Association of Delivery System Integration and Outcomes for Major Cancer Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Integrated delivery systems (IDSs) are postulated to reduce spending and improve outcomes through successful coordination of care across multiple providers. Nonetheless, the actual impact of IDSs on outcomes for complex multidisciplinary care such as major cancer surgery is largely unknown. METHODS: Using 2011-2013 Medicare data, this study identified patients who underwent surgical resection for prostate, bladder, esophageal, pancreatic, lung, liver, kidney, colorectal, or ovarian cancer. Rates of readmission, 30-day mortality, surgical complications, failure to rescue, and prolonged hospital stay for cancer surgery were compared between patients receiving care at IDS hospitals and those receiving care at non-IDS hospitals. Generalized estimating equations were used to adjust results by cancer type and patient- and hospital-level characteristics while accounting for clustering of patients within hospitals. RESULTS: The study identified 380,053 patients who underwent major resection of cancer, with 38% receiving care at an IDS. Outcomes did not differ between IDS and non-IDS hospitals regarding readmission and surgical complication rates, whereas only minor differences were observed for 30-day mortality (3.5% vs 3.2% for IDS; p < 0.001) and prolonged hospital stay (9.9% vs 9.2% for IDS; p < 0.001). However, after adjustment for patient and hospital characteristics, the frequencies of adverse perioperative outcomes were not significantly associated with IDS status. CONCLUSIONS: The collective findings suggest that local delivery system integration alone does not necessarily have an impact on perioperative outcomes in surgical oncology. Moving forward, stakeholders may need to focus on surgical and oncology-specific methods of care coordination and quality improvement initiatives to improve outcomes for patients undergoing cancer surgery.

Evaluation of a needle disinfectant technique to reduce infection-related hospitalisation after transrectal prostate biopsy.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a needle disinfectant step during transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy is associated with lower rates of infection-related hospitalisation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of all TRUS-guided prostate biopsies taken across the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) from January 2012 to March 2015. Natural variation in technique allowed us to evaluate for differences in infection-related hospitalisations based on whether or not a needle disinfectant technique was used. The disinfectant technique was an intra-procedural step to cleanse the biopsy needle with antibacterial solution after each core was sampled (i.e., 10% formalin or 70% isopropyl alcohol). After grouping biopsies according to whether or not the procedure included a needle disinfectant step, we compared the rate of infection-related hospitalisations within 30 days of biopsy. Generalised estimating equation models were fit to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: During the evaluated period, 17 954 TRUS-guided prostate biopsies were taken with 5 321 (29.6%) including a disinfectant step. The observed rate of infection-related hospitalisation was lower when a disinfectant technique was used during biopsy (0.60% vs 0.90%; P = 0.04). After accounting for differences between groups the adjusted hospitalisation rate in the disinfectant group was 0.85% vs 1.12% in the no disinfectant group (adjusted odds ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.50-1.15; P = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: In this observational analysis, hospitalisations for infectious complications were less common when the TRUS-guided prostate biopsy included a needle disinfection step. However, after adjusting for potential confounders the effect of needle disinfection was not statistically significant. Prospective evaluation is warranted to determine if this step provides a scalable and effective method to minimise infectious complications.

