superior survival at 1 year (hazard ratio for mortality [HR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58-0.83) and 5 years (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.90). Stratifying by stage, traveling to HVCs was associated with comparable outcomes for stage I disease but reduced mortality for stage III (1-year HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.87; 5-year HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.93). Further, traveling to HVC was associated with greater lymph node harvest (β, 5.08 nodes; 95% CI, 3.78-6.37) and likelihood of margin-negative resection (adjusted odds ratio, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.29-2.60).

Conclusions and Relevance

Traveling to HVCs for esophagectomy was associated with improved 1-year and 5-year survival compared with receiving care locally at LVCs, particularly among patients with locoregionally advanced disease. Future studies are needed to ascertain barriers to care and develop novel targeted pathways to ensure equitable access to high-volume facilities and high-quality oncologic care.

Adjuvant Therapy Use for Patients With Inadequately Resected T1b-T3 Gallbladder Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Up to 90% of patients undergo inadequate resection for incidentally diagnosed T1b-T3 gallbladder cancer (GBC). We evaluated whether adjuvant therapies (ATs) are associated with prolonged overall survival (OS) for patients undergoing inadequate resection of T1b-T3 GBC.

METHODS

Patients who underwent inadequate resection, defined as simple cholecystectomy, for T1b-T3, Nx-N2, and M0 GBC were identified from the National Cancer Database (2004-2016). Patient characteristics, variables associated with AT use, and OS were described using the chi-square test, multivariable logistical regression, Kaplan-Meier, and Cox proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

Of 1386 patients who met inclusion criteria, most received no AT (64%), 20% received chemotherapy (CT), and 16% received chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Patients who received no AT were generally older (51% ≥ 75 y) and had no comorbidities (65% Charlson Comorbidity Index 0). Among those who received AT, CRT rather than CT, tended to be employed for patients who were older (≥75 y) or had more comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥1). Patients with advanced disease (T3, positive lymph nodes, or positive margins) were more likely to receive CRT. For T1b-T3 GBC, any AT was associated with prolonged median OS compared to no AT (22 months versus 15 mo, P < 0.01). Relative to no AT, CT (hazard ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.67-0.92) and CRT (0.59, 95% confidence interval 0.49-0.72) were associated with decreased risk of death.

CONCLUSIONS

AT was associated with prolonged OS for patients with inadequately resected T1b-T3 GBC. CRT may have a role in treatment for patients with high-risk disease following inadequate resection of T1b-T3 GBC.

Risk Factors and Prognostic Factors in GBC

Background: Gallbladder cancer (GBC) is a rare entity with a poor prognosis, usually discovered late due to nonspecific symptoms; therefore, over the last years, attention has been focused on identifying the risk factors for developing this malignancy in order to provide an early diagnosis, as well as new prognostic factors in order to modulate the long-term evolution of such cases. The aim of this review is to discuss both major risk factors and prognostic factors in GBC for a better understanding and integration of relevant and currently available information. Methods: A literature search was performed using Cochrane Library, PubMed, Google Scholar, Elsevier, and Web of Science; studies published after the year of 2000, in English, were reviewed. Results: Over time, risk factors associated with the development of GBC have been identified, which outline the profile of patients with this disease. The most important prognostic factors in GBC remain TNM staging, safety margin, and R0 status, along with perineural invasion and lymphovascular invasion. Both the technique and experience of the surgeons and a pathological examination that ensures final staging are particularly important and increase the chances of survival of the patients. Conclusions: improvements in surgical techniques and pathological analyses might provide better and more consistent guidance for medical staff in the management of patients with GBC.

Implications of the interaction between travel burden and area deprivation for patients with pancreatic cancer

INTRODUCTION

Fragmentation of care and distance traveled are classically surrogates for poor access to care, but little is known about how social determinants of health interact with travel burden to affect survival for patients with pancreatic cancer (PC). We sought to characterize the individual and composite impact of these factors.

