How Far Is Too Far? Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Regionalized Rectal Cancer Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Regionalized rectal cancer surgery may decrease postoperative and long-term cancer-related mortality. However, the regionalization of care may be an undue burden on patients. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of regionalized rectal cancer surgery. DESIGN: Tree-based decision analysis. PATIENTS: Patients with stage II/III rectal cancer anatomically suitable for low anterior resection were included. SETTING: Rectal cancer surgery performed at a high-volume regional center rather than the closest hospital available. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental costs ($) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life year) reflected a societal perspective and were time-discounted at 3%. Costs and benefits were combined to produce the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ($ per quality-adjusted life year). Multivariable probabilistic sensitivity analysis modeled uncertainty in probabilities, costs, and effectiveness. RESULTS: Regionalized surgery economically dominated local surgery. Regionalized rectal cancer surgery was both less expensive on average ($50,406 versus $65,430 in present-day costs) and produced better long-term outcomes (10.36 versus 9.51 quality-adjusted life years). The total costs and inconvenience of traveling to a regional high-volume center would need to exceed $15,024 per patient to achieve economic breakeven alone or $112,476 per patient to satisfy conventional cost-effectiveness standards. These results were robust on sensitivity analysis and maintained in 94.6% of scenario testing. LIMITATIONS: Decision analysis models are limited to policy level rather than individualized decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Regionalized rectal cancer surgery improves clinical outcomes and reduces total societal costs compared to local surgical care. Prescriptive measures and patient inducements may be needed to expand the role of regionalized surgery for rectal cancer. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C83 . QU TAN LEJOS ES DEMASIADO LEJOS ANLISIS DE COSTOEFECTIVIDAD DE LA CIRUGA DE CNCER DE RECTO REGIONALIZADO: ANTECEDENTES:La cirugía de cáncer de recto regionalizado puede disminuir la mortalidad posoperatoria y a largo plazo relacionada con el cáncer. Sin embargo, la regionalización de la atención puede ser una carga indebida para los pacientes.OBJETIVO:Evaluar la rentabilidad de la cirugía oncológica de recto regionalizada.DISEÑO:Análisis de decisiones basado en árboles.PACIENTES:Pacientes con cáncer de recto en estadio II/III anatómicamente aptos para resección anterior baja.AJUSTE:Cirugía de cáncer rectal realizada en un centro regional de alto volumen en lugar del hospital más cercano disponible.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los costos incrementales ($) y la efectividad (años de vida ajustados por calidad) reflejaron una perspectiva social y se descontaron en el tiempo al 3%. Los costos y los beneficios se combinaron para producir la relación costo-efectividad incremental ($ por año de vida ajustado por calidad). El análisis de sensibilidad probabilístico multivariable modeló la incertidumbre en las probabilidades, los costos y la efectividad.RESULTADOS:La cirugía regionalizada predominó económicamente la cirugía local. La cirugía de cáncer de recto regionalizado fue menos costosa en promedio ($50 406 versus $65 430 en costos actuales) y produjo mejores resultados a largo plazo (10,36 versus 9,51 años de vida ajustados por calidad). Los costos totales y la inconveniencia de viajar a un centro regional de alto volumen necesitarían superar los $15,024 por paciente para alcanzar el punto de equilibrio económico o $112,476 por paciente para satisfacer los estándares convencionales de rentabilidad. Estos resultados fueron sólidos en el análisis de sensibilidad y se mantuvieron en el 94,6% de las pruebas de escenarios.LIMITACIONES:Los modelos de análisis de decisiones se limitan al nivel de políticas en lugar de la toma de decisiones individualizada.CONCLUSIONES:La cirugía de cáncer de recto regionalizada mejora los resultados clínicos y reduce los costos sociales totales en comparación con la atención quirúrgica local. Es posible que se necesiten medidas prescriptivas e incentivos para los pacientes a fin de ampliar el papel de la cirugía regionalizada para el cáncer de recto. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C83 . (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon ).