Understanding the relationship between the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Hospital Compare star rating, surgical case volume, and short-term outcomes after major cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Both the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) Hospital Compare star rating and surgical case volume have been publicized as metrics that can help patients to identify high-quality hospitals for complex care such as cancer surgery. The current study evaluates the relationship between the CMS' star rating, surgical volume, and short-term outcomes after major cancer surgery. METHODS: National Medicare data were used to evaluate the relationship between hospital star ratings and cancer surgery volume quintiles. Then, multilevel logistic regression models were fit to examine the association between cancer surgery outcomes and both star rankings and surgical volumes. Lastly, a graphical approach was used to compare how well star ratings and surgical volume predicted cancer surgery outcomes. RESULTS: This study identified 365,752 patients undergoing major cancer surgery for 1 of 9 cancer types at 2,550 hospitals. Star rating was not associated with surgical volume (P < .001). However, both the star rating and surgical volume were correlated with 4 short-term cancer surgery outcomes (mortality, complication rate, readmissions, and prolonged length of stay). The adjusted predicted probabilities for 5- and 1-star hospitals were 2.3% and 4.5% for mortality, 39% and 48% for complications, 10% and 15% for readmissions, and 8% and 16% for a prolonged length of stay, respectively. The adjusted predicted probabilities for hospitals with the highest and lowest quintile cancer surgery volumes were 2.7% and 5.8% for mortality, 41% and 55% for complications, 12.2% and 11.6% for readmissions, and 9.4% and 13% for a prolonged length of stay, respectively. Furthermore, surgical volume and the star rating were similarly associated with mortality and complications, whereas the star rating was more highly associated with readmissions and prolonged length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of other information, these findings suggest that the star rating may be useful to patients when they are selecting a hospital for major cancer surgery. However, more research is needed before these ratings can supplant surgical volume as a measure of surgical quality. Cancer 2017;123:4259-4267. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Association Between Patient Satisfaction and Short-Term Outcomes After Major Cancer Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate whether patient satisfaction, as measured by the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey, is associated with short-term outcomes after major cancer surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We first used national Medicare claims to identify patients who underwent a major extirpative cancer surgery from 2011 to 2013. Next, we used Hospital Compare data to assign the HCAHPS score to the hospital where the patient underwent surgery. We then performed univariate statistical analyses and fit multilevel logistic regression models to evaluate the relationship between excellent patient satisfaction and short-term cancer surgery outcomes for all surgery types combined and then by each individual surgery type. RESULTS: We identified 373,692 patients who underwent major cancer surgery for one of nine cancers at 2617 hospitals. In both unadjusted and adjusted analyses, hospitals with higher proportions of patients reporting excellent satisfaction had lower complication rates (p < 0.001), readmissions (p < 0.001), mortality (p < 0.001), and prolonged length of stay (p < 0.001) than hospitals with lower proportions of satisfied patients, but with modest differences. This finding held true broadly across individual cancer types for complications, mortality, and prolonged length of stay, but less so for readmissions. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-wide excellent patient satisfaction scores are associated with short-term outcomes after major cancer surgery overall, but are modest in magnitude.

Early impact of Medicare accountable care organizations on cancer surgery outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Accountable care organizations (ACOs) were established to improve care and outcomes for beneficiaries requiring highly coordinated, complex care. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between hospital ACO participation and the outcomes of major surgical oncology procedures. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 years who were undergoing a major surgical resection for colorectal, bladder, esophageal, kidney, liver, ovarian, pancreatic, lung, or prostate cancer from 2011 through 2013. A difference-in-differences analysis was implemented to compare the postimplementation period (January 2013 through December 2013) with the baseline period (January 2011 through December 2012) to assess the impact of hospital ACO participation on 30-day mortality, complications, readmissions, and length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: Among 384,519 patients undergoing major cancer surgery at 106 ACO hospitals and 2561 control hospitals, this study found a 30-day mortality rate of 3.4%, a readmission rate of 12.5%, a complication rate of 43.8%, and a prolonged LOS rate of 10.0% in control hospitals and similar rates in ACO hospitals. Secular trends were noted, with reductions in perioperative adverse events in control hospitals between the baseline and postimplementation periods: mortality (percentage-point reduction, 0.1%; P = .19), readmissions (percentage-point reduction, 0.4%; P = .001), complications (percentage-point reduction, 1.0%; P < .001), and prolonged LOS (percentage-point reduction, 1.1%; P < .001). After accounting for these secular trends, this study identified no significant effect of hospital participation in an ACO on the frequency of perioperative outcomes (difference-in-differences estimator P values, .24-.72). CONCLUSIONS: Early hospital participation in the Medicare Shared Savings Program ACO program was not associated with greater reductions in adverse perioperative outcomes for patients undergoing major cancer surgery in comparison with control hospitals. Cancer 2016. © 2016 American Cancer Society. Cancer 2016;122:2739-2746. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Utilization and Outcomes of Inpatient Urological Care at Safety Net Hospitals.