METHODS

20769 patients treated for PC between 2005 and 2019 in the Texas Cancer Registry were included. The Area Deprivation Index and Poverty Index were used to quantify social determinants of health. Survival analyses were performed at 2 years as well as subgroup analysis on patients with the greatest travel burden.

RESULTS

Improved survival was associated with FC (HR 0.74, CI 0.71-0.77) and distance from an accredited cancer center (Quartile 4 HR 0.90, CI 0.81-1.00). High ADI led to worse outcomes while low ADI led to improved outcomes with increasing travel burden.

CONCLUSIONS

This data shows a complex relationship between travel burden and survival for patients with pancreatic cancer where stratifying by area deprivation reveals divergent outcomes and the potential to exacerbate disparities.

Average treatment effect of facility hepatopancreatobiliary malignancy case volume on survival of patients with nonoperatively managed hepatobiliary malignancies

BACKGROUND

Surgical volume-outcome relationships have been described for a variety of procedures. There is scant literature on total institutional volume and outcomes in patients who are nonoperatively managed. We examined the average treatment effect of total hepatopancreatobiliary malignancy case volume on survival outcomes of patients with nonresected hepatobiliary malignancies.

METHODS

We identified patients with hepatopancreatobiliary malignancies [pancreatic adenocarcinoma, pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms, hepatocellular carcinoma, biliary tract cancers] within the National Cancer Database (2004-2018). We determined percentile thresholds based on the total annual hepatopancreatobiliary malignancy case volume. We then identified nonoperatively managed patients with hepatocellular carcinoma or biliary tract cancers. We used inverse probability-weighted Cox regression to estimate the effect of facility volume on overall survival.

RESULTS

We identified 710,988 patients with hepatopancreatobiliary malignancies. Total annual hepatopancreatobiliary malignancy case volume of 32, 71, and 177 cases/year corresponded to the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles. A total of 96,420 with hepatocellular carcinoma and 52,627 patients with biliary tract cancers were managed nonoperatively. In patients with hepatocellular carcinoma or biliary tract cancer, treatment at ≥25th, ≥50th, and ≥75th percentile facilities was associated with improved median, 1-, 2-, and 3-year overall survival compared with treatment at lower-percentile facilities. On inverse probability-weighted Cox analysis, treatment at higher-percentile facilities resulted in a lower hazard of death. Consistent findings were observed in patients with early or intermediate/advanced hepatocellular carcinoma or metastatic biliary tract cancers.

CONCLUSION

Patients with nonoperatively managed hepatocellular carcinoma or biliary tract cancer who receive treatment at higher-volume facilities have improved survival outcomes. These data suggest regionalization of care for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma or biliary tract cancer to high-volume centers may improve survival.

Average treatment effect of facility hepatopancreatobiliary cancer volume on survival of non-resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

To examine the average treatment effect of hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) cancer volume on survival outcomes of patients with non-resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

We queried the National Cancer Database (2004-2018) for patients with HPB malignancies (PDAC, pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms, hepatocellular carcinoma, biliary tract cancers). We determined the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles based on the total annual HPB volume. We then identified patients with non-resected PDAC. We utilized inverse probability (IP)-weighted Cox regression to estimate the effect of facility volume on overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

We identified 710,988 patients with HPB malignancies. The 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles of total annual HPB volume were 32, 71, and 177 cases/year, respectively. We included a total of 196,150 patients with non-resected PDAC. Patients treated at ≥25th, ≥50th, and ≥75th percentile facilities had improved median OS compared to those treated at facilities below these thresholds (5.8 vs. 4.2months, 6.5 vs. 4.5months, 7.5 vs. 4.8months, respectively; p < 0.001 for all). Treatment at facilities ≥25th, ≥50th, and ≥75th percentile resulted in lower hazards of death than treatment at lower-percentile facilities (HR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.84-0.90; HR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.83-0.91; HR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.79-0.91, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that consolidation of care of patients with PDAC to high-volume centers may be beneficial even in the nonoperative setting.