Variation in Adequate Lymph Node Yield for Gastric, Lung, and Bladder Cancer: Attributable to the Surgeon, Pathologist, or Hospital?

BACKGROUND: The Commission on Cancer recently released quality-of-care measures regarding adequate lymphadenectomy for colon, gastric, lung, and bladder cancer. There is currently little information regarding variation in adequate lymph node yield (ALNY) for gastric, lung, and bladder cancer. METHODS: The New York State Cancer Registry and Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System were queried for stage I-III gastric, stage I-II lung, and stage II-III bladder cancer resections from 2004 to 2014. Hierarchical models assessed factors associated with ALNY (gastric ≥ 15; lung ≥ 10; bladder ≥ 2). Additionally, the proportions of variation attributable to surgeons, pathologists, and hospitals were estimated among Medicare patients. RESULTS: Among 3716 gastric, 18,328 lung, and 1512 bladder cancer resections, there were low rates of ALNY (gastric = 53%, lung = 36%, bladder = 67%). When comparing 2004-2006 and 2012-2014, there was significant improvement in ALNY for gastric cancer (39% vs. 68%), but more modest improvement for lung (33% vs. 38%) and bladder (65% vs. 71%) cancer. Large provider-level variation existed for each organ system. After controlling for patient-level factors/variation, the majority of variation was attributable to hospitals (gastric: surgeon = 4%, pathologist = 2.8%, hospital = 40%; lung: surgeon = 13.8%, pathologist = 1.5%, hospital = 18.3%) for gastric and lung cancer. For bladder cancer, most of the variation was attributable to pathologists (surgeon = 3.3%, pathologist = 10.5%, hospital = 6.2%). CONCLUSIONS: ALNY rates are low for gastric, lung, and bladder cancer, with only modest improvement over time for lung and bladder cancer. Given that the proportion of variation attributable to the surgeon, pathologist, and hospital is different for each organ system, future quality improvement initiatives should target the underlying causes, which vary by individual organ system.

Centralizing Rectal Cancer Surgery: What Is the Impact of Travel on Patients?

BACKGROUND: It is unclear what impact centralizing rectal cancer surgery may have on travel burden for patients. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the impact of centralizing rectal cancer surgery to high-volume centers on patient travel distance. DESIGN: This is a population-based study. SETTINGS: The New York State Cancer Registry and Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System were queried for patients with rectal cancer undergoing proctectomy. PATIENTS: Patients with stage I to III rectal cancer who underwent surgical resection between 2004 and 2014 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome of interest was travel distance calculated as the straight-line distance between the centroid of the patient residence zip code and the hospital zip code. Mean distance was compared by using the Student t test. RESULTS: A total of 5860 patients met inclusion criteria. The total number of hospitals performing proctectomies for rectal cancer decreased between 2004 and 2014. The average number of proctectomies performed at high-volume centers (20+ resections/year) increased from 16.6 to 24.4 during this time. The average number of miles traveled by patients was 12.1 miles in 2004, and this increased to 15.4 in 2014. If proctectomies were centralized to high-volume centers, there would be 11 facilities. The mean distance traveled would be 24.5 miles. LIMITATIONS: This study is subject to the limitations of an administrative data set. There are no patient preference or referral data. CONCLUSIONS: The number of hospitals performing rectal cancer resections in New York State is decreasing and volume by center is increasing. There was a statistically significant difference in the mean distance traveled by patients over time. If rectal cancer resections were centralized to high-volume centers, the mean travel distance would increase by 9.5 miles. There would be a 321% increase in the number of patients having to travel 50+ miles for surgery. Any plan for centralization in New York State will require careful planning to avoid placing undue travel burden on patients. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B138. CENTRALIZACIÓN DE LA CIRUGÍA DE CÁNCER RECTAL: ¿CUÁL ES EL IMPACTO DEL VIAJE PARA LOS PACIENTES?: No está claro qué impacto puede tener la centralización de la cirugía de cáncer rectal en la carga de viaje para los pacientes.Determinar el impacto de centralizar la cirugía de cáncer rectal en centros de alto volumen sobre la distancia de viaje del paciente.Este es un estudio basado en cohorte poblacional.El Registro de Cáncer del Estado de Nueva York y el Sistema Cooperativo de Planificación e Investigación Estatal fueron consultados para pacientes con cáncer rectal sometidos a proctectomía.Pacientes con cáncer rectal en estadio I-III que se sometieron a resección quirúrgica entre 2004-2014.El resultado de interés fue la distancia de viaje calculada como la distancia en línea recta entre el centroide de la residencia del paciente y el código postal del hospital. La distancia media se comparó mediante la prueba t de Student.Un total de 5,860 pacientes cumplieron los criterios de inclusión. El número total de hospitales que realizaron proctectomías para cáncer rectal disminuyó entre 2004-2014. El número promedio de proctectomías realizadas en centros de alto volumen (más de 20 resecciones/año) aumentó de 16.6 a 24.4 durante este tiempo. El número promedio de millas recorridas por los pacientes fue de 12.1 millas en 2004 y esto aumentó a 15.4 en 2014. Si las proctectomías se centralizaran en centros de alto volumen, habría 11 instalaciones. La distancia media recorrida sería de 24.5 millas.Limitaciones inherentes a un conjunto de datos administrativos. No existen datos sobre preferencia del paciente o sobre referencia de los mismos.El número de hospitales que realizan resecciones de cáncer rectal en Nueva York está disminuyendo y el volumen por centro está aumentando. Hubo una diferencia estadísticamente significativa en la distancia media recorrida por los pacientes a lo largo del tiempo. Si las resecciones por cáncer rectal se centralizaran en centros de gran volumen, la distancia media de viaje aumentaría 9.5 millas. Habría un aumento del 321% en el número de pacientes que tienen que viajar más de 50 millas para la cirugía. Cualquier plan de centralización en Nueva York requerirá una planificación cuidadosa para evitar imponer una carga de viaje excesiva a los pacientes. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B138.