PURPOSE: Because proposed funding cuts in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act may impact care for urological patients at safety net hospitals, we examined the use, outcomes and costs of inpatient urological surgery at safety net vs nonsafety net facilities prior to health care reform. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample we performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent inpatient urological surgeries from 2007 through 2011. We defined the safety net burden of each hospital based on the proportion of Medicaid and self-pay discharges. We examined the distribution of urological procedures performed and compared in-hospital mortality, prolonged length of stay and costs in the highest quartile of burden (safety net) vs the lowest quartile (nonsafety net). RESULTS: The distribution of urological procedures differed by safety net status with less benign prostate surgery (9.1% safety net vs 11.4% nonsafety net) and major cancer surgery (26.9% vs 34.3%), and more reconstructive surgery (8.1% vs 5.5%) at safety net facilities (p <0.001). Higher mortality at safety net hospitals was seen for nephrectomy (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.15-2.45) and transurethral resection of the prostate (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.22-3.87). Patients in safety net hospitals demonstrated greater prolonged length of stay after endoscopic stone surgery (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.01-1.41). Costs were similar across procedures except for radical prostatectomy and cystectomy. For these procedures the average admission was more expensive at nonsafety net facilities (prostatectomy $11,457 vs $9,610 and cystectomy $27,875 vs $24,048, each p <0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in funding to safety net hospitals with health care reform could adversely impact access to care for patients with a broad range of urological conditions, potentially exacerbating existing disparities for vulnerable populations served by these facilities.

A Statewide Intervention to Reduce Hospitalizations after Prostate Biopsy.

PURPOSE: Recent data suggest that increasing rates of hospitalization after prostate biopsy are mainly due to infections from fluoroquinolone-resistant bacteria. We report the initial results of a statewide quality improvement intervention aimed at reducing infection related hospitalizations after transrectal prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From March 2012 through May 2014 data on patient demographics, comorbidities, prophylactic antibiotics and post-biopsy complications were prospectively entered into an electronic registry by trained abstractors in 30 practices participating in the MUSIC. During this period each practice implemented one or both of the interventions aimed at addressing fluoroquinolone resistance, namely 1) use of rectal swab culture directed antibiotics or 2) augmented antibiotic prophylaxis with a second agent in addition to standard fluoroquinolone therapy. We identified all patients with an infection related hospitalization within 30 days after biopsy and validated these events with claims data for a subset of patients. We then compared the frequency of infection related hospitalizations before (5,028 biopsies) and after (4,087 biopsies) implementation of the quality improvement intervention. RESULTS: Overall the proportion of patients with infection related hospitalizations after prostate biopsy decreased by 53% from before to after implementation of the quality improvement intervention (1.19% before vs 0.56% after, p=0.002). Among post-implementation biopsies the rates of hospitalization were similar for patients receiving culture directed (0.47%) vs augmented (0.57%) prophylaxis. At a practice level the relative change in hospitalization rates varied from a 7.4% decrease to a 3.0% increase. Fourteen practices had no post-implementation hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: A statewide intervention aimed at addressing fluoroquinolone resistance reduced post-prostate biopsy infection related hospitalizations in Michigan by 53%.

Understanding the Performance of Active Surveillance Selection Criteria in Diverse Urology Practices.

PURPOSE: We used data from MUSIC (Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative) to evaluate the performance of published selection criteria for active surveillance in diverse urology practice settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For several active surveillance guidelines we calculated the proportion of men meeting each set of selection criteria who actually entered active surveillance, defined as the sensitivity of the guideline. After identifying the most sensitive guideline for the entire cohort we compared demographic and tumor characteristics between patients who met this guideline and entered active surveillance, and those who received initial definitive therapy. RESULTS: Of 4,882 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer 18% underwent active surveillance. When applied to the entire cohort, the sensitivity of published guidelines ranged from 49% in Toronto to 62% at Johns Hopkins. At a practice level the sensitivity of Johns Hopkins criteria varied widely from 27% to 84% (p <0.001). Compared with men undergoing active surveillance, those meeting Johns Hopkins criteria who received definitive therapy were younger (p <0.001) and more likely to have a positive family history (p = 0.003), lower prostate specific antigen (p <0.001), a greater number of positive cores (2 vs 1) on biopsy (p <0.001) and a higher cancer volume in positive core(s) (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of published active surveillance selection criteria varies widely across diverse urology practices. Among patients meeting the most stringent criteria those who received initial definitive therapy had characteristics suggesting greater cancer risk, underscoring the nuanced clinical factors that influence treatment decisions.

