Treatment in certified cancer centers is related to better survival in patients with colon and rectal cancer: evidence from a large German cohort study

BACKGROUND

Certified cancer centers aim to ensure high-quality care by establishing structural and procedural standards according to evidence-based guidelines. Despite the high clinical and health policy relevance, evidence from a nation-wide study for the effectiveness of care for colorectal cancer in certified centers vs. other hospitals in Germany is still missing.

METHODS

In a retrospective cohort study covering the years 2009-2017, we analyzed patient data using demographic information, diagnoses, and treatments from a nationwide statutory health insurance enriched with information on certification. We investigated whether patients with incident colon or rectal cancer did benefit from primary therapy in a certified cancer center. We used relative survival analysis taking into account mortality data of the German population and adjustment for patient and hospital characteristics via Cox regression with shared frailty for patients in hospitals with and without certification.

RESULTS

The cohorts for colon and rectal cancer consisted of 109,518 and 51,417 patients, respectively, treated in a total of 1052 hospitals. 37.2% of patients with colon and 42.9% of patients with rectal cancer were treated in a certified center. Patient age, sex, comorbidities, secondary malignoma, and distant metastases were similar across groups (certified/non-certified) for both colon and rectal cancer. Relative survival analysis showed significantly better survival of patients treated in a certified center, with 68.3% (non-certified hospitals 65.8%) 5-year survival for treatment of colon cancer in certified (p < 0.001) and 65.0% (58.8%) 5-year survival in case of rectal cancer (p < 0.001), respectively. Cox regression with adjustment for relevant covariates yielded a lower hazard of death for patients treated in certified centers for both colon (HR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.89-0.95) and rectal cancer (HR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.88-0.95). The results remained robust in a series of sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

This large cohort study yields new important evidence that patients with colorectal cancer have a better chance of survival if treated in a certified cancer center. Certification thus provides one powerful means to improve the quality of care for colorectal cancer. To decrease the burden of disease, more patients should thus receive cancer care in a certified center.

Treatment of Colorectal Cancer in Certified Centers: Results of a Large German Registry Study Focusing on Long-Term Survival

(1) Background: The WiZen study is the largest study so far to analyze the effect of the certification of designated cancer centers on survival in Germany. This certification program is provided by the German Cancer Society (GCS) and represents one of the largest oncologic certification programs worldwide. Currently, about 50% of colorectal cancer patients in Germany are treated in certified centers. (2) Methods: All analyses are based on population-based clinical cancer registry data of 47.440 colorectal cancer (ICD-10-GM C18/C20) patients treated between 2009 and 2017. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival (OAS) after treatment at certified cancer centers compared to treatment at other hospitals; the secondary endpoint was recurrence-free survival. Statistical methods included Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariable Cox regression. (3) Results: Treatment at certified hospitals was associated with significant advantages concerning 5-year overall survival (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.89, 0.96, adjusted for a broad range of confounders) for colon cancer patients. Concentrating on UICC stage I-III patients, for whom curative treatment is possible, the survival benefit was even larger (colon cancer: HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84, 0.94; rectum cancer: HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84, 0.97). (4) Conclusions: These results encourage future efforts for further implementation of the certification program. Patients with colorectal cancer should preferably be directed to certified centers.

Assessment of the Potential of Concentrating Cancer Care in Hospitals With Certification Through Survival Analysis

BACKGROUND

Certification programs seek to improve the quality of complex interdisciplinary models of care such as cancer treatment through structuring the process of care in accordance with evidence-based guidelines. In Germany, the German Cancer Society (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, DKG) provides a certification programme for cancer care that covers more than one thousand centers. In a recent retrospective cohort study, it has been shown on a large, nationwide data set based on data from a statutory health insurance and selected clinical cancer registries, that there is a benefit in survival for cancer patients who have received initial treatment in hospitals certified by the DKG. Here, we deduce two absolute measures from the relative benefit in survival with the aim to quantify this benefit if all patients had been treated in a certified center.

METHODS

The WiZen study analysed survival of adult patients insured by the AOK with a cancer diagnosis between 2009 and 2017 in certified hospitals vs. non-certified hospitals. Besides Kaplan-Meier-estimators, Cox regression with shared frailty was used for 11 types of cancer in total, adjusting for patient-specific information such as demographic characteristics and comorbidities as well as hospital characteristics and temporal trend. Based on this regression, we predict adjusted survival curves that directly address the certification effect. From the adjusted survivals, we calculated years of life lost (YLL) and number needed to treat (NNT), along with a difference in deaths 5 years after diagnosis.