Global, regional, and national quality of care of gallbladder and biliary tract cancer: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 1990-2017

BACKGROUND

To improve health outcomes to their maximum level, defining indices to measure healthcare quality and accessibility is crucial. In this study, we implemented the novel Quality of Care Index (QCI) to estimate the quality and accessibility of care for patients with gallbladder and biliary tract cancer (GBBTC) in 195 countries, 21 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) regions, Socio-demographic Index (SDI) quintiles, and sex groups.

METHOD

This cross-sectional study extracted estimates on GBBTC burden from the GBD 2017, which presents population-based estimates on GBBTC burden for higher than 15-year-old patients from 1990 to 2017. Four secondary indices indicating quality of care were chosen, comprising Mortality to incidence, Disability-Adjusted Life Year (DALY) to prevalence, prevalence to incidence, and years of life lost (YLL) to years lived with disability (YLD) ratios. Then, the whole dataset was analyzed using Principal Component Analysis to combine the four indices and create a single all-inclusive measure named QCI. The QCI was scaled to the 0-100 range, with 100 indicating the best quality of care among countries. Gender Disparity Ratio (GDR) was defined as the female to male QCI ratio to show gender inequity throughout the regions and countries.

RESULTS

Global QCI score for GBBTC was 33.5 in 2017, which has increased by 29% since 1990. There was a considerable gender disparity in favor of men (GDR = 0.74) in 2017, showing QCI has moved toward gender inequity since 1990 (GDR = 0.85). Quality of care followed a heterogeneous pattern among regions and countries and was positively correlated with the countries' developmental status reflected in SDI (r = 0.7; CI 95%: 0.61-0.76; P value< 0.001). Accordingly, High-income North America (QCI = 72.4) had the highest QCI; whereas, Eastern Sub-Saharan Africa (QCI = 3) had the lowest QCI among regions. Patients aged 45 to 80 had lower QCI scores than younger and older adults. The highest QCI score was for the older than 95 age group (QCI = 54), and the lowest was for the 50-54 age group (QCI = 26.0).

CONCLUSIONS

QCI improved considerably from 1990 to 2017; however, it showed heterogeneous distribution and inequity between sex and age groups. In each regional context, plans from countries with the highest QCI and best gender equity should be disseminated and implemented in order to decrease the overall burden of GBBTC.

Associations between geographic residence and US adolescent and young adult cancer stage and survival

BACKGROUND

Multiple studies have indicated that place of residence can influence cancer survival; however, few studies have specifically focused on geographic factors and outcomes in adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer. The objective of this study was to evaluate evidence for geographic disparities in cancer diagnosis stage and overall survival in AYAs and to examine whether stage mediated survival associations.

METHODS

National Cancer Database data on AYAs aged 15 to 39 years who were diagnosed with cancer from 2010 to 2014 were obtained. Residence in Metropolitan (metro), urban, or rural counties at the time of diagnosis was defined using Rural-Urban Continuum Codes. Distance between the patient's residence and the reporting hospital was classified as short (≤2.5 miles), intermediate (>12.5 to <50 miles), or long (≥50 miles). Logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used for analyses.

RESULTS

The stage and survival analyses included 146,418 and 178,688 AYAs, respectively. The odds of a late versus early stage at diagnosis (stages III and IV vs I and II) were 1.16 (95% CI, 1.05-1.29) times greater for AYAs living in rural versus metro counties and 1.20 (95% CI, 1.16-1.25) times greater for AYAs living at long versus short distances to the reporting hospital. The hazard of death was 1.17 (95% CI, 1.05-1.31) and 1.30 (95% CI, 1.25-1.36) times greater for those living in rural versus metro counties, respectively, and for long versus short distances to the reporting hospital, respectively. Disease stage mediated 54% and 31% of the associations between metro, urban, or rural residence and residential distance categories and survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Rural residence and living long distances from the reporting hospital were associated with later stage diagnoses and lower survival in AYAs with cancer. Further research is needed to understand mechanisms.