Variation in use of active surveillance among men undergoing expectant treatment for early stage prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: We examined variation in active surveillance use in Medicare eligible men undergoing expectant treatment for early stage prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results) and Medicare data we identified 49,192 men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer from 2004 through 2007. Of 7,347 patients who did not receive treatment (ie expectant management) within 12 months of diagnosis we assessed the prevalence of active surveillance (ie repeat prostate biopsy and prostate specific antigen measurement) vs watchful waiting across health care markets. We fit multivariable logistic regression models to examine associations of active surveillance with patient demographics, cancer severity and health care market characteristics. RESULTS: During the study interval use of active surveillance vs watchful waiting increased significantly in patients treated expectantly from 9.7% in 2004 to 15.3% in 2007 (p <0.001). Active surveillance was less common in older patients, those with high risk tumors and those with more comorbidities (each p <0.001). Patients who were white and had higher socioeconomic status were more likely to receive active surveillance (each p <0.05). After adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics significant differences in the predicted probability of active surveillance persisted across health care markets (range 2.4% to 30.1%). No significant variation in active surveillance use was associated with specific health care market characteristics, including intensity of end of life care, Medicare reimbursement or provider density. CONCLUSIONS: Active surveillance has been relatively uncommon in Medicare beneficiaries with localized prostate cancer. Its use relative to watchful waiting varies based on patient demographics, tumor severity and geographic location.

Population level assessment of hospital based outcomes following laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy during the adoption of minimally invasive surgery.

PURPOSE: The comparative outcomes of laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy remain incompletely defined. Therefore, we used population based data to examine resource use and short-term outcomes among patients with kidney cancer treated with laparoscopic vs open partial nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using linked SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results)-Medicare data we identified patients with kidney cancer treated with laparoscopic or open partial nephrectomy from 2000 through 2007. We then used Medicare claims to identify several postoperative outcomes including intensive care unit care, length of stay, rehospitalizations, operative mortality and postoperative complications. We fit multivariate logistic regression models to estimate the association between each outcome and surgical approach (ie laparoscopic partial nephrectomy vs open partial nephrectomy), adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics. RESULTS: We identified 651 (28%) and 1,670 (72%) patients treated with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy and open partial nephrectomy, respectively. Compared to those who underwent open partial nephrectomy, patients treated with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy had a 34% lower probability of requiring intensive care unit time (20.0% vs 30.2%, p <0.001) and shorter median length of stay (3 vs 5 days, p <0.001), with no differences observed in the likelihood of rehospitalization or operative mortality. While the frequency of postoperative complications was similar (35.5% vs 36.1%, p = 0.829), patients treated with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy had a nearly twofold greater probability of genitourinary complications and postoperative hemorrhage (p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: At a population level the patients with kidney cancer treated with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy experienced a shorter and less intense hospitalization, supporting the benefits of laparoscopy. However, the greater likelihood of procedure related complications highlights the need for continued efforts aimed at ensuring the safe adoption and application of this advanced surgical technique.

Infection related hospitalizations after prostate biopsy in a statewide quality improvement collaborative.

PURPOSE: While transrectal prostate biopsy is the cornerstone of prostate cancer diagnosis, serious post-biopsy infectious complications are reported to be increasing. A better understanding of the true prevalence and microbiology of these events is needed to guide quality improvement in this area and ultimately better early detection practices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using data from the MUSIC registry we identified all men who underwent transrectal prostate biopsy at 21 practices in Michigan from March 2012 to June 2013. Trained data abstractors recorded pertinent data including prophylactic antibiotics and all biopsy related hospitalizations. Claims data and followup telephone calls were used for validation. All men admitted to the hospital for an infectious complication were identified and their culture data were obtained. We then compared the frequency of infection related hospitalization rates across practices and according to antibiotic prophylaxis in concordance with AUA best practice recommendations. RESULTS: The overall 30-day hospital admission rate after prostate biopsy was 0.97%, ranging from 0% to 4.2% across 21 MUSIC practices. Of these hospital admissions 95% were for infectious complications and the majority of cultures identified fluoroquinolone resistant organisms. AUA concordant antibiotics were administered in 96.3% of biopsies. Patients on noncompliant antibiotic regimens were significantly more likely to be hospitalized for infectious complications (3.8% vs 0.89%, p=0.0026). CONCLUSIONS: Infection related hospitalizations occur in approximately 1% of men undergoing prostate biopsy in Michigan. Our findings suggest that many of these events could be avoided by implementing new protocols (eg culture specific or augmented antibiotic prophylaxis) that adhere to AUA best practice recommendations and address fluoroquinolone resistance.