RESULTS

Based on our estimate for the 537,396 patients that were treated in a non-certified hospital included in the WiZen study, corresponding to 68,7% of the study population, we find a potential of 33,243 YLL per year in Germany based on the size of the German population as of 2017. The potential to avoid death cases 5 years from diagnosis totals 4,729 per year in Germany.

CONCLUSION

While Cox regression is an important tool to evaluate the benefit that arises from variables with a potential impact on survival such as certification, its direct results are not well suited to quantify this benefit for decision makers in health care. The estimated years of life lost and the number of deaths that could have been avoided 5 years from diagnosis avoid mis-interpretation of the hazard ratios commonly used in survival analysis and should help to inform key stakeholders in health care without specialist background knowledge in statistics. Our measures, directly adressing the effect of certification, can furthermore be used as a starting point for health-economic calculations. Steering the care of cancer patients primarily to certified hospitals would have a high potential to improve outcomes.

Parenchyma-Sparing Central Hepatectomy Versus Extended Resections for Liver Tumors: a Value-Based Comparative Analysis

BACKGROUND

Parenchyma-sparing (PS) liver resection is recommended for liver tumors. The value of PS-approaches as compared to more extended resections is unknown. We sought to examine value-based differences (quality/cost) of central hepatectomy (CH) versus more extended resections.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients having CH or right/extended hepatectomies (R/EH) at a high-volume cancer center was performed (2015-2019). The primary outcome was the value ratio, calculated as quality/cost. Quality was defined as the proportion of patients achieving a textbook outcome. Perioperative actual direct costs ($USD) for each patient were abstracted from institutional financial records spanning throughout the perioperative period. Value ratios were calculated and compared for each approach; sensitivity analysis was performed by modelling TO and cost thresholds.

RESULTS

Among 651 hepatobiliary operations (426 liver resections), 90 patients met inclusion criteria: 19 CH and 71 R/EH. TO occurred in 68% and 69% of CH and R/EH, respectively (P = 0.96). Mean direct costs were $21,826 for CH and $28,599 for R/EH (P = 0.008). CH provided a greater value (value ratio CH = 0.33 vs. R/EH = 0.26; P = 0.004) with a shift favoring R/EH only when the TO threshold for CH was below 51% (CH = 0.23 vs. R/EH = 0.24) or that of R/EH was over 90% (CH = 0.31 vs. R/EH = 0.32).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support a PS approach for central liver tumors (central hepatectomy) as it offers higher value than more extended resections. In the context of high-volume centers with outcomes within established national benchmarks, patients with central tumors should be considered for CH over more extended non-PS approaches.

Is treatment in certified cancer centers related to better survival in patients with pancreatic cancer? Evidence from a large German cohort study

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cancer patients in certified cancer centers, that meet specific quality standards in term of structures and procedures of medical care, is a national treatment goal in Germany. However, convincing evidence that treatment in certified cancer centers is associated with better outcomes in patients with pancreatic cancer is still missing.

METHODS

We used patient-specific information (demographic characteristics, diagnoses, treatments) from German statutory health insurance data covering the period 2009-2017 and hospital characteristics from the German Standardized Quality Reports. We investigated differences in survival between patients treated in hospitals with and without pancreatic cancer center certification by the German Cancer Society (GCS) using the Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox regression with shared frailty.

RESULTS

The final sample included 45,318 patients with pancreatic cancer treated in 1,051 hospitals (96 GCS-certified, 955 not GCS-certified). 5,426 (12.0%) of the patients were treated in GCS-certified pancreatic cancer centers. Patients treated in certified and non-certified hospitals had similar distributions of age, sex, and comorbidities. Median survival was 8.0 months in GCS-certified pancreatic cancer centers and 4.4 months in non-certified hospitals. Cox regression adjusting for multiple patient and hospital characteristics yielded a significantly lower hazard of long-term, all-cause mortality in patients treated in GCS-certified pancreatic centers (Hazard ratio = 0.89; 95%-CI = 0.85-0.93). This result remained robust in multiple sensitivity analyses, including stratified estimations for subgroups of patients and hospitals.

CONCLUSION

This robust observational evidence suggests that patients with pancreatic cancer benefit from treatment in a certified cancer center in terms of survival. Therefore, the certification of hospitals appears to be a powerful strategy to improve patient outcomes in pancreatic cancer care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04334239 ).