A Population-Based Study of 90-Day Hospital Cost and Utilization Associated With Robotic Surgery in Colon and Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of robotic surgery in colorectal cancer remains contentious with most data arising from small, single-institution studies. METHODS: Stage I-III colorectal cancer resections from 2008 to 2014 were identified in New York State. Propensity score-adjusted negative binomial models were used to compare cost and utilization between robotic, laparoscopic, and open resections. RESULTS: A total of 12,218 patients were identified. For colectomy, the robotic-to-open conversion rate was 3%, and the laparoscopic-to-open conversion rate was 13%. For rectal resection, the robotic-to-open conversion rate was 7% and the laparoscopic-to-open conversion rate was 32%. In intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference in cost across the surgical approaches, both in overall and stratified analyses. Both laparoscopic and robotic approaches were associated with decreased 90-d hospital utilization compared with open surgery in intention-to-treat analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic and laparoscopic colorectal cancer resections were not associated with a hospital cost benefit after 90 d compared with open but were associated with decreased hospital utilization. Conversion to open resection was common, and efforts should be made to prevent them. Future research should continue to measure how robotic and laparoscopic approaches can add value to the health care system.

Variation in Hospital-Specific Rates of Suboptimal Lymphadenectomy and Survival in Colon Cancer: Evidence from the National Cancer Data Base.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about between-hospital differences in the rate of suboptimal lymphadenectomy. This study characterizes variation in hospital-specific rates of suboptimal lymphadenectomy and its effect on overall survival in a national hospital-based registry. METHODS: Stage I-III colon cancer patients were identified from the 2003-2012 National Cancer Data Base. Bayesian multilevel logistic regression models were used to assess the impact of patient- and hospital-level factors on hospital-specific rates of suboptimal lymphadenectomy (<12 lymph nodes), and multilevel Cox models were used to estimate the effect of suboptimal lymphadenectomy at the patient (yes vs. no) and hospital level (quartiles of hospital-specific rates) on overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 360,846 patients across 1345 hospitals in the US met the inclusion criteria, of which 25 % had a suboptimal lymphadenectomy. Wide variation was observed in hospital-specific rates of suboptimal lymphadenectomy (range 0-82 %, median 44 %). Older age, male sex, comorbidity score, no insurance, positive margins, lower tumor grade, lower T and N stage, and sigmoid and left colectomy were associated with higher odds of suboptimal lymphadenectomy. Patients treated at lower-volume and non-academic hospitals had higher odds of suboptimal lymphadenectomy. Patient- and hospital-level factors explained 5 % of the between-hospital variability in suboptimal lymphadenectomy, leaving 95 % unexplained. Higher suboptimal lymphadenectomy rates were associated with worse survival (quartile 4 vs. quartile 1: hazard ratio 1.19, 95 % confidence interval 1.16-1.22). CONCLUSION: Large differences in hospital-specific rates of suboptimal lymphadenectomy were observed, and this variation was associated with survival. Quality improvement initiatives targeting hospital-level adherence to the national standard may improve overall survival among resected colon cancer patients.