Variation in prostate cancer detection rates in a statewide quality improvement collaborative.

PURPOSE: There remains significant controversy surrounding the optimal criteria for recommending prostate biopsy. To examine this issue further urologists in MUSIC assessed statewide prostate biopsy practice patterns and variation in prostate cancer detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MUSIC is a statewide, physician led collaborative designed to improve prostate cancer care. From March 2012 through June 2013 at 17 MUSIC practices standardized clinical and pathological data were collected on a total of 3,015 men undergoing first-time prostate biopsy. We examined pathological biopsy outcomes according to patient characteristics and across MUSIC practices. RESULTS: The average cancer detection rate was 52% with significant variability across MUSIC practices (range 43% to 70%, p<0.0001). Of all patients biopsied 27% were older than 69 years, ranging from 19% to 36% at individual practices. Men with prostate specific antigen less than 4 ng/ml comprised an average of 26% of the study population (range 10% to 37%). The detection rate in patients older than 69 years ranged from 42% to 86% at individual practices (p=0.0008). In the 793 patients with prostate specific antigen less than 4 ng/ml the cancer detection rate ranged from 22% to 58% across individual practices (p=0.0065). The predicted probability of cancer detection varied significantly across MUSIC practices even after adjusting for patient age, prostate specific antigen, prostate size, family history and digital rectal examination findings (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: While overall detection rates are higher than previously reported, the cancer yield of prostate biopsy varies widely across urology practices in Michigan. These data serve as a foundation for our efforts to understand and improve patient selection for prostate biopsy.

Specialty-specific trends in the prevalence and distribution of outpatient surgery: implications for payment and delivery system reforms.

BACKGROUND: With nearly 53 million ambulatory procedures performed annually, future efforts to achieve greater value in surgical care should include a focus on outpatient surgery. To inform such efforts, a better understanding of specialty-specific trends in outpatient surgery is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence and distribution of outpatient surgery across specialties. RESEARCH DESIGN: Repeated cross-sectional. MEASURES: Using all-payer data from Florida (1998-2008), we identified physicians who performed one or more procedures. We assigned a specialty to each physician based on his procedure mix. After measuring the proportion of procedures performed on an outpatient basis, we assessed for specialty-specific changes over time in this proportion. Finally, we determined the frequency with which individual specialties used surgery centers for their outpatient care. RESULTS: More than two thirds (67.8%) of all surgical procedures are carried out on an outpatient basis. The popularity of outpatient surgery has grown among many specialties over the past decade, including several (urology, gastroenterology, plastic surgery, and ophthalmology) that perform most of their cases in outpatient settings. Within surgical disciplines, overall trends in the use of outpatient surgery are strongly associated with the specialty's affinity for freestanding ambulatory surgery centers (Pearson's correlation coefficient = 0.76; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A majority of surgeons in many specialties now provide predominantly outpatient care. Incorporating these findings into the design of future payment and delivery system reforms will help ensure adequate surgeon exposure to the efficiency gains that evolve from them.

Inpatient urological surgery at critical access hospitals in the United States.

PURPOSE: To better understand urological care delivery in rural communities, we evaluated the utilization, outcomes and costs of inpatient urological surgery at critical access hospitals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using data from the AHA (American Hospital Association) and NIS (Nationwide Inpatient Sample), we identified all urological surgical admissions to critical and noncritical access hospitals from 2005 through 2009. We compared the distribution of urological procedures, hospital mortality, length of stay and costs for patients undergoing common urological operations at critical vs noncritical access hospitals. RESULTS: Of the 1,292 critical and 3,760 noncritical access hospitals reporting to the AHA 450 (35%) and 1,372 (36%), respectively, had at least 1 year of data available in the NIS. We identified 333,925 urological surgical admissions, including 2,286 (0.7%) to critical access hospitals. Overall, at least 1 inpatient urological operation was performed at only 45% of critical access hospitals vs 91% of noncritical access hospitals (p <0.001). The distribution of urological surgeries differed between critical and noncritical access hospitals (p <0.001) with a greater prevalence of operations for benign indications at critical access hospitals. For 6 common inpatient urological surgeries we found no meaningful difference in in-hospital mortality and prolonged length of stay between patients treated at critical vs noncritical access hospitals. However, costs at critical access hospitals were universally higher. CONCLUSIONS: Inpatient urological surgery is performed at only a few critical access hospitals. While in-hospital mortality and length of stay are largely indistinguishable between critical and noncritical access hospitals, the higher costs at critical access hospitals may pose a challenge to improving rural access to urological care.