LAY SUMMARY

Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer are a vulnerable population because cancer is of low suspicion in this population and may not be diagnosed in a timely manner. The authors evaluated evidence for geographic disparities in cancer stage at diagnosis and survival in the AYA population. The findings indicate that AYAs living in rural versus metropolitan US counties and those living farther from the diagnosis reporting hospital are more likely to be diagnosed at a later cancer stage, when it is generally less treatable, and have lower survival compared with AYAs living in metropolitan counties.

Patient Comorbidities Drive High Mortality Rates Associated with Major Liver Resections Irrespective of Hospital Volume

INTRODUCTION

Major hepatectomies are utilized to manage primary hepatic malignancies. Reports from high-volume centers (HVCs) with minimal perioperative mortality focus on multiple aspects of perioperative care, although patient-specific factors remain unelucidated. We identified patient factors associated with outcomes and examined whether these contribute to survival differences.

METHODS

We queried the National Cancer Database (2006-2015) for patients with primary liver malignancies managed with major hepatectomy. Facilities were dichotomized by volume (high volume: >15 hepatectomies/year). Perioperative outcomes were compared based on patient demographic and clinical characteristics as well as center volume.

RESULTS

4263 patients were included with 78.5% receiving care in low-volume centers (LVCs). 90-day postoperative mortality was higher in LVCs vs. HVCs (12% vs. 7.5%; P < .001). Factors associated with undergoing surgery in LVCs included: living in areas with lower income (P = .006) and education (P < .001), having nonprivate insurance (P < .001), residing near the care center (P < .001), and having a comorbidity score (CDS) >1 (P = .014). Patients with CDS ≤ 1 had higher 90-day mortality in LVCs (11.3% vs. 6.6%; P < .001) and had similar outcomes in LVCs and HVCs (15.6% vs. 13.7% P = .6). Patients with CDS > 1 were more likely to receive care in LVCs (16.3% vs. 12.7%; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Reduced perioperative mortality following major hepatectomy in HVCs is driven by optimal management of patients with low CDS. However, nearly 1 in 5 patients who undergo major hepatectomies have a high CDS and approximately 15% of them succumb in the perioperative period irrespective of the treating centers' experience.

Travel Patterns among Patients Undergoing Hepatic Resection in California: Does Driving Further for Care Improve Outcomes?

BACKGROUND

Better outcomes at high-volume surgical centers have driven regionalization of complex surgical care. In turn, access to high-volume centers often requires travel over longer distances. We sought to characterize travel patterns among patients who underwent a hepatectomy.

METHODS

The California Office of Statewide Health Planning database was used to identify patients who underwent hepatectomy between 2005 and 2016. Total distance traveled and whether a patient bypassed the nearest hospital that performed hepatectomy to get to a higher-volume center were assessed. Multivariate analyses were used to identify factors associated with bypassing a local hospital for a higher-volume center.

RESULTS

Overall, 13,379 adults underwent a hepatectomy in 229 hospitals; only 26 hospitals were high volume (> 15 cases/year). Median travel time to a hospital that performed hepatectomy was 25.2 min (IQR: 13.1-52.0). The overwhelming majority of patients (91.6%) bypassed the nearest providing hospital to seek care at a destination hospital. Among patients who bypassed a closer hospital, 75.5% went to a high-volume hospital. Outcomes at destination hospitals were improved compared with nearest hospitals (incidence of complications: 20.4% vs. 22.9% %; failure-to-rescue: 7.1% vs 10.9%; mortality 1.5% vs. 2.6%). Medicaid beneficiaries (OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.56-0.85) were less likely to bypass the nearest hospital to go to a high-volume hospital; additionally, Medicaid patients were less likely to undergo hepatectomy at a high-volume hospital independent of bypassing the nearest hospital (OR 0.60, 95%CI 0.48-0.76). Among the 3703 patients who underwent hepatectomy at a low-volume center, 2126 patients had actually bypassed a high-volume hospital. Among the remaining 1577 patients, 95% of individuals would have needed to travel less than 1 additional hour to reach a high-volume center.