Automatic Segmentation of Magnetic Resonance Images of Severe Patients with Advanced Liver Cancer and the Molecular Mechanism of Emodin-Induced Apoptosis of HepG2 Cells under the Deep Learning

To improve the accuracy of clinical diagnosis of severe patients with advanced liver cancer and enhance the effect of chemotherapy treatment, the U-Net model was optimized by introducing the batch normalization (BN) layer and the dropout layer, and the segmentation training and verification of the optimized model were realized by the magnetic resonance (MR) image data. Subsequently, HepG2 cells were taken as the research objects and treated with 0, 10, 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 μmol/L emodin (EMO), respectively. The methyl thiazolyl tetrazolium (MTT) method was used to explore the changes in cell viability, the acridine orange (AO)/ethidium bromide (EB) and 4',6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI) were used for staining, the Annexin V fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC)/propidium iodide (PI) (Annexin V-FITC/PI) was adopted to detect the apoptosis after EMO treatment, and the Western blot (WB) method was used with the purpose of exploring the changes in protein expression levels of PARP, Bcl-2, and p53 in the cells after treatment. It was found that compared with the original U-Net model, the introduction of the BN layer and the dropout layer can improve the robustness of the U-Net model, and the optimized U-Net model had the highest dice similarity coefficient (DSC) (98.45%) and mean average precision (MAP) (0.88) for the liver tumor segmentation.

What Is the Value of Undergoing Surgery for Spinal Metastases at Dedicated Cancer Centers?

BACKGROUND

The Alliance of Dedicated Cancer Centers is an organization of 11 leading cancer institutions and affiliated hospitals that are exempt from the Medicare prospective system hospital reimbursement policies. Because of their focus on cancer care and participation in innovative cancer treatment methods and protocols, these hospitals are reimbursed based on their actual billings. The perceived lack of incentive to meet a predetermined target price and reduce costs has spurred criticism of the value of cancer care at these institutions. The rationale of our study was to better understand whether dedicated cancer centers (DCCs) deliver high-value care for patients undergoing surgical treatment of spinal metastases.

QUESTION/PURPOSE

Is there a difference in 90-day complications and reimbursements between patients undergoing surgical treatment (decompression or fusion) for spinal metastases at DCCs and those treated at nonDCC hospitals?

METHODS

The 2005 to 2014 100% Medicare Standard Analytical Files database was queried using ICD-9 procedure and diagnosis codes to identify patients undergoing decompression (03.0, 03.09, and 03.4) and/or fusion (81.0X) for spinal metastases (198.5). The database does not allow us to exclude the possibility that some patients were treated with fusion for stabilization of the spine without decompression, although this is likely an uncommon event. Patients undergoing vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty for metastatic disease were excluded. The Medicare hospital provider identification numbers were used to identify the 11 DCCs. The study cohort was categorized into two groups: DCCs and nonDCCs. Although spinal metastases are known to occur among nonMedicare and younger patients, the payment policies of these DCCs are only applicable to Medicare beneficiaries. Therefore, to keep the study objective relevant to current policy and value-based discussions, we performed the analysis using the Medicare dataset. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included 17,776 patients in the study, 6% (1138 of 17,776) of whom underwent surgery at one of the 11 DCCs. Compared with the nonDCC group, DCC group hospitals operated on a younger patient population and on more patients with primary renal cancers. In addition, DCCs were more likely to be high-volume facilities with National Cancer Institute designations and have a voluntary or government ownership model. Patients undergoing surgery for spinal metastases at DCCs were more likely to have spinal decompression with fusion than those at nonDCCs (40% versus 22%; p < 0.001) and had a greater length and extent of fusion (at least four levels of fusion; 34% versus 29%; p = 0.001). Patients at DCCs were also more likely than those at nonDCCs to receive postoperative adjunct treatments such as radiation (16% versus 13.5%; p = 0.008) and chemotherapy (17% versus 9%; p < 0.001), although this difference is small and we do not know if this meets a minimum clinically important difference. To account for differences in patients presenting at both types of facilities, multivariate logistic regression mixed-model analyses were used to compare rates of 90-day complications and 90-day mortality between DCC and nonDCC hospitals. Controls were implemented for baseline clinical characteristics, procedural factors, and hospital-level factors (such as random effects). Generalized linear regression mixed-modeling was used to evaluate differences in total 90-day reimbursements between DCCs and nonDCCs.