Hospitalization trends after prostate and bladder surgery: implications of potential payment reforms.

PURPOSE: Hospital stays have decreased for patients undergoing surgery for urological cancer. However, there are concerns that patients are being discharged from the hospital prematurely. We examined associations between hospital stay and short-term outcomes for a low risk procedure (prostatectomy) and high risk procedure (cystectomy). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results)-Medicare data from 1992 through 2005 to identify 46,781 prostatectomy and 9,035 cystectomy cases. We assessed our main outcome (adjusted likelihood of hospital readmission within 30 days) using a logistic regression model. Secondary outcomes included mortality rates and discharge disposition. RESULTS: In comparing patients from 1992 to 1993, to 2004 to 2005, hospital stay decreased approximately 3 days for both surgeries (relative decrease of more than 50% for prostatectomy and 21% for cystectomy). Hospital readmission rates were 4.5% and 25.2% for prostatectomy and cystectomy, respectively, and remained stable with time. Skilled nursing/intermediate care use was stable for patients who underwent prostatectomy (approximately 1%), but increased from 8.2% (95% CI 5.4-11.4) to 18.9% (95% CI 16.8-21.3) for those treated with cystectomy. Use of home care increased from 8.1% (95% CI 7.3-9.0) to 11.1% (95% CI 10.1-12.1) and from 34.2% (95% CI 29.7-38.7) to 47.5% (95% CI 44.5-50.1) for prostatectomy and cystectomy cases, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in hospital stay were more dramatic for patients who underwent prostatectomy and were associated with stable short-term outcomes. Conversely, smaller reductions in hospitalization for patients undergoing cystectomy were met with substantial increases in the use of post-acute care. Going forward, close surveillance of how imminent policy reforms affect patterns and quality of care will be necessary.

Postoperative complications and long-term survival among patients treated surgically for renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: In addition to their acute implications, adverse events after oncological surgery may have late or long-term consequences for patient outcomes. We assessed the relationship between postoperative complications and long-term survival among patients treated surgically for kidney cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare data we identified patients with kidney cancer treated surgically from 1995 through 2005. After excluding from analysis those who died during the index hospitalization or within 30 days of surgery we compared overall survival for patients with or without a postoperative complication. We then fit multivariate Cox proportional hazard models to estimate the association between complications and long-term survival, adjusting for patient characteristics, cancer severity and surgical approach. RESULTS: We identified 4,687 (37%) and 7,931 patients (63%) with and without a postoperative complication, respectively. During a median followup of 32 months (range 1 to 132) 3,425 patients (27.1%) died of any cause. Patients with at least 1 postoperative complication had lower unadjusted 5-year survival (59.9% vs 69.5%, p <0.001). On multivariate analyses the occurrence of a complication was also associated with significantly worse long-term survival (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.16-1.33). This relationship was consistent with time, across surgical approaches and among patients with various specific complications, including acute renal failure, cardiac and neurological events, postoperative infection and sepsis. CONCLUSIONS: The occurrence of a postoperative complication is associated with decreased long-term survival after surgery for kidney cancer. Clarification of the cascade of events underlying this relationship may lead to new strategies to improve outcomes among cancer survivors.

Long-term survival following partial vs radical nephrectomy among older patients with early-stage kidney cancer.