CONCLUSION

Roughly, one-quarter of patients undergoing hepatectomy received care at a low-volume center; nearly all of these patients either bypassed a high-volume hospital or would have needed to travel less than an additional hour to reach a high-volume center. Travel distance needs to be considered in policies and healthcare delivery design to improve care of patients undergoing hepatic resection.

Assessment of Magnet status and Textbook Outcomes among medicare beneficiaries undergoing hepato-pancreatic surgery for cancer

BACKGROUND

The relationship between hospital Magnet status recognition and postoperative outcomes following complex cancer surgery remains ill-defined. We sought to characterize Textbook Outcome (TO) rates among patients undergoing (HP) surgery for cancer in Magnet versus non-Magnet centers.

METHODS

Medicare beneficiaries undergoing HP surgery between 2015 and 2017 were identified. The association of postoperative TO (no complications/extended length-of-stay/90-day mortality/90-day readmission) with Magnet designation was examined after adjusting for competing risk factors.

RESULTS

Among 10,997 patients, 21.3% (n = 2337) patients underwent surgery at Magnet hospitals (non-Magnet centers: 78.7%, n = 8660). On multivariable analysis, patients undergoing HP surgery had comparable odds of achieving a TO at Magnet versus non-Magnet hospitals (hepatectomy: odds ratio [OR]: 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94-1.17; pancreatectomy-OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.74-1.06). Patients treated at hospitals with a high nurse-to-bed ratio had higher odds of achieving a TO irrespective of whether they received surgery at Magnet (high vs. low nurse-to-bed ratio; OR: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.01-1.89) or non-Magnet centers (OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.10-1.45). Similarly, hospital HP volume was strongly associated with higher odds of TO following HP surgery in both Magnet (Leapfrog compliant vs. noncompliant; OR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.06-1.44) and non-Magnet centers (OR: 1.18; 95% CI: 1.11-1.26).

CONCLUSION

Hospital Magnet designation was not an independent factor of superior outcomes after HP surgery. Rather, hospital-level factors such as nurse-to-bed ratio and HP procedural volume drove outcomes.

Hospital Surgical Volume and 3-Year Mortality in Severe Prognosis Cancers: A Population-Based Study Using Cancer Registry Data

BACKGROUND

The impact of hospital surgical volume on long-term mortality has not been well assessed in Japan, especially for esophageal, biliary tract, and pancreatic cancer, although these three cancers need a high level of medical-technical skill. The purpose of this study was to examine associations between hospital surgical volume and 3-year mortality for these severe-prognosis cancer patients.

METHODS

Patients who received curative surgery for esophageal, biliary tract, and pancreatic cancers were analyzed using the Osaka Cancer Registry data from 2006-2013. Hospital surgical volume was categorized into tertiles (high/middle/low) according to the average annual number of curative surgeries per hospital for each cancer. Three-year survivals were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Hazard ratios (HRs) of 3-year mortality were calculated using Cox proportional hazard models, adjusting for patient characteristics.

RESULTS

Three-year survival was higher with increased hospital surgical volume for all three cancers, but the relative importance of volume varied across sites. After adjustment for all confounding factors, HRs in middle- and low-volume hospitals were 1.34 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-1.58) and 1.57 (95% CI, 1.33-1.86) for esophageal cancer; 1.39 (95% CI, 1.15-1.67) and 1.57 (95% CI, 1.30-1.89) for biliary tract cancer; 1.38 (95% CI, 1.16-1.63) and 1.90 (95% CI, 1.60-2.25) for pancreatic cancer, respectively. In particular for localized pancreatic cancer, the impact of hospital surgical volume on 3-year mortality was strong (HR 2.66; 95% CI, 1.61-4.38).