RESULTS

After adjusting for differences in baseline demographics, procedural factors, and hospital-level factors, patients undergoing surgery at DCCs had lower odds of experiencing sepsis (6.5% versus 10%; odds ratio 0.54 [95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.74]; p < 0.001), urinary tract infections (19% versus 28%; OR 0.61 [95% CI 0.50 to 0.74]; p < 0.001), renal complications (9% versus 13%; OR 0.55 [95% CI 0.42 to 0.72]; p < 0.001), emergency department visits (27% versus 31%; OR 0.78 [95% CI 0.64 to 0.93]; p = 0.01), and mortality (39% versus 49%; OR 0.75 [95% CI 0.62 to 0.89]; p = 0.001) within 90 days of the procedure compared with patients treated at nonDCCs. Undergoing surgery at a DCC (90-day reimbursement of USD 54,588 ± USD 42,914) compared with nonDCCs (90-day reimbursement of USD 49,454 ± USD 38,174) was also associated with reduced 90-day risk-adjusted reimbursements (USD -14,802 [standard error 1362] ; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Based on our findings, it appears that DCCs offer high-value care, as evidenced by lower complication rates and reduced reimbursements after surgery for spinal metastases. A better understanding of the processes of care adopted at these institutions is needed so that additional cancer centers may also be able to deliver similar care for patients with metastatic spine disease.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

National Trends in Readmission and Resource Utilization After Pancreatectomy in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatectomy is a complex operation that has been associated with excess morbidity and mortality. Although acute index outcomes have been characterized, there are limited data available on nonelective readmission after pancreatic surgery. We sought to identify factors associated with 30-day and 30- to 90-day readmission after pancreatectomy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We utilized the National Readmissions Database between 2010 and 2016 to identify adults who underwent a pancreatectomy. The primary outcomes were 30-day (30DR) and 30- to 90-day (90DR) readmission. Secondary outcomes included nonelective readmission trends, diagnosis, length of stay, charges, and mortality.

RESULTS

Of an estimated 130,267 subjects undergoing pancreatectomy, 97% survived index hospitalization. Eighteen percent of patients had nonelective 30DR while 5.6% experienced 90DR. Readmission at the two time points remained stable during the study period. After adjusting for institution, pancreatectomy volume, mortality (2.0% versus 4.9%, P < 0.001), 30DR length of stay (7.3 d versus 7.8 d, P < 0.001), and 90DR rates (6.9% versus 8.1%, P = 0.003) were significantly decreased at high-volume pancreatectomy centers compared to low-volume hospitals. Discharge to a skilled nursing facility (AOR: 1.52) or with home health care (AOR: 1.2) was associated with 30DR (P < 0.001). Patients undergoing total pancreatectomy (AOR: 1.3) or those with a substance use disorder (AOR: 1.4) among others were associated with 90DR (P ≤ 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Readmissions are common and costly after pancreatectomy. Approximately 20% of patients experience readmission within 30 d. 30DR and 90DR rates remained stable during the study. Pancreatectomy at a high-volume center was associated with decreased mortality and 90DR. The present analysis confirms associations between pancreatectomy volume, postsurgical complications, comorbidities, and readmission.

Influence of hospital teaching status on the chance to achieve a textbook outcome after hepatopancreatic surgery for cancer among Medicare beneficiaries

BACKGROUND

Assessing composite measures of quality such as textbook outcome may be superior to focusing on individual parameters when evaluating hospital performance. The aim of the current study was to assess the impact of teaching hospital status on the occurrence of a textbook outcome after hepatopancreatic surgery.

METHODS

The Medicare Inpatient Standard Analytic Files were used to identify patients undergoing hepatopancreatic surgery from 2013 to 2015 for a malignant indication. Stratified and multivariable regression analyses were performed to determine the relationship between teaching hospital status, hospital surgical volume and textbook outcome.

RESULTS

Among 8,035 Medicare patients (hepatectomy; 41.8%, pancreatectomy; 58.2%), 6,196 (77.1%) patients underwent surgery at a major teaching hospital, whereas 1,839 (22.9%) patients underwent surgery at a minor teaching hospital. Patients undergoing surgery for pancreatic cancer at a major teaching hospital had a greater likelihood of achieving a textbook outcome compared with patients treated at a minor teaching hospital (minor teaching hospital: 456, 40% versus major teaching hospital: 1,606, 45.4%; P = .002). The likelihood of textbook outcome was also greater among patients undergoing hepatopancreatic surgery at high-volume centers (pancreas, low volume: 875, 40.5% versus high volume: 1,187, 47.1% P < .001; liver, low volume: 608, 41.8% versus high volume: 886, 46.6%; P = .005). When examining only major teaching hospitals, patients undergoing a pancreatectomy at a high-volume center had 29% greater odds of achieving a textbook outcome (odds ratio 1.29, 95% confidence interval 1.12-1.49). In contrast, among patients undergoing pancreatic resection at high-volume centers, the odds of achieving a textbook outcome was comparable among major versus minor teaching hospital (odds ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval 0.89-1.53).

