Volume-outcome analysis of colorectal cancer-related outcomes. Surgeon and hospital characteristics as predictors of major adverse outcomes following colon cancer surgery: understanding the volume-outcome relationship. Relation of surgeon and hospital volume to processes and outcomes of colorectal cancer surgery. Influence of volume of work on the outcome of treatment for patients with colorectal cancer. Surgical volume and long-term survival following surgery for colorectal cancer in the Veterans Affairs Health-Care System. Surgeon volume compared to hospital volume as a predictor of outcome following primary colon cancer resection. Evidence of the effect of 'specialization' on the management, surgical outcome and survival from colorectal cancer in Wessex. Surgeon and hospital volume and the management of colorectal cancer patients in Australia. Hospital volume can serve as a surrogate for surgeon volume for achieving excellent outcomes in colorectal resection.
Significant associations between caseload and surgical outcomes highlight the conflict between local cancer care and the need for centralization. This study examined the effect of hospital volume on short-term outcomes and survival, adjusting for the effect of surgeon caseload.
                Between 1998 and 2002, 8219 patients with colorectal cancer were identified in a regional population-based audit. Outcomes were assessed using univariable and multivariable analysis to allow case mix adjustment. Surgeons were categorized as low (26 or fewer operations annually), medium (27-40) or high (more than 40) volume. Hospitals were categorized as low (86 or fewer), medium (87-109) or high (more than 109) volume.
                Some 7411 (90.2 per cent) of 8219 patients underwent surgery with an anastomotic leak rate of 2.9 per cent (162 of 5581), perioperative mortality rate of 8.0 per cent (591 of 7411) and 5-year survival rate of 46.8 per cent. Medium- and high-volume surgeons were associated with significantly better operative mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.74, P = 0.010 and OR 0.66, P = 0.002 respectively) and survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.88, P = 0.003 and HR 0.93, P = 0.090 respectively) than low-volume surgeons. Rectal cancer survival was significantly better in high-volume versus low-volume hospitals (HR 0.85, P = 0.036), with no difference between medium- and low-volume hospitals (HR 0.96, P = 0.505).
                This study has confirmed the relevance of minimum volume standards for individual surgeons. Organization of services in high-volume units may improve survival in patients with rectal cancer.
                Copyright 2010 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Although numerous studies have demonstrated an association between surgical volume and improved outcome in cancer surgery, the specific structures and mechanisms of care that are associated with volume and lead to improved outcomes remain poorly defined. We hypothesize that there are modifiable surgeon and hospital characteristics that explain observed volume-outcome relationships.
                Retrospective cohort study.
                Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry areas.
                Patients aged 66 years and older, diagnosed and surgically treated for stage I, II, or III colon cancer between 1992 and 1996 (n = 22 672).
                Thirty-day postoperative mortality and 30-day postoperative procedural interventions, including reoperation and image-guided percutaneous procedures.
                Surgeon volume, but not hospital volume, is a significant predictor of postoperative procedural intervention (adjusted odds ratio for very high-volume surgeons vs low-volume surgeons, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.98). In the unadjusted analyses, high hospital volume (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.81) and very high hospital volume (odds ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.79) is associated with lower postoperative mortality. Postoperative procedural intervention is not a significant mediator of the relationship between hospital volume and mortality. A single variable-the presence of sophisticated clinical services-was the most important explanatory variable underlying the relationship between hospital volume and mortality.
                Very high surgeon volume is associated with a reduction in surgical complications. However, the association between increasing hospital volume and postoperative mortality appears to derive mainly from a full spectrum of clinical services that may facilitate the prompt recognition and treatment of complications. Greater hospital volume has been associated with lower mortality after colorectal cancer surgery. The contribution of surgeon volume to processes and outcomes of care is less well understood. We assessed the relation of surgeon and hospital volume to postoperative and overall mortality, colostomy rates, and use of adjuvant radiation therapy.
                From the California Cancer Registry, we studied 28,644 patients who underwent surgical resection of stage I to III colorectal cancer during 1996 to 1999 and were followed up to 6 years after surgery to assess 30-day postoperative mortality, overall long-term mortality, permanent colostomy, and use of adjuvant radiation therapy.
                Across decreasing quartiles of hospital and surgeon volume, 30-day postoperative mortality ranged from 2.7% to 4.2% (P < 0.001). Adjusting for age, stage, comorbidity, and median income among patients with colorectal cancer who survived at least 30 days, patients in the lowest quartile of surgeon volume had a higher adjusted overall mortality rate than those in the highest quartile (hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.24), as did patients in the lowest quartile of hospital volume relative to those treated in the highest quartile (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.19). For rectal cancer, adjusted colostomy rates were significantly higher for low-volume surgeons, and the use of adjuvant radiation therapy was significantly lower for low-volume hospitals.