CONCLUSION

We suggest that patients who require curative surgery for esophageal, biliary tract, and pancreatic cancer may benefit from referral to high-volume hospitals.

Accessing surgical care for esophageal cancer: patient travel patterns to reach higher volume center

While better outcomes at high-volume surgical centers have driven the regionalization of complex surgical care, access to high-volume centers often requires travel over longer distances. We sought to evaluate the travel patterns among patients undergoing esophagectomy to assess willingness of patients to travel for surgical care. The California Office of Statewide Health Planning database was used to identify patients who underwent esophagectomy between 2005 and 2016. Total distance traveled, as well as whether a patient bypassed the nearest hospital that performed esophagectomy to get to a higher volume center, was assessed. Overall 3,269 individuals underwent an esophagectomy for cancer in 154 hospitals; only five hospitals were high volume according to Leapfrog standards. Median travel time to a hospital that performed esophagectomy was 26 minutes (IQR: 13.1-50.7). The overwhelming majority of patients (85%) bypassed the nearest providing hospital to seek care at a destination hospital. Among patients who bypassed a closer hospital, only 36% went to a high-volume hospital. Of the 2,248 patients who underwent esophagectomy at a low-volume center, 1,491 patients had bypassed a high-volume hospital. Of the remaining 757 patients who did not bypass a high-volume hospital, half of the individuals would have needed to travel less than an additional hour to reach a high-volume center. Nearly two-thirds of patients undergoing an esophagectomy for cancer received care at a low-volume center; 85% of patients either bypassed a high-volume hospital or would have needed to travel less than an additional hour to reach a high-volume center.

Accessing surgical care for pancreaticoduodenectomy: Patient variation in travel distance and choice to bypass hospitals to reach higher volume centers

BACKGROUND

While better outcomes at high-volume surgical centers have driven regionalization of complex surgical care, access to high-volume centers often requires travel over longer distances. We sought to evaluate travel patterns of patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic cancer to assess willingness of patients to travel for surgical care.

METHODS

The California Office of Statewide Health Planning database was used to identify patients who underwent PD between 2005 and 2016. Total distance traveled, as well as whether a patient bypassed the nearest hospital that performed PD to get to a higher-volume center was assessed. Multivariate analyses were used to identify factors associated with bypassing a local hospital for a higher-volume center.

RESULTS

Among 23 014 patients who underwent PD, individuals traveled a median distance of 18.0 miles to get to a hospital that performed PD. The overwhelming majority (84%) of patients bypassed the nearest providing hospital and traveled a median additional 16.6 miles to their destination hospital. Among patients who bypassed the nearest hospital, 13,269 (68.6%) did so for a high-volume destination hospital. Specifically, average annual PD volume at the nearest "bypassed" vs final destination hospital was 29.6 vs 56 cases, respectively. Outcomes at bypassed vs destination hospitals varied (incidence of complications: 39.2% vs 32.4%; failure-to-rescue: 14.5% vs 9.1%). PD at a high-volume center was associated with lower mortality (OR = 0.46 95% CI, 0.22-0.95). High-volume PD ( > 20 cases) was predictive of hospital bypass (OR = 3.8 95% CI, 3.3-4.4). Among patients who had surgery at a low-volume center, nearly 20% bypassed a high-volume hospital in route. Furthermore, among patients who did not bypass a high-volume hospital, one-third would have needed to travel only an additional 30 miles or less to reach the nearest high-volume hospital.

CONCLUSION

Most patients undergoing PD bypassed the nearest providing hospital to seek care at a higher-volume hospital. While these data reflect increased regionalization of complex surgical care, nearly 1 in 5 patients still underwent PD at a low-volume center.