Patients With Adhesive Small Bowel Obstruction Should Be Primarily Managed by a Surgical Team.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a primary medical versus surgical service on healthcare utilization and outcomes for adhesive small bowel obstruction (SBO) admissions. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Adhesive-SBO typically requires hospital admission and is associated with high healthcare utilization and costs. Given that most patients are managed nonoperatively, many patients are admitted to medical hospitalists. However, comparisons of outcomes between primary medical and surgical services have been limited to small single-institution studies. METHODS: Unscheduled adhesive-SBO admissions in NY State from 2002 to 2013 were identified using the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System. Bivariate and mixed-effects regression analyses were performed assessing factors associated with healthcare utilization and outcomes for SBO admissions. RESULTS: Among 107,603 admissions for adhesive-SBO (78% nonoperative, 22% operative), 43% were primarily managed by a medical attending and 57% were managed by a surgical attending. After controlling for patient, physician, and hospital-level factors, management by a medical service was independently associated with longer length of stay [IRR = 1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.24, 1.56], greater inpatient costs (IRR = 1.38, 95% = 1.21, 1.57), and a higher rate of 30-day readmission (OR = 1.32, 95% CI = 1.22, 1.42) following nonoperative management. Similarly, of those managed operatively, management by a medicine service was associated with a delay in time to surgical intervention (IRR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.69, 2.01), extended length of stay (IRR=1.36, 95% CI = 1.25, 1.49), greater inpatient costs (IRR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.11, 1.71), and higher rates of 30-day mortality (OR = 1.92, 95% CI = 1.50, 2.47) and 30-day readmission (OR = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.97, 1.32). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that management of patients presenting with adhesive-SBO by a primary medical team is associated with higher healthcare utilization and worse perioperative outcomes. Policies favoring primary management by a surgical service may improve outcomes and reduce costs for patients admitted with adhesive-SBO.

Assessment of AACN baccalaureate nursing education curriculum model in the People's Republic of China: a transcultural exploratory study.

This study examines the relevance of The Essentials of Baccalaureate Education for Professional Nursing Practice (American Association of Colleges of Nursing, 1998) to baccalaureate nursing curriculum development in the People's Republic of China. A Likert-type survey was developed to measure Chinese nurse educators' perceptions regarding the 21 key concepts extracted from The Essentials document in both the present curriculum and an ideal curriculum across three dimensions: importance, cultural relevance, and extent of exposure. Surveys were sent to all known baccalaureate nursing programs in China (N = 22) with a 50 percent return rate. Descriptive statistical analyses supported the universality of the majority of the 21 key concepts from The Essentials document. Some of the concepts, however, were not as readily transferable because of differences in the Chinese sociopolitical and cultural contexts for baccalaureate nursing education. Findings from this study lend support for the potential global relevance of The Essentials document. Additional transcultural and comparative studies are recommended to further test the relevance of The Essentials document in other cultures. Meanwhile, international nurse educators need to be aware of the possible limits of adopting The Essentials document without values clarification, critical discrimination, and adaptation to their home cultures.