CONTEXT: Although partial nephrectomy is the preferred treatment for many patients with early-stage kidney cancer, recent clinical trial data, which demonstrate better survival for patients treated with radical nephrectomy, have generated new uncertainty regarding the comparative effectiveness of these treatment options. OBJECTIVE: To compare long-term survival after partial vs radical nephrectomy among a population-based patient cohort whose treatment reflects contemporary surgical practice. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries with clinical stage T1a kidney cancer treated with partial or radical nephrectomy from 1992 through 2007. Using an instrumental variable approach to account for measured and unmeasured differences between treatment groups, we fit a 2-stage residual inclusion model to estimate the treatment effect of partial nephrectomy on long-term survival. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall and kidney cancer-specific survival. RESULTS: Among 7138 Medicare beneficiaries with early-stage kidney cancer, we identified 1925 patients (27.0%) treated with partial nephrectomy and 5213 patients (73.0%) treated with radical nephrectomy. During a median follow-up of 62 months, 487 (25.3%) and 2164 (41.5%) patients died following partial or radical nephrectomy, respectively. Kidney cancer was the cause of death for 37 patients (1.9%) treated with partial nephrectomy, and 222 patients (4.3%) treated with radical nephrectomy. Patients treated with partial nephrectomy had a significantly lower risk of death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.34-0.85). This corresponded with a predicted survival increase with partial nephrectomy of 5.6 (95% CI, 1.9-9.3), 11.8 (95% CI, 3.9-19.7), and 15.5 (95% CI, 5.0-26.0) percentage points at 2, 5, and 8 years posttreatment (P < .001). No difference was noted in kidney cancer-specific survival (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.19-3.49). CONCLUSION: Among Medicare beneficiaries with early-stage kidney cancer who were candidates for either surgery, treatment with partial rather than radical nephrectomy was associated with improved survival.

Population-level comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy for patients with kidney cancer.

BACKGROUND: Because there is limited population-based evidence supporting the comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) after its widespread adoption, we compared trends in hospital-based outcomes among patients with kidney cancer treated with LRN or open radical nephrectomy (ORN). METHODS: Using linked SEER-Medicare data, the authors identified patients with kidney cancer who were treated with LRN or ORN from 2000 through 2005. The authors measured 4 primary outcomes: intensive care unit (ICU) admission, prolonged length of stay, 30-day hospital readmission, and in-hospital mortality. The authors then estimated the association between surgical approach and each outcome, adjusting for patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and year of surgery. RESULTS: The authors identified 2108 (26%) and 5895 (74%) patients treated with LRN and ORN, respectively. Patients treated with LRN were more likely to be white, female, of higher socioeconomic position, and to have tumor sizes of ≤4 cm (all P < .05). The adjusted probability of ICU admission and prolonged length of stay was 41% and 46% lower, respectively, for patients undergoing LRN (P < .001). Although uncommon for both groups, the adjusted probability of in-hospital mortality was 51% higher (2.3% vs 1.5%, P = .04) for patients treated with a laparoscopic approach. CONCLUSIONS: At a population level, patients treated with LRN have a lower likelihood of ICU admission and prolonged length of stay, supporting the convalescence benefits of laparoscopy. In-hospital mortality, however, was higher among patients treated with LRN. The latter finding suggests a potentially unanticipated consequence of this technique and highlights the need for long-term monitoring during and after the widespread adoption of new surgical technologies.

Complications and failure to rescue after laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy.

PURPOSE: Since to our knowledge the population level impact of laparoscopy on post-radical nephrectomy morbidity and mortality remains unknown, we compared the rates of postoperative complications and failure to rescue (the fatality rate in patients with a complication) in patients treated with laparoscopic vs open radical nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using linked SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results)-Medicare data we identified patients with kidney cancer who were treated with laparoscopic or open radical nephrectomy from 2000 through 2005. After measuring the frequency of postoperative complications and failure to rescue we fit multivariate logistic regression models to estimate the association of these outcomes with surgical approach, adjusting for patient characteristics, cancer severity and surgery year. We also assessed the relationship between case volume, complications and failure to rescue. RESULTS: We identified 2,108 (26%) and 5,895 patients (74%) treated with laparoscopic and open radical nephrectomy, respectively. The overall rates of complications and failure to rescue were 36.9% and 5.3%, respectively. The predicted probability of any, major, medical and surgical complications was 15%, 12%, 13% and 23% lower, respectively, after laparoscopic than after open radical nephrectomy (each p <0.05). Despite less frequent complications patients treated with laparoscopic radical nephrectomy had a greater probability of failure to rescue (7.6% vs 4.6%, p = 0.010). Higher volume surgeons and hospitals had a lower rate of failure to rescue in patients treated with radical nephrectomy (each p <0.05) but not with open radical nephrectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Supporting the decreased morbidity of laparoscopy, patients treated with radical nephrectomy had fewer complications than those who underwent open radical nephrectomy. However, failure to rescue was more common in patients with a complication after radical nephrectomy, suggesting that these events may be more difficult to recognize and manage successfully, especially among less experienced surgeons and hospitals.