Comparing colon cancer outcomes: The impact of low hospital case volume and case-mix adjustment.

OBJECTIVE: When comparing performance across hospitals it is essential to consider the noise caused by low hospital case volume and to perform adequate case-mix adjustment. We aimed to quantify the role of noise and case-mix adjustment on standardized postoperative mortality and anastomotic leakage (AL) rates. METHODS: We studied 13,120 patients who underwent colon cancer resection in 85 Dutch hospitals. We addressed differences between hospitals in postoperative mortality and AL, using fixed (ignoring noise) and random effects (incorporating noise) logistic regression models with general and additional, disease specific, case-mix adjustment. RESULTS: Adding disease specific variables improved the performance of the case-mix adjustment models for postoperative mortality (c-statistic increased from 0.77 to 0.81). The overall variation in standardized mortality ratios was similar, but some individual hospitals changed considerably. For the standardized AL rates the performance of the adjustment models was poor (c-statistic 0.59 and 0.60) and overall variation was small. Most of the observed variation between hospitals was actually noise. CONCLUSION: Noise had a larger effect on hospital performance than extended case-mix adjustment, although some individual hospital outcome rates were affected by more detailed case-mix adjustment. To compare outcomes between hospitals it is crucial to consider noise due to low hospital case volume with a random effects model.

Costs of complications after colorectal cancer surgery in the Netherlands: Building the business case for hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare providers worldwide are struggling with rising costs while hospitals budgets are under stress. Colorectal cancer surgery is commonly performed, however it is associated with a disproportionate share of adverse events in general surgery. Since adverse events are associated with extra hospital costs it seems important to explicitly discuss the costs of complications and the risk factors for high-costs after colorectal surgery. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of clinical and financial outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery in 29 Dutch hospitals (6768 patients). Detailed clinical data was derived from the 2011-2012 population-based Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit database. Costs were measured uniform in all participating hospitals and based on Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing. FINDINGS: Of total hospital costs in this study, 31% was spent on complications and the top 5% most expensive patients were accountable for 23% of hospitals budgets. Minor and severe complications were respectively associated with a 26% and 196% increase in costs as compared to patients without complications. Independent from other risk factors, ASA IV, double tumor, ASA III, short course preoperative radiotherapy and TNM-4 stadium disease were the top-5 attributors to high costs. CONCLUSIONS: This article shows that complications after colorectal cancer surgery are associated with a substantial increase in costs. Although not all surgical complications can be prevented, reducing complications will result in considerable cost savings. By providing a business case we show that investments made to develop targeted quality improvement programs will pay off eventually. Results based on this study should encourage healthcare providers to endorse quality improvement efforts.

Quantitative assessment of lymph vascular space invasion (LVSI) provides important prognostic information in node-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Some studies investigating the prognostic value of lymph vascular space invasion (LVSI) have shown an association between LVSI and disease-free survival. Definitive criteria and optimal determination of this parameter remain unclear, however, especially regarding the clinical relevance of LVSI quantification. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A subset of node-negative breast carcinomas from premenopausal patients from the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer trial 10854 (assessing efficacy of perioperative chemotherapy patients with T1-T3, N0-2, and M0 breast cancer (BC) was selected and scored for LVSI. In 358 evaluable breast carcinomas, the number of LVSI foci and tumor cells was determined in the largest tumor embolus within the lymph vessels. These two parameters were multiplied to calculate the LVSI tumor burden (LVSI TB). The optimal cutoff for this parameter was calculated in a test set (N = 120), tested in a validation set (N = 238), and compared with simple quantitation of the number of LVSI foci. RESULTS: Tumors with a single LVSI focus are not associated with increased risk for relapse [hazard ratio (HR) 1.423, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.762-2.656]. The LVSI TB had higher sensitivity and specificity compared with simple determination of the number of LVSI foci. LVSI TB was independently associated with disease-free survival in the validation set (HR 2.366, 95% CI 1.369-4.090, P = 0.002) in multivariate analysis and provided prognostic information in both the low- and high-risk node-negative BC groups (P < 0.001 and P = 0.007, respectively). CONCLUSION: The determination of the number of LVSI foci multiplied by the number of tumor cells gives the most reliable quantitative assessment of this parameter, which can provide prognostic information in node-negative BC.

Anastomotic leakage as an outcome measure for quality of colorectal cancer surgery.

INTRODUCTION: When comparing mortality rates between hospitals to explore hospital performance, there is an important role for adjustment for differences in case-mix. Identifying outcome measures that are less influenced by differences in case-mix may be valuable. The main goal of this study was to explore whether hospital differences in anastomotic leakage (AL) and postoperative mortality are due to differences in case-mix or to differences in treatment factors. METHODS: Data of the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit were used. Case-mix factors and treatment-related factors were identified from the literature and their association with AL and mortality were analysed with logistic regression. Hospital differences in observed AL and mortality rates, and adjusted rates based on the logistic regression models were shown. The reduction in hospital variance after adjustment was analysed with Levene's test for equality of variances. RESULTS: 17 of 22 case-mix factors and 4 of 11 treatment factors related to AL derived from the literature were available in the database. Variation in observed AL rates between hospitals was large with a maximum rate of 17%. This variation could not be attributed to differences in case-mix but more to differences in treatment factors. Hospital variation in observed mortality rates was significantly reduced after adjustment for differences in case-mix. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital variation in AL is relatively independent of differences in case-mix. In contrast to 'postoperative mortality' the observed AL rates of hospitals evaluated in our study were only slightly affected after adjustment for case-mix factors. Therefore, AL rates may be suitable as an outcome indicator for measurement of surgical quality of care.

Genetic counselling and the intention to undergo prophylactic mastectomy: effects of a breast cancer risk assessment.

Scientific reports suggest that women at risk for familial breast cancer may benefit from prophylactic mastectomy. However, few data are available about how women decide upon this clinical option, and in particular, what role an objective risk assessment plays in this. The purpose of the present study is to assess whether this objective risk information provided in genetic counselling affects the intention for prophylactic mastectomy. Additionally, the (mediating) effects of breast cancer worry and perceived risk are investigated. A total of 241 women completed a questionnaire before and after receiving information about their familial lifetime breast cancer risk in a genetic counselling session. Path analysis showed that the objective risk information had a corrective effect on perceived risk (beta=0.38; P=0.0001), whereas the amount of breast cancer worry was not influenced by the counselling session. The objective risk information did not directly affect the intention for prophylactic mastectomy. The intention was influenced by perceived risk after counselling (beta=0.23; P=0.002), and by the precounselling levels of perceived risk (beta=0.27; P=0.00025) and breast cancer worry (beta=0.32; P=0.0001), that is, higher levels of perceived risk and breast cancer worry imply a stronger intention for prophylactic mastectomy. A personal history of breast cancer did not directly influence the intention for prophylactic mastectomy, but affected women who had undergone a mastectomy as surgical treatment were more positively inclined to have a prophylactic mastectomy than women who had had breast-conserving therapy. The impact of objective risk information on the intention for prophylactic mastectomy is limited and is mediated by perceived risk. Important determinants of the intention for prophylactic mastectomy were precounselling levels of breast cancer worry and perceived risk, suggesting that genetic counselling is only one event in the entire process of decision making. Therefore, interventions aimed at improving decision making on prophylactic mastectomy should explicitly address precounselling factors, such as personal beliefs and the psychological impact of the family medical history.