CONCLUSION

The odds of achieving a textbook outcome after pancreatic and hepatic surgery was greater at major versus minor teaching hospitals; however, this effect was largely mediated by hepatopancreatic procedural volume. Patients and payers should focus on regionalization of pancreatic and liver resection to high-volume centers in an effort to optimize the chances of achieving a textbook outcome.

Comparing textbook outcomes among patients undergoing surgery for cancer at U. S. News & World Report ranked hospitals

Background

The objective of the current study was to define and compare rates of textbook outcomes (TO) among patients undergoing colorectal, lung, esophagus, liver, and pancreatic surgery for cancer at U.S. News & World Report (USNWR) ranked hospitals.

Methods

Medicare Inpatient Standard Analytic Files 2013‐2015 were utilized to examine the relationship of TO and USNWR hospital ratings following surgery for colorectal, lung, esophageal, pancreatic, and liver cancer. TO was defined as no postoperative surgical complications, no prolonged length of hospital stay, no readmission within 90 days after discharge, and no postoperative mortality within 90 days after surgery.

Results

Among the 35,352 Medicare patients included in the cohort, 16,820 (47.6%) underwent surgery at honor roll hospitals, whereas 18 532 (52.4%) underwent surgery at non‐honor roll hospitals. The overall proportion of patients who achieved TO was 50.1%. In examining the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent surgery, there was no difference in the odds of achieving TO at honor roll vs non‐honor roll hospitals (colorectal: odds ratio [OR], 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69‐1.10; lung: OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.87‐1.32; esophagus: OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.72‐2.89; liver: OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.87‐1.84; pancreas: OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.67‐1.62).

Conclusion and Relevance

Patients undergoing surgery for lung, esophageal, liver, pancreatic, and colorectal cancer had comparable rates of TO at honor roll vs non‐honor roll hospitals. No linear association was observed between hospital position in the rank and postoperative outcomes such as TO indicating that patients should not overly focus on the exact position within USNWR ranked hospitals. These data highlight to patients and physicians that up to one‐half of patients undergoing surgery for cancer should anticipate at least one adverse outcome.

Dedicated Cancer Centers are More Likely to Achieve a Textbook Outcome Following Hepatopancreatic Surgery

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the current study is to assess rates of textbook outcome (TO) among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing hepatopancreatic (HP) surgery for cancer at dedicated cancer centers (DCCs) and National Cancer Institute affiliated cancer centers (NCI-CCs) versus non-DCC non-NCI hospitals.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Medicare Inpatient Standard Analytic Files were utilized to identify patients undergoing HP surgery between 2013 and 2017. TO was defined as no postoperative surgical complications, no 90-day mortality, no prolonged length of hospital stay, and no 90-day readmission after discharge.

RESULTS

Among 21,234 Medicare patients, 8.2% patients underwent surgery at DCCs whereas 32.1% underwent surgery at NCI-CCs and 59.7% underwent an operation at neither DCCs nor NCI-CCs. Although DCCs more often cared for patients with severe comorbidities [Charlson score > 5: DCCs, 1195 (68.9%), NCI-CCs, 3687 (54.1%), others, 3970 (31.3%); p < 0.001], DCCs achieved higher rates of TO compared with NCI-CCs and other US hospitals. Interestingly, DCCs were more likely to perform surgery with a minimally invasive approach versus NCI-CCs and other US hospitals (17.0%, n = 295, vs. 12.6%, n = 856 vs. 11.9%, n = 1504, p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, patients undergoing liver surgery at DCCs had 31% and 36% higher odds of achieving TO compared with NCI-CCs and other US hospitals, respectively. Medicare expenditure was substantially lower for patients achieving TO at DCCs compared with patients who achieved a TO at NCI-CCs.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though DCCs more frequently took care of patients with high comorbidity burden, the likelihood of achieving TO for HP surgery at DCCs was higher compared with NCI-CCs and other US hospitals. The data suggest that DCCs provide higher-value surgical care for patients with HP malignancies.