                Greater surgeon and hospital volumes were associated with improved outcomes for patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer. Further study of processes that led to these differences may improve the quality of colorectal cancer care. Recent recommendations for the reorganization of cancer services emphasize the importance of a 'minimal acceptable volume of work'. The influence of both hospital and surgical workload has been examined using a population-based series of patients with colorectal cancer.
                Nine hundred and twenty-seven patients with primary colorectal cancer diagnosed during the period 1 January to 30 June 1993 were identified from the North Western Regional Cancer Registry. Case notes were reviewed for information on patient age and sex, histological diagnosis, disease stage, degree of tumour differentiation, mode of admission, identity of operating surgeon, timing of operative procedure, and use of radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was then constructed to examine, simultaneously, the effects of patient-, disease- and health service-related variables on survival.
                Age, tumour stage and differentiation, and mode of admission were revealed as significant independent prognostic variables. After adjusting for these variables, neither operator grade (consultant versus junior), consultant workload nor hospital throughput were identified as independently influencing patient survival.
                The results of this study do not support an association between volume of work and patient outcome. The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between hospital surgical volume and long-term survival in patients with a new diagnosis of colorectal cancer who underwent surgical resection during fiscal years 1991-2000 in the Veterans Affairs (VA) health-care system.
                This research was a cohort study of patients admitted to all VA hospitals with a new diagnosis of colorectal cancer who underwent surgical resection between October 1990 and September 2000 and followed through September 2001. Overall 5-yr cumulative survival was calculated from Kaplan-Meier estimates, while adjusted risk of death was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model. Adjustment was made for differences in patient characteristics including comorbidity, receipt of therapy, and year of surgery.
                We identified 34,888 individuals with a new diagnosis of colorectal cancer in VA hospitals during fiscal years 1991-2000, of whom 22,633 (65%) underwent surgical resection. The majority (98.5%) were men, the mean age was 68 yr, and the two largest race/ethnic groups were whites (75%) and blacks (17%). The 5-yr cumulative survival was greater among those who received surgery in high surgical volume hospitals as defined by 25 or more procedures per year (52.1%) than among those who received surgery in low volume hospitals (48.3%). After adjusting for differences in patient characteristics, comorbidity, receipt of adjuvant therapy, and year of surgery, we found 7% and 11% increases in 5-yr survival for patients with colon and rectal cancers, respectively, who underwent surgical resection in high volume hospitals compared with those who had surgery in low volume hospitals.
                Greater hospital surgical volume is an independent predictor of prolonged long-term survival following surgery for both colon and rectal cancer in the VA health-care system. The volume-long-term mortality relationship is greater for rectal than for colon cancer patients, perhaps reflecting the fact that surgery for rectal cancer is more technically demanding. Future studies are needed to discover what aspects of clinical management explain these differences. A strong association between high hospital procedure volume and survival following colon cancer resection has been demonstrated. However, the importance of surgeon case volume as a determinant of outcome has been less well studied, and it is unclear whether hospital or surgeon volume is the more powerful predictor of outcomes.
                A retrospective population-based cohort study utilizing the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database identified 24,166 colon cancer patients aged 65 years and older who had surgery for a primary tumor diagnosed in 1991-1996 in a SEER area. Hospital and surgeon-specific procedure volume was ascertained based on the number of claims submitted over the 6-year study period. Outcome measures were mortality at 30 days and 2 years, overall survival, and the frequency of operations requiring an intestinal stoma. Age, sex, race, comorbid illness, cancer stage, socioeconomic status, emergent hospitalization, and the presence of obstruction/perforation were used to adjust for differences in case-mix.
                After adjusting for surgeon procedure volume, high hospital procedure volume remained a strong predictor of low post-operative mortality rates (P < 0.001 for each outcome with and without adjustment for surgeon procedure volume). Surgeon-specific procedure volume was also an important predictor of surgical outcomes (P = 0.002 for 30-day mortality, P = 0.001 for 2-year mortality), although this effect was attenuated after adjusting for hospital volume (P = 0.03 for 30-day mortality, P = 0.02 for 2-year mortality). Hospital volume and surgeon volume were each an important predictor of the ostomy rate. Among high volume institutions and surgeons, individual providers with unusually high ostomy rates could be identified.
                Both hospital and surgeon-specific procedure volume predict outcomes following colon cancer resection; but hospital volume may exert a stronger effect. Therefore, efforts to optimize the quality of colon cancer surgery should focus on multidisciplinary aspects of hospital care rather than solely on intraoperative technique.
                Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc. A prospective audit of the management of colorectal cancer was established to investigate factors associated with variation in survival observed within the former Wessex region (population three million).
                Some 5173 patients (4562 surgically treated) with colorectal cancer diagnosed between 1991 and 1994 were followed for 5 years. Details of referral, diagnosis, surgical treatment, postoperative complications and outcomes were collected. The association between surgical outcomes and survival and both case volume and specialization (defined to include membership of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland) was explored, accounting for variables with prognostic significance.
                There was a statistically significant association between high-volume operators (more than 50 operations per year) and specialization. The greatest benefit was observed with respect to specialists versus non-specialists, in terms of a lower postoperative mortality rate (odds ratio 0.67 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i. 0.53 to 0.84)), lower anastomotic leak rates (odds ratio 0.46 (c.i. 0.31 to 0.66)), higher local recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio 0.56 (0.44 to 0.71)) and better long-term survival (hazard ratio 0.76 (c.i. 0.71 to 0.83)).
                There is a stronger association between surgical specialization in coloproctology and beneficial outcome than with high-volume caseloads. This is not entirely accounted for by case-mix or patient population, and is seen following colonic and rectal surgery and among patients with advanced disease.
                Copyright 2003 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. The evidence for a relationship between patient outcomes and clinician and hospital volume is increasing. The National Colorectal Cancer Care Survey was undertaken to determine the management patterns in Australia for individuals newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer in a 3 month period in the year 2000.
                All new cases of colorectal cancer registered at each Australian State Cancer Registry were entered into the survey. This generated a questionnaire that was sent to the treating surgeon. Chi-squared tests and logistic regression analyses were used to determine levels of statistical significance.
                Of 2,383 surgical questionnaires generated, 2,015 (85%) were completed. The majority (58%) of surgeons treated one or two patients with colorectal cancer over the 3 months of the survey. There was variation across surgeon cohorts for preoperative measures including the use of deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis. Patients seen by low volume surgeons were most likely to be given a permanent stoma (P < 0.0001). Patients with rectal cancer who were operated on by high volume surgeons were significantly more likely to receive a colonic pouch (P < 0.0001).
                This nationwide population-based survey of the treatment of colorectal cancer patients suggests that the delivery of care by surgeons (the majority) who treat patients with rectal cancer infrequently should be evaluated. To examine the association of surgeon and hospital case volumes with the short-term outcomes of in-hospital death, total hospital charges, and length of stay for resection of colorectal carcinoma.
                The study design was a cross-sectional analysis of all adult patients who underwent resection for colorectal cancer using Maryland state discharge data from 1992 to 1996. Cases were divided into three groups based on annual surgeon case volume--low (< or =5), medium (5 to 10), and high (>10)--and hospital volume--low (<40), medium (40 to 70), and high (> or =70). Poisson and multiple linear regression analyses were used to identify differences in outcomes among volume groups while adjusting for variations in type of resections performed, cancer stage, patient comorbidities, urgency of admission, and patient demographic variables.
                During the 5-year period, 9739 resections were performed by 812 surgeons at 50 hospitals. The majority of surgeons (81%) and hospitals (58%) were in the low-volume group. The low-volume surgeons operated on 3461 of the 9739 total patients (36%) at an average rate of 1.8 cases per year. Higher surgeon volume was associated with significant improvement in all three outcomes (in-hospital death, length of stay, and cost). Medium-volume surgeons achieved results equivalent to high-volume surgeons when they operated in high- or medium-volume hospitals.
                A skewed distribution of case volumes by surgeon was found in this study of patients who underwent resection for large bowel cancer in Maryland. The majority of these surgeons performed very few operations for colorectal cancer per year, whereas a minority performed >10 cases per year. Medium-volume surgeons achieved excellent outcomes similar to high-volume surgeons when operating in medium-volume or high-volume hospitals, but not in low-volume hospitals. The results of low-volume surgeons improved with increasing hospital volume but never equaled those of the high-volume surgeons.
The results confirm clearly the presence of a volume-outcome relationship in colorectal cancer surgery, based on hospital and surgeon caseload, and specialisation. The volume-outcome relationship appears somewhat stronger for the individual surgeon than for the hospital; particularly for overall 5-year survival and operative mortality, there were differences between US and non-US data, suggesting provider variability at hospital level between different countries, making it imperative that every country or healthcare system must establish audit systems to guide changes in the service provision based on local data, and facilitate centralisation of services as required. Overall quality of the evidence was low as all included studies were observational by design. In addition there were discrepancies in the definitions of caseload and colorectal specialist. However ethical challenges associated with the conception of randomised controlled trials addressing the volume outcome relationship makes this the best available